There is no question that many Americans fall into that economic category called "poverty." Many of these people live on some form of government assistant known collectively as "welfare." There are, in fact, approximately 14.5 million Americans receiving some sort of welfare payments today ("Social Welfare" 925). One of the causes of poverty can be attributed to the inability to find employment. Some of the reasons for this include physical incapacitation, lack of education, or even lack of determination. The Milwaukee County Welfare Rights Organization reported in a book entitled Welfare Mothers Speak Out: We Ain't Gonna Shuffle Anymore, that a common myth about the welfare system is "hard work is the answer to the welfare problem." The Organization states this myth assumes everyone on welfare is able to work (73). A large percentage of welfare recipients are single mothers with preschool to elementary age children. Some of these single mothers make a choice to stay home and care for the children. Others do not have a choice due to the cost of child care. The care of these children outside the home is often so expensive that mothers who leave the welfare rolls cannot afford it on their entry level wages. For all these reasons: Should the current welfare program be eliminated or reformed?
This question is important because welfare affects people at all economic levels of society. People from the upper and middle classes have been touched by one form of welfare or another, almost as much as the lower class. Today's economic status in the United States is precarious in that the slightest disruption in daily lives can cause financial chaos. The largest percentage of welfare recipients consists of white, single mothers, between 20 and 35 years of age. The majority of these are from lower class backgrounds with little to no education (Phillips, et al. 38). It is possible, however, for a single father or even a lower class couple with small children to need government assistance. There are also elderly people who may have been at any level of the economic strata who now need assistance due to health problems or simply being left behind in rapidly changing employment markets. An illness or an injury can be an unplanned catastrophe. The point is that no one is immune from the possibility of needing governmental aid to survive.
It is important to take a closer look at the children involved in the controversy of welfare reform. The area of welfare that deals with children more than the others is Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Areas such as Medicaid, Medicare, Supplemental Income, and Social Security can be dealt with in a separate article.
As the current welfare program in the U.S. is being debated in Washington, it is interesting to note in what way the children are being taken into consideration. The needs of the children of welfare families are the same as the needs of other children, but if welfare is reformed as is now being discussed, how will these needs be met? Welfare is a tremendously large issue, and it is imperative to not lose track of its youngest recipients in the shuffle for reform.
In order to have a better understanding of welfare and its effects, it is important to know some of the background of the program and what welfare actually is. Welfare is a collective term for government programs which are designed to protect citizens against economic risks and uncertainties at some or all stages of their lives. The funds for these programs come from taxes paid by citizens and corporations. For this reason, welfare has been referred to as a system of transfer payments. Money is taken from some segments of the population and given to others ("Social Welfare" 925). The major intent of welfare is to provide a guaranteed minimum income for those who may be entirely out of the work force, either temporarily or permanently. Families are granted a specific payment for each child under a minimum age. AFDC is a federal-state welfare program organized and maintained by the Family Support Administration, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services. AFDC is the "largest income support program for poor families in the United States" (925).
There are several assumptions existing about welfare recipients. For instance, many Americans believe that the majority of those on welfare are black. Another common belief is that most single mothers on welfare have additional children in order to receive more benefits. Some assume that most welfare mothers are teenagers, while many Americans believe that a majority of single mothers will stay on welfare for most of the rest of their adults lives (Mulroy 108). It is interesting to note that "most welfare recipients apply for assistance because of a major family event such as divorce, separation, or the birth of a child" (109).
Children on welfare in the United States today account for approximately one out of every seven recipients. AFDC is a $23 billion federal-state program serving about 14.5 million people. These figures are continuing to increase at an alarming rate. The average family receiving welfare "consists of a 32 year-old white woman with two children" (Polter 8). These figures alone create much concern for all sides to the reform controversy. On the other hand, $23 billion is an incredible amount and seems to support the need for cutting back in order to deal with the federal deficit.
