The Welfare Wars

he 1996 reform of the nation's welfare system was a grand success. That, without a doubt, is the popular perception. And there's data to back it up. States have cut the number of poor Americans receiving government checks by more than half. Sixty percent of those who've left the rolls departed because they found work. Child poverty is at a historic low.

So why is this year's debate over reauthorization of the 1996 law devolving into a bitter dispute between liberals and conservatives over not only the program's future, but also over its structure, goals and effectiveness? And why are the conservatives proposing to increase the federal government's role in the welfare system, while liberals are fighting for a less prescriptive program?

President Bush and conservatives in the House say that only 34 percent of those currently on welfare meet federal work requirements. The federal government, they argue, must make states hold recipients to a higher standard. Liberals charge that the Republicans have proposed a program so full of federal mandates that it will impede the ability of states to move disadvantaged women (who form the vast majority of welfare recipients) into the workforce. And even as the liberals admit that states have successfully moved more women into jobs than they had anticipated in 1996, they say the welfare system must do more to help them climb the economic ladder.

The dispute surprises Norman Ornstein, an observer of Congress and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "I'm puzzled that the Republicans are ratcheting up the heat on this issue when there are other priorities on the Hill right now, and they must know this issue will cause problems with Democrats," he says. Ornstein says it looks like the Bush plan came directly from the White House-as opposed to the Health and Human Services Department-and appears to be an effort to appeal to the GOP base of conservative voters. "This flies in the face of everything [HHS Secretary] Tommy Thompson did as governor" of Wisconsin, he adds. Thompson strongly advocated state flexibility in the welfare system before joining the Bush team in 2001.

Still, as a result of the Bush plan, a welfare reauthorization process that many expected to be uneventful is turning into a political battle royal. Democrats and Republicans are blasting each other's plans. Interest groups on both sides have come out swinging. States have leapt into the fray, arguing that the GOP plan-which passed the House on a largely party line vote in mid-May-would undercut their flexibility and create unfunded mandates. Conservatives respond that states are exaggerating their claims to preserve historically high levels of federal spending on welfare.

PUSHING WORK

For example, states must demonstrate that 50 percent of their TANF recipients are working at least 20 hours a week. Recipients must also take part in other activities depending on their needs, such as education or drug abuse treatment, for an additional 10 hours. But very few states have had to worry about that requirement because of a caseload reduction credit included in the law. Under TANF, federal work requirements were reduced 1 percent for every 1 percent reduction in a state's welfare caseload. Because caseloads have decreased more than 50 percent on average since 1996, federal work requirements have been nullified in most states.

Just a few months ago, state welfare administrators told Government Executive they expected Congress would reauthorize the TANF program with few changes. Their sole concern, they said, was whether Congress would preserve the $16.5 billion in federal block grants. Since caseloads have declined so much, some conservatives have argued that the block grants-set in 1995 when caseloads were at an all-time high-should be reduced. State administrators say they need the money because they've boosted spending in such areas as child care, housing and transportation to support the working poor.

The House-passed bill, which closely mirrors the Bush proposal, preserves funding levels. But it also makes huge new demands on the states. Congressional Republicans preserved the caseload reduction credit in their legislation, but only allowed states to take a credit for reductions in their rolls over the previous three years. That would likely result in near-elimination of the credit, because states have not seen significant reductions in their caseloads in recent years. In fact, during the recession of 2001, 34 states reported that their caseloads increased. Under the House plan, states could, however, count recipients for three months after they'd left the rolls for a job. But states would also have to have 70 percent of their recipients working by 2007, up from the current 50 percent.

The House plan would also boost the number of hours that TANF recipients would have to work to meet federal requirements. Under the plan, recipients would have to work 24 hours a week and engage in additional "productive" activities, such as taking a college class or attending a drug rehabilitation program, for another 16 hours. States could no longer count time spent looking for a job or vocational training toward the 24 hours of direct work, as they currently can. States failing to meet these requirements would face a cut in their federal block grants.

