Opinion Editorial | |
| Wednesday, January 14, 1998 | |
Making Welfare WorkPete du PontFormer Governor of Delaware, is Policy Chairman of the National Center for Policy Analysis |
Once upon a time, in the political campaigns of the 1980s, the idea of
requiring welfare recipients to work for their benefits was considered radical.
Liberals and moderates (and most conservatives) thought it shocking, for
the economic and social devastation that is a result of the welfare state
was not yet apparent to everyone. All that has changed. Welfare reform that emphasizes putting welfare
recipients to work is sweeping the country. According to the Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS), between January 1993 and July 1997,
the number of people on welfare in Mississippi declined by 50 percent, in
Colorado by 51 percent, in Oregon by 52 percent, and in Wisconsin by 58
percent. And Wyoming's welfare cases dropped by an astounding 73 percent. But in the midst of this welfare revolution, there are startling differences
in outcomes among various states. California, for example, experienced
a decline of only five percent and Washington, D.C., a mere two percent.
And Hawaii had a 36 percent increase in welfare rolls. How come?
Are there programmatic differences among states that might hold some lessons
for successful welfare reform? Yes, there are. The biggest difference is commitment, as Merrill Matthews
Jr. and Kristin Becker show in a recent study from the National Center for
Policy Analysis. Analyzing lessons from the best and worst state welfare
programs, they point out a number of obstacles to welfare reform. (1) Elected officials who refuse to pass strong
welfare-to-work policies. Some elected officials remain unconvinced
that welfare-to-work policies are effective. Moreover, they are often reluctant
to move welfare-to-work legislation for fear of being attacked as enemies
of the poor. (2) State welfare bureaucracies that are unwilling
to implement legislated welfare reforms. One of the biggest
hindrances to effective welfare reform is the recalcitrance of government
employees who deal with welfare cases daily and can impede any reform legislation.
Wisconsin has helped solve this problem by providing incentives for them
to decrease the caseload. In addition, labor unions can also undermine welfare reform. In response
to union concerns, the Clinton administration directed that most federal
labor laws, including the minimum wage, apply to welfare recipients, and
Congress declined to overturn the directive. This will hamper states' efforts
to deal with some welfare cases. (4) Failing to emphasize the need to go to
work immediately. Federal reform legislation requires states
to move welfare recipients into work, but still permits recipients two years
of benefits. About 20 states have passed legislation reducing the maximum
time limit, with 11 of those requiring recipients to go to work immediately.
However, others have made little attempt to tighten the time frame and
are experiencing a slower decline as a result. (5) Willingness to provide education and training
without requiring work. Successful states know that the
best training occurs on the job. Yet the federal government and many states
provide expensive, time-consuming training programs or pay college tuition
for courses that seldom lead to a job. (6) Paying extremely high benefits. People on welfare
often face a choice between taking a low-paying job with few or no benefits
and collecting welfare. The higher the welfare compensation package (i.e.,
cash plus benefits such as Medicaid, housing subsidies, etc.), the harder
it is for social workers and employers to move recipients from welfare to
work. Many states offer welfare compensation packages two to three times
higher than the minimum wage. While no one advocates reducing benefits
to zero, providing excessively high benefits deters people from accepting
perfectly decent jobs. Hawaii's relaxed welfare rules permit eligible persons to receive benefits
the first day they enter a welfare office. And, according to Michael Tanner
of the Cato Institute, welfare recipients in Hawaii receive the largest
welfare compensation package in the country, with an annual pretax wage
equivalency in 1995 of $36,650, or $17.62 per hour. The question is not whether states can make welfare reform work. Many
already have. The question is whether opponents -- whether elected officials,
government employees or unions -- will scuttle these efforts and sentence
millions of Americans to the continuing cycle of poverty and despair. Home | Support Us | All Issues | Social Security Debate Central | Contact Us |