The welfare program is a product of the Industrial Revolution. Prior to that time, taking care of the poor was the responsibility of local communities or religious institutions. Many of the developments of the modern welfare program began in the 19th century with Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Chancellor von Bismarck enacted laws in Germany which gave maternity assistance, work-injury assistance, and old-age assistance to German laborers. By 1920, a comprehensive welfare system had spread throughout Europe ("Social Welfare" 925).
In the United States, Theodore Roosevelt's campaign agenda of 1912 included a proposal for an elaborate welfare program. President Roosevelt said "the country must build from the bottom up, not from the top down." He said the government must help the "forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid" ("Social Welfare" 925).
Welfare legislation was a slow process, but developed rapidly after World War I and the Great Depression. In fact, the attitude that individuals should look after their own financial security was so well-ingrained in the American character, that it was only after the economic disaster of the Great Depression that financial welfare plans were successfully completed ("Social Welfare" 925).
During World War II, American women went to work while their husbands, brothers, and sons were fighting overseas. Since that time, women have remained an ever-increasing part of the work force. Some work for the pleasure and fulfillment they get from working outside their homes. Some work because the economy has created a stronger need for two incomes to feed one family (Tuttle 105). Many women work because they are single mothers and have no other choice.
After World War II, a new problem was discovered. The divorce rate began to climb rapidly and more children were being raised in single-parent homes. For all of these reasons, the welfare program began to change its focus. Prior to this time, the program assisted laborers in the workplace, dealing with things like injuries on the job, maternity leave, and sick leave. During and after the 1950s, the program began shifting its priorities by offering assistance to people outside the work force. Assistance was not going to those incapable of working because of physical disability, lack of education, discrimination, and largely single mothers who needed to take care of their children ("Social Welfare" 925).
In 1953, one of President Dwight Eisenhower's first official acts was to create the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The new Cabinet post was responsible for providing �a floor of economic security or a safety net for everyone in society" ("Social Welfare" 925). This new Department promoted social and economic security, national health, and child welfare.
A development which took place in 1962 stressed services to be included with financial aid. The government began to include rehabilitation and job training in order to reduce dependency and encourage self-care and support. Perhaps the strongest legislative push for the welfare program came with President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society package in the 1960's ("Social Welfare" 925).
In 1980, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, changed its name to the Department of Health and Human Services. One of this Department's divisions is the Family Support Administration, which helps to carry out the federal-state program of AFDC. Originally AFDC was established to enable widows and other single mothers to care for their young children without having to work ("Social Welfare 925").
In 1988, the Family Support Act was the first attempt at welfare reform in decades. It was intended to replace AFDC. The goal was to move people from welfare through education and job assistance. It has been historically difficult, however, for single mothers to leave the welfare rolls due to a new set of financial problems which await them in the work force (Littleton 1075). One of those financial problems is how to pay for the care of their children if they do return to work.
The women's political caucus has noted that the high cost of day care services has "forced many women on the welfare rolls" (Thorman 90). When single mothers cannot afford day care and quit work, "the cost is borne by the taxpayers." The catch is that welfare support is usually more expensive to the taxpayer than subsidizing day care (91).
Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala recently pointed out the question of what happens to the "millions of real-life children who would be cut from welfare rolls . . . [with] no money to pay for the real costs of child-rearing." She said that the "average per-child residential care in a place like Boys Town is much higher than what is paid to recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children" (Shogren A1).
According to a recent report from the Wage and Means Committee, annual child care costs can range from $2,000 to more than $6,500 (Mulroy 105). The National Association for Education of Young Children found that many two-income families must spend over 25% of their income on day care for one child alone, let alone two or more (Thorman 89). Child care is the "single largest expense, after housing, food, and taxes, for working parents across all income levels" (Brayfield and Hofferth 158). With these kinds of figures, it is difficult to imagine how the average single mother who has previously been on welfare and tries to re-enter the work force can possibly succeed.
These figures may seem difficult to accept or understand, but the true testimony comes from those who have lived on both sides of the welfare fence. On a recent episode of World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, a welfare recipient, Christina Rodriguez of Ohio, described how she left welfare to take a full-time job. When she found the job would not cover the cost of day care, she went back on welfare. Rodriguez said, "no one will help me unless I'm not working" ("Welfare Reform" 13 Jan 95).