Andrew Bush, director of the Office of Family Assistance at the Administration for Children and Families, touts "work-first" programs that make finding a job a TANF recipient's first priority: "The lessons we've learned from good public assistance programs is that they need to be very work-focused. We want to challenge ourselves."

Bush says programs to help the so-called "hard to serve"-TANF recipients who have mental health or drug problems, suffer from domestic violence, or have learning disabilities-often are not effective in helping people get jobs. "People can spend a long time in those programs, and they don't go anywhere," he says. Also, he adds, many poor Americans facing such barriers fall through the cracks in the current system, and get no assistance from the government at all. "The best way to help people is to actively engage them," he says. Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., sponsor of the House legislation, says welfare recipients need a push from the government. "Most [recipients] are not pursuing much of anything," he says. "That's why they are on welfare. Welfare takes away the desire to better yourself, your feeling of self-confidence. . . . What we want to do is demonstrate the benefits of getting off welfare." Under the House bill, TANF recipients would have four months of unrestricted time every two years to pursue an education, undergo substance abuse treatment, or enroll in other such programs without facing a work requirement. Then they would have to work the 24 hours each week.

In congressional testimony last April, Jason Turner, director of the Center for Self-Sufficiency in Milwaukee and a former TANF administrator in New York, said the House GOP approach is appropriate. The "expectation of work helps change the culture of the system and channels the energy of recipients in a constructive direction away from attempting to qualify for exemptions" based on some barrier to employment, he said. "It is essential that a true work program include a connection between the receipt of benefits and positive participation."

"Are the state work requirements in the president's plan realistic?" Turner asked. "Absolutely." Some state administrators agree. "We believe that a heavy emphasis on work is the way to go," says Linda Dilworth, director of Florida's Office of Economic Self Sufficiency Services. "We see the Bush plan as consistent with the Florida approach."

Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif., another sponsor of the House legislation, says criticism of the proposed work requirements seems like déjà vu. "We had a great deal of criticism back in 1996 about how unfair it was to be forcing welfare recipients to be working, and we proved that wasn't true. Many people work and get an education at the same time. We don't think it's too much to ask."

THE CRITIQUE

Also in April, current and former welfare recipients traveled to Capitol Hill to lobby lawmakers to provide more leeway for women on the rolls to pursue higher education. The activists say the government should encourage poor women to pursue college degrees, not set up requirements that keep them from doing so. "To actually have a government law that tells women in college that they have to cut back their studies-to say 'Whoa, sister, you're aiming too high'-that's a terrible thing for the government to say," argues Maureen Lane, a former New York welfare recipient.

The activists have a proponent in Congress: Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., co-chair of the Democratic Task Force on Welfare Reform, and herself a former welfare recipient. "We are pounding away on this point: Recipients should not be punished for going to school," she says. "Education is the only way we can help people get better jobs."

In addition, opponents of the GOP legislation say it would force states to drop programs aimed at helping poor women who face barriers to employment. If those women weren't able to find jobs quickly, states would have an incentive to cut them from the rolls. "We would have to become much more rigid in our requirements," says Barbara Van Dorgel, deputy director of Maine's Bureau of Family Independence. "We expect people to move forward, but we haven't mandated that everyone do 40 hours [of work and other activities] a week. We've been successful with that flexibility in Maine and would be reluctant to lose it."

"It's a stiff requirement," adds Patti Campbell, bureau chief of the Idaho Division of Welfare. "The changes in the caseload reduction credit would have a huge impact here." She notes that only 24 percent of Idaho's welfare recipients would meet the new work requirement. Furthermore, according to Sharon Parrott, co-director of federal TANF policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank in Washington, the most effective state welfare agencies have tried to tailor programs to individual needs. Many states have directed people with significant barriers to employment into drug treatment or educational programs. "States haven't junked the work-first approach," she says. "But they've made [their programs] far richer. Not everyone fits into the box of work-first."

Parrott says the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies, a research project commissioned by the Administration for Children and Families after the 1996 reforms, found that strategies that mixed work with education, training, job hunting, development of life skills and career counseling had scored highest in moving people off welfare and into the workforce.

According to most studies, the TANF recipients still on the rolls are the hardest cases, likely to face barriers to employment such as drug addiction, mental health problems, domestic violence and learning disabilities. Alayne White, director of the Institute on Women and Substance Abuse at the University of Kentucky, has contracted with her state for several years to try to help women who are addicted to drugs and have other serious problems. Many women, she says, stay in the program for several months. According to White, "They won't count for the federal participation rates, and [state welfare] case managers are getting conflicting messages about whether they should refer clients to us. It's a huge cause for concern."

Faye Gibson, a senior program associate with the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, has overseen demonstration projects in nine states aimed at helping TANF recipients who abuse drugs. Because of the caseload reduction credit, the states could send women to the Columbia program without worrying about federal work participation rates, she says. On average, the women stayed in the program for six months. "We believe that treatment should be counted as a work activity," she says. "We've worked with these women-who represent the hardest cases-and we believe that it's a little unrealistic to expect that they can maintain employment without seeking treatment."

Tennessee's Family Service Counseling program might also have to restructure if the GOP plans become law. Russ Overby, an advocate for Tennessee TANF recipients, says the counseling program, which tackles the toughest cases in the state, has boosted the employment rate among participants from 14 percent to 49 percent. "What Tennessee is doing is much broader than what the Herger/McKeon bill would allow, but despite that, we were in the top 10 states in placing people in jobs," he says.

Advocates for people with disabilities also have problems with the legislation. Paul Marchand, co-chair of the TANF Task Force of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, says the GOP proposals would "raise the bar" for disabled people to the point where it would be impossible to meet federal expectations. Many disabled people simply cannot work 24 hours a week, he says, but the GOP proposals offer no exceptions to federal work requirements. Many states provide such exceptions, but would probably find it difficult to continue to do so with the 70 percent work requirement. Marchand notes that the GOP proposals do not substantially increase funding for child care, while at the same time giving states stricter work requirements. He says it is especially difficult for women to find child care for disabled children.

As members of the House debate the merits of these different welfare proposals, they must deal with a wild card: the GOP's proposal for "super waivers." Such waivers would allow governors to proposes demonstration projects to improve program effectiveness or integrate a range of different social welfare programs outside TANF-the food stamp and Medicaid programs, for example-to improve service delivery. The states strongly back the proposal.

Critics, though, say the super waiver approach would grant states too much authority. "If welfare reform did away with welfare as we knew it, the super waiver would do away with Congress as we know it," explains Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. In his view, Congress would give up too much of its oversight authority if the super waiver were to become law.

BACK TO BASICS

They note that over the past five years, the caseload reduction credit has provided an incentive for states to reduce their rolls, but not necessarily to ensure that those leaving the rolls find work or boost their incomes. Between 1997 and 1999, states sanctioned more than 500,000 TANF recipients for failing to meet program requirements and kicked them off the rolls.

"There is nothing in the president's proposal that suggests an interest in addressing the problem of sanctioned families," says Mark Greenberg, a critic of the Bush plan and senior staff attorney with the Center for Law and Social Policy, a nonprofit organization that seeks to improve the economic security of low-income families. And there is little data about women who've left the rolls. Studies indicate that most people leaving welfare have left because they found work, and that within two years those families saw a 20 percent increase in household income. Even so, most of the families still fell below the federal poverty line.

But somewhere between 25 percent and 40 percent of families who've left the rolls aren't working. These families have seen a significant drop in their incomes, according to a January report by the Brookings Institution. "It's not enough to just get people off of welfare," says Rep. Patsy Mink, D-Hawaii. "It's not enough to make sure they have a job. We have to ensure that they can earn enough to survive, that they have a decent standard of living." Mink has proposed legislation that would replace the caseload reduction credit with a self-sufficiency credit. States could earn the credit only by demonstrating that families departing the rolls are earning a sufficient wage.

Rep. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., who also has proposed a TANF reauthorization bill, would give states credit only for moving TANF recipients into jobs. States that see former recipients increase their earnings would get a bigger credit. Cardin would also require states to review pending sanctions to determine whether they are justified.

"We want people out of cash assistance, yes, but we also want them out of poverty," Cardin says.