Another welfare recipient, Cathern McMullin is raising her four grandchildren. She has chosen to stay on welfare after a recent experience. McMullin had taken a job as a waitress When she returned to work, her rent was raised. Between the higher rent and the cost of child care, her attempts to leave the welfare rolls came to an abrupt end (Gamboa A1).
Welfare rolls have grown from 3.8 million families in 1989 to 5 million in 1993. Currently, out-of-wedlock births make up about one-third of all births in the United States (Karger 290). A large percentage of these have entered the welfare rolls as of late. These facts must be taken into consideration when making decisions about welfare reform. What is to happen to these children?
Although the subject of welfare reform has been used in presidential campaigns for decades, it has recently received quite a bit of new attention. Much of this is due to the budget debates currently going on in Washington between President Bill Clinton and the Republicans of Congress.
The Republicans of Congress have organized the Personal Responsibility Act as part of their Contract with America. Put simply, this is their own name for welfare reform. The Republicans of Congress seem very concerned with lowering the deficit. From this point of view, it would seem that the Republicans, generally, value efficiency, economics, and security. Whether the Republicans are concerned with balancing the budget and whether or not this concern carries over to what might happen to present welfare recipients, balancing the budget is an admirable goal.
The controversy resulting from the Personal Responsibility Act has developed because some of the Republican proposals seem "mean-spirited." At this time, the proposals for reform being discussed are the following:
As welfare is currently being debated in Washington, it has become the subject of closer scrutiny. One issue of welfare that is of particular importance is that of child care. Specifically, when a single mother is ready to go off the welfare rolls and back into the work force, what happens to the care of her children? Will former welfare recipients be in a position to handle this expense upon returning to the work force? If the choice must be made between paying for child care and paying living expenses on a very limited income, what incentive does that offer welfare recipients trying to return to work (Thorman 6)? For a single mother with one or more young children, giving her a job is only dealing with a small part of her situation.
In attempts to reduce the federal deficit by cutting domestic programs, legislators must be careful to avoid making "important decisions . . . with little knowledge about the needs of low-income single-parent families (Mulroy 7). The individual legislators who are debating welfare reform must determine where the children of these programs are placed in their agenda of priorities. Is the system to be reformed in order to cut the budget, or is reform to take place to help the poor to become self-sufficient? Legislators are dealing with the reform of welfare with various perspectives in mind and there are many logical arguments for all.
One argument claims that giving money to the poor simply keeps them in their place. It is one thing to make the claim that the "availability of social programs is what increases welfare dependency by stifling personal responsibility and initiative." One must also take into account that "the welfare state is the only defense many people have against the vicissitudes of the market economy" (Mulroy 7). Mulroy's attitude is based on a principle of need, whereby society has a duty not to allow people to fall below certain levels of economic status based on a minimal level of need. This attitude shows value in the idea of charity as well as security.
Jane Jacobs, author of The Economy of Cities states that "poverty has no causes. Only prosperity has causes. Jacobs says that "money given to the poor, when spent is gone" and that the process keeps the poor in poverty. She feels, in fact, that welfare holds people in poverty by failing to offer the alternative of work (32). It would seem under these circumstances that Jane Jacobs values individuality. She believes that helping the poor only hurts them, and that they need to learn to become individually self-sufficient. It is an age-old argument that giving to the needy will only increase the neediness. This is based on the principle of well-being.
From one perspective, this is a valued and logical argument. There are certain people at all levels of the economic strata who are dependent upon others. Those who are dependent on government assistance may never learn to become self-sufficient. It is arrogant, however, to assume that all of those who depend upon assistance will never rise above that assistance. The problem is the lack of opportunity or inability to rise above that assistance.
The inability to rise above government assistance is not only from a psychological point of view. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, many of those who are presently on the welfare rolls are unable to work for the following reasons:
There are others who receive welfare who are actually able to work, but who do not make enough wages to pay for living expenses. The Department of Health and Human Services lists these as:
In trying to determine the solutions to the problems with welfare, it will be important to determine what will happen to these percentages.
In February of 1995, the Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee met to consider the major aspects of the Republican Personal Responsibility Act. An issue that was discussed at this conference was a Democratic suggestion that states guarantee the care of children when their welfare parents return to work (Katz 18). The Subcommittee's statistics show that 70% of welfare recipients leave the rolls within two years. The problem is that almost half of those return. Some of the reasons the Subcommittee lists is lack of available child care and inadequate wages ("GOP Welfare" J2).
Iowa Republican representative, Jim Nussle, who values privacy and independence, says that if the states must assume responsibility for these children, soon the government would have to design a "Department of Alarm Clocks to wake them up and a Department of Bedtime Stories to tuck them in " (Katz 19). Democrats, according to Katz, argued with this logic by saying that it is "unfair to penalize welfare recipients for not working without giving them the w3herewi8thal to do so through access to child care." They stated that in order to encourage and help[ recipients off the welfare rolls, the federal government should, at the very least, "require states to provide job placement assistance, child care, health care, and transportation" (Katz 20). The Democrats are acting here with a principle of human well-being. This principle states that everyone is entitled to an opportunity to reach a level of dignity and the Democrats argue that the federal government needs to give some of these people that opportunity.
Some states are already trying various methods to help welfare recipients to return to the work force by involving employers in the battle. These states are experimenting with incentives to encourage employers to help these parents with child care costs and availability.
Connecticut offers a 50% tax credit to employers who pay child care subsidies. Various employers around the nation who have taken notice of the situation are offering day care subsidies or reimbursement packages (Thorman 99). This is immensely helpful to single parents removing themselves from the welfare roles and returning to work.
The State of Florida gives a 100% tax deduction of start-up costs to employers who add on-site child care facilities. On-site child care is a good investment for an employer because it can boost morale and cut back on employee absenteeism (Thorman 99). This kind of assistance is an example of essential programs that need to be encouraged across the nation at the same time the government is pushing state responsibility for reform of welfare.
Specific states have also been putting into motion new methods for managing welfare recipients. In Texas recently, Government Bush signed a bill reforming that state's welfare program. The new law will cut off recipients' cash benefits after one to four years depending on their education and work experience. It will also force recipients who leave the roll to wait five years before reapplying (Gamboa A1).
In Wisconsin, the dollar amount received by a family whose teenager skips school is reduced. In addition, Wisconsin has invested more money initially in order to set up job training programs as well as transportation. Since put into action, these components to that state's welfare program have caused a drop in its welfare rolls by more than 72,000 people within the past two years. That drop now saves Wisconsin "$200 million a year in reduced welfare costs" ("Welfare Reform: State Programs" 13 Jan 95).
In some cases, even the federal government has already made progress by "providing child day care by establishing Child Care and Development Block Grants and 'At-Risk' Child Care Programs for low-income families" (Tuttle 108).
The National Council of Churches, the Synagogue Council of America, the U.S. Catholic Conference, and Catholic Charities USA, the largest private social services network, recently called a conference, the "Call to the Common Ground for the Common Good" ("Catholic Charities" 192). The purpose of the program was for the "reformation and modernization of the nation's social-welfare policy from infancy to old age." The general feeling at this conference came from a principle of human well-being and an principle of paternalism.
In January, 1995, Catholic Charities opened this conference with this statement, "welfare reform must be linked to adequately paying jobs in order to succeed" (192). In the report from the conference, Catholic Charities commented on the President's two-year limitation on AFDC benefits by calling it a "major concern." They argued that, "there is a great difference between declaring that everyone should work and making certain that work pays. That pay must include enough for living expenses and especially for child care" (192). Catholic Charities expressed family values and the value of security by arguing, "the success of any program designed to move recipients from AFDC to work depends on the availability of jobs that pay a living family wage. An attack on poverty and the creation of jobs are the key for any successful reform" (192).
The general consensus among the various parties to the welfare reform issue seems to push for convincing President Clinton and Congress not to stop reforming, but rather to make sure that welfare-dependent families, especially the children, are not forgotten in the process.
Maryann Mahaffey, President of the Detroit City Council, spoke at a recent conference of an institution known as �Women in Municipal Government� (WIMG). She expressed a value in independence and equality in her statements. Mahaffey said, �in order to have sound families you need to ensure that women have adequate income.� She said she believed that while there was little doubt that serious welfare reform is needed, it is important to remember those who are most affected government aid. Mahaffey stated, �those in the greatest difficult are in the greatest poverty, and the women and children are the most affected.� In her speech, she emphasized the necessity to take into account child care and health care �when considering economic issues facing women� (Benac A8). Mahaffey believes in the principle of human well-being, as well as the principle of paternalism.
Bill Clinton professes family values and much of his issues dealing with the welfare situation comes back to doing something for the families of America. One of his proposals involves a tax credit of �as much as $500 per child to families with incomes up to $75,000� (Pessah A17). This is well and good in the long run, but immediate short-term solutions are also needed. Bill Clinton is a family man and seems to accept the ideas behind the principle of human well-being, and especially, the principle of paternalism. This principle says that public authority should accept the responsibility of reducing needless human suffering.
One solution offered by Catholic Charities is that teenage parents be taken off of AFDC and treated as a completely separate issue. Catholic Charities suggests that a program be set up specifically for these teenage parents, �offering comprehensive services that counsel the entire family, including parents and grandparents.� Teen parents would then be given the choice of either living with their parents or other relatives who would �assume parental and financial custodial roles while the young parents prepare to assume those responsibilities when they reach 18� (Catholic Charities 192). One possible alternative for this is a �guided-living group home.� This is a home for teenage parents where the agency managing the home would assume the parental and financial responsibilities until the parents reach the age of 18 (192).
This solution may support comments made by Newt Gingrich on a recent episode of ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. Gingrich upheld the Personal Responsibility Act now being debated in Washington D.C., with the statement, �nobody in Franklin Roosevelt�s era would have given a penny to a teenager who got pregnant. They would have laughed at the idea� (�Welfare Reform: Advocates� 12 Jan 95).
Republican Representative Bill Archer supports the Personal Responsibility Act by stating, �children on welfare who have babies on welfare, expecting taxpayers to pick up the tab, represent a fast track to poverty.� He calls this behavior �self-destructive . . . and must be stopped for the sake of this generation�s children and for children of all our next generations� (Shogren A1).
Both Newt Gingrich and Bill Archer value independence and justice. They have both expressed the opinion that people should take responsibility for themselves as well as their own actions. This comes from the principle of non-interference. Teenagers having babies and expecting governmental assistance should be discouraged in order to ease the burden on taxpayers.
It is reasonable to expect apple to take responsibility for their own actions. In this country that aspires to individuality and personal choice, these advantages must come with a prince. That price is accepting the consequences and taking control of one�s situation. It is risky, however, to assume that all individuals are able to do this.
William Bennett, a conservative Republican in the House, says �the welfare system promotes illegitimacy and that all benefits to unmarried mothers under the age of 21 should be cut off.� This statement needs to be better defined. Assuming that all unmarried mothers under the age of 21 are taking advantage of the welfare system is rather prejudiced. Julie Polter commented recently on statements such as this in an issue of Sojourners. She said that �these women who are locked into the cycle of welfare are not helped by politicians engaging in punitive moralizing about �those people who�d stop having babies if we stopped paying them�� (Polter 8). She says, �the impetus for reform should be human-centered, not budget-centered. Ending welfare as we know it should be a goal because we want to reduce the number of children growing up in poverty, not merely to save a buck.� Polter feels that the Republican plan to reform welfare within a seven-year period is rushing the system and will hurt more than help (8). Where William Bennett and Julie Polter both seem to value independence and security, their principles are varied. Bennett�s comments are based on a principle of competition which basically states that a person should receive according to what he produces. This is fine except that many are unable to produce the same amount that they need to receive in order to survive. Julie Polter, on the other hand, believes in a universalistic principle. This says that politicians cannot intelligently debate an issue which they have never experienced, nor set up rules which they themselves will probably never need or want to live by.
There is a strong concern about balancing the budget in a rapid manner. A CNN/USA Today poll asked people recently if they felt making drastic cuts in order to balance the budget within a seven-year period would hurt the poor. The poll showed 58% agreed that this timetable would cause more damage than otherwise (Katz 18).
There are other alternatives for assisting the able-bodied poor in a transition from welfare recipient to self-sufficiency. In addition to encouraging available care or child care subsidies as an incentive to single mothers, many on the welfare rolls simply need to be taught how to be independent.
One solution being tried in Toronto, Canada, involves the Victor Day Care Services program, which is operated by the United Way. Victor Day Care Services is a government-sponsored day care center which specializes in working with needy families. The center works with families in locating housing, setting up and living on budgets, advising and training of new parents, and working with families to locate community resources (Maynard 65). Adopting services such as this in the United States would greatly assist welfare recipients returning to the work force.
There is little disagreement that welfare needs to be reformed. The debate comes from different perspectives of the various parties involved in the debate. Polter wrote in her commentary that �transition off of AFDC needs to be coupled with programs that offer job training and life skills . . . as well as quality child care� (8).
It is essential that these issues not be discussed as separate and unrelated. They are directly related and must be reviewed as one. In reforming the current welfare program, it must be remembered that more poor people out on their own in a society with an already high percentage of unemployment, homelessness, and poverty will be vastly more costly in the long run, both in dollar terms and in social deterioration. More specifically, in the issue of child care, these people will create more juvenile problems for the future.
Reduction of poverty has provided the most long-standing rationale for child care policies in the United States (Phillips, et al. 472). The issue of welfare reform cannot and should not be resolved without dealing with the issue of child care. The debates about reforming the existing welfare system are becoming emotional nationwide. Christina Littleton, a member of the faculty at the University of California at Los Angeles Law School and a feminist theorist, has exposed the human side of the issue by discussing it in terms that appeal to the sentimental side of most people. She states, �we are dealing with real children and mothers and real questions about life and economics . . . and terms of valuing families� (Littleton 1075).
One last intriguing point is that �nearly 90% of AFDC children have able-bodied but absent fathers.� In these cases, taxpayers must �pick up the slack for this irresponsibility� (Butler and Kondratas 139). This is yet another proof that welfare needs reforming. Perhaps problems of this sort could be positive steps toward the beginning of changes to the system. Forcing responsibility is necessary in order to begin a successful phase of transition.
Governmental initiatives to provide child care for single working mothers and employment and education benefits for mothers on AFDC are �justifiable expenditures because they contribute to the economic performance of the society by encouraging workers to enter the labor market and by reducing the demand for costly public welfare programs� (Karger 292).
In an effort to gain more understanding of existing welfare programs such as AFDC, it has been necessary to interview several people with some expertise in welfare and social policy. The questions which were used in this interview process are attached hereto as Appendix I. Rosemary Patterson is one of these interviewees. Patterson is the Community Services Director of the Welfare Division of the Texas Department of Human Services. She has over 25 years experience in working with welfare recipients, both in an employment status and as a volunteer. Another person interviewed is Elaine Cummins. Cummins is currently in Washington, D.C., working on her PhD. in Public Administration. She is also working on a second PhD. in Public Policy. Her Master�s thesis was on welfare reform, as is the topic of her dissertation. Linda Barnett is a day care supervisor for a nationwide child care franchise, Kindercare. This organization works closely with state and city agencies in helping single parents return to the work force while offering supported child care for their children. Finally, there is Maryanne Mavis, Community Information Supervisor of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in Austin, Texas, who has worked in that capacity for approximately 10 years. It is her responsibility to keep the public informed as to current legislation regarding welfare programs, including AFDC and Medicaid.
Generally, these interviewees all felt that there were few strong and positive points that have been made thus far by the Republicans of Congress in their Personal Responsibility Act. The general feeling came from a general belief in the principle of human well-being. Elaine Cummins felt that the Republicans have not resolved the issue of funding for the changes included in the Act. Cummins stated that she is not impressed with the proposals because the system is already too disjointed. The Republicans want to shift welfare responsibility to the individual states. Cummins pointed out that the states already hold quite a bit of that responsibility and this has created a huge disparity. The example she gave was the range of monthly checks given to welfare recipients across the nation. The range could be anywhere from $50.00 per month to nearly $200.00 per month. Giving the states more discretion will only create a bigger problem. She said this is a national problem and must be dealt with at a national level. Rosemary Patterson agreed somewhat with Cummins in that there is no money available to fund the changes that the Act is recommending. Patterson does, however, agreed that the Republicans of Congress are making a real effort to deal with the causes of the problems within the system. This the same opinion held by Maryanne Mavis. Mavis believes that theoretically, the plan makes sense. She feels that in addition to job training, �daily life training� needs to be given to welfare recipients to teach basic things such as budgeting, nutrition, health care, and parenting.
Patterson compared the plan being debated in Washington with the legislative changes that have recently taken place in Texas. She felt that the strong and positive facets of the plan of Congress were some of the same positive portions of the new Texas plan, especially with regard to programs like AFDC. An example of these facets includes the applicant agreement. Upon meeting eligibility requirements, all new welfare recipients must sign an agreement with the State of Texas. This agreement says that the recipient will help the state to enforce child support, identify an absent parent, and participate with health screening, including immunization for all children. The problem with this plan, according to Patterson, is that there is no funding for enforcement of that agreement. She says this is the same problem the Republicans of Congress are running up against: funding for enforcement. Patterson says that health screening is the only real facet of the agreement that can be followed up on. There is no way to really know that these people are getting needed alcohol and drug treatment or child support. The real problem that Patterson sees is that there are no universal values or principles with regard to poverty in the United States. For this reason, she feels it is going to be a long and tedious battle to reform the welfare system in existence today.
According to Linda Barnett, the biggest problem with the debates taking place in Washington is that they are too confusing for the average person. She feels that the majority of the welfare recipients which they work with at Kindercare are too uneducated or untrained to know or care what is going on in the debates as long as their support checks do not stop coming. Linda work with Kindercare in Austin, Texas. Kindercare works with the Texas Department of Human Services to assist single parents in returning to work. Needy families are referred to the child care center by the family�s case worker. The child care center charges anywhere from $10.00 to $100.00 per week, depending on the parents� current situation. The parents must show, through their case worker, that they are either attending GED classes or a trade school. They must also work. They cannot work less than 20 hours per week without losing their eligibility status. The biggest problem with this setup is that there is a 2-year waiting list for this child care assistance. Families receiving this supplemental child care assistance make up about 50-60% of Kindercare�s business nationwide.
Cummins and Patterson, for the most part, agreed on what would make up an ideal welfare program. Such a program needs not only job training, but available jobs for those who have received that training. Resources need to be available for education, as well as medical care. Patterson feels that counseling is needed to help single mothers gain confidence and self-esteem, so that they have a better chance of succeeding without governmental assistance. A transitional program is necessary to take welfare recipi8ents from the point that they leave the welfare roles and a probationary time period on a new job when their wages reach self-supporting levels. During this transition time, education, counseling, child care, and medical care should be continued. Mavis agreed that a transitional program would offer a gradual weaning of government dependency while allowing recipients to regain their dignity while learning to be self-sufficient. She feels that for most of the single mothers on welfare, it is easier to stay dependent than to take a risk at supporting themselves.
Patterson feels strongly that Congress needs to �dig a little deeper.� She believes that resolving many of the problems with the current welfare system are going to initially cost more than the government now spends on the program. It should be considered as an investment in the future of this country. Cummins agrees with this and feels that perhaps the search for funding resources should begin with a restructuring of the system of taxation. Cummins admitted that this particular suggestion may be cumbersome at best, but felt it would be a good place to start.
Patterson said a �radical idea� might be to find a way to hold schools accountable for those students who drop out and later end up on welfare. A more realistic method, according to Patterson, involves sanctioning recipients for violation of certain preset rules. She feels that subtracting a small portion of their checks might cause recipients to be more responsible.
It was clear after these interviews that all four of these women value independence, security, family, and individuality. This entire paper, in fact, is based on a principle of human well-being and paternalism. There is also a strong feeling for the universalistic principle. The question of whether or not welfare should be reformed is probably less important than what measures are used in reforming it. Legislators on all sides of the issue must keep in mind that whatever they decide will become the fate of thousands of people, including those who make up the next generation.
As the Republicans and the Democrats debate the issue of welfare reform in Washington, D.C., they need to take into account whatever changes that do take place need to do so over a long and slow period of time. Rushing controversial reform may only create more confusion as those affected try to understand their own roles. There does need to be a clear and understood time limit given to all welfare recipients, especially those on AFDC. The legislature should begin with a restructuring of the tax tables in order to make a rather large initial investment into reforming the system. Money needs to be put into job training, as well as job development. During a recipient�s limited period on the welfare roles, that recipient should automatically be set up for education programs that are in addition to job training. This education should be focused on the young parents and should include how to manage money, how to set up and live by a budget, how to grocery shop efficiently and create meals that will be nutritious, as well as filling. These young parents should be taught how to be good parents and role models. Their children should receive all necessary immunizations and health screening. Welfare checks should be reduced or withheld for breaking any of these rules. During this period of time, all recipients should be required to show proof that they are job searching everyday. Their case workers should be required to help them learn to interview for jobs, including appearance promptness, and salesmanship. These recipients should also be given counseling to help them deal with parenting, relationships, and gain self-confidence.
The amount of funds paid to welfare recipients should be universal across the nation. Specific categories (no more than five or six) could be designed in which to fit all recipients and their checks would depend on this category. It should be fully understand at the beginning that no additional fees would be paid for any new children born after the first year the recipients are on the welfare roles.
At the beginning of a recipient�s period on the roll, an agreement which has been written in layman�s terms should be executed by the recipient and their case worker. This agreement should set out the category by which the monthly checks will be based, as well as all the rules that the recipient must follow. The agreement should also set out methods of enforcement of these rules. Enforcement should consist of reduction or cancellation of monthly checks. Additionally, there should be a set period of time and stricter guidelines for anyone attempting to return to the welfare roles. In short, these welfare recipients should not be given a check and left to their own resources.
At the end of five years, monthly checks would automatically convert to reduced and temporary checks, referred to as transitional payments. The understood reduced amount would be considered transitional while the recipient begins working. The transitional support would help them pay for child care. The medical care should continue until their employment probationary period ends. Employers who put these people to work should receive encouragement and incentives to hire and train these new employees. After a set probationary time, the employers are to provide group insurance for the workers and their dependents. Perhaps there could even be incentives for these employers to help their employees with child care costs.
This is an example of the nation making an investment in its citizens. All of them have the potential to be productive in some way or another. Some need more assistance to find that potential and some need to be pushed into their own productiveness. To repeat a statement by Elaine Cummins in her recent interview, �this is a national problem and needs to be handled on a national level.�
In order to make the necessary reform decisions, legislators must first of all realize that changes will not be successful if they are rushed through the system. Welfare programs need a major overhaul and this will take many years. In order to alleviate dependency, behavior modifications must be dealt with. Job training is a good start, but it is not enough by itself. As Cummins stated in her interview, training people for jobs that do not exist will not solve the problem. There must be an effort to create jobs.
This kind of thinking comes from a principle of human well-being. It is true that all people are entitled to the opportunity of reaching a standard of living that offers human dignity. Those people who have children are responsible for teaching them how to discover that dignity. Who helps to teach the parents who have yet to discover their own dignity? In the case of welfare reform, society must act as that teacher.
Should the current welfare program be reformed? Yes, it should be reformed in drastic terms. The program should be dealt with on a national level, but with stricter regulations and enforcement. Should the current welfare program be eliminated? It should be eliminated only to the extent that a new and stronger program be put into its place.
