By Sue Christensen & Ann Rosen, October 1994 In the wake of President Clinton's statement that he would "end welfare as we know it" has come a host of welfare reform initiatives from around the country. Indiana is no exception; several welfare reform bills were introduced in the 1994 Indiana General Assembly. Liberals and conservatives alike agree that the welfare system is not functioning as it should. An extensive survey of public attitudes toward the welfare system, conducted by Peter D. Hart Associates and American Viewpoint, found that many American voters believe that the welfare system today "exacerbates the problem of poverty, because. . . it encourages dependence and fails to provide sufficient help for people to make the transition to self-reliance." Developing a welfare system that truly fosters independence and self-reliance is a considerable challenge. The design of any new system should utilize the experiences and insights of welfare recipients, who can identify precisely the disincentives to work as well as the effective components of the current system. In order to hear some of these insights, The Family Connection hosted a focus group for present and former welfare recipients in June 1994 as part of the Step Ahead/First Steps Consumer Involvement Project. The discussion was enlightening. It is our hope that the participants' words can help legislators and voters gain a deeper understanding of the problems and possible solutions of this complicated issue. Ten women participated in the focus group. Five of the women currently receive AFDC while the others no longer receive any benefits. The discussion touched on the importance of Medicaid, barriers to self-sufficiency, disincentives to work, the cost of child care, the separation of families, work requirements, time-limited benefits and lack of respect.
The primary barrier to self-sufficiency was identified as the feeling that one can never get ahead, that there are no rewards for working. As soon as a woman earns a specified amount, she loses benefits. Indiana, in fact, cuts families off AFDC at a lower income than any other state. Participants agreed that a gradual reduction of benefits as individuals earned more, would be a more effective work incentive than removing benefits all at once.
Many parents who leave welfare find themselves in the ranks of the working poor, unable to provide for their children, and no longer eligible for any assistance.
Since most minimum-wage jobs do not include health insurance, loss of Medicaid is a major barrier to parents leaving the welfare system. Parents might want to work, but are frightened of what would happen if their children became sick.
Another major barrier to work is transportation. In order to receive welfare benefits a restriction is placed on the value of the recipient's car. While taxpayers may think that is fair-why should someone on welfare have an expensive car?-it is a major barrier to work.
Bus schedules further restrict job opportunities.
We asked participants if they thought all mothers on welfare should be required to work outside of the home. There was general agreement that "it depends."
Several suggestions were made. One was to put child care in the work place where the parents could watch their own children. Women could be trained and certified to be day care workers or to work at home in a variety of jobs.
Child care costs are an additional barrier. At $10 a day, for three children, the cost for 21 working days is $630. That takes a substantial chunk from a minimum wage pay check.
Many welfare reform initiatives around the country advocate a time limit on benefits. These mothers wondered if assistance would be available to help the welfare recipient become self-supporting in that period of time.
Further, the participants expressed concern that many women would need a great deal of support before they would be ready to work.
When asked what would happen to children if a strict two-year time limit were imposed, the mothers expressed concern.
The current system is seen as destructive to the family.
During the discussion, the mothers talked about how it felt to be on welfare, how they are stereotyped and looked down on by others. Receiving welfare benefits can be humiliating and degrading. When talking to a caseworker, there is no privacy and no respect.
One mother described an interview with a former welfare recipient that she had seen on television:
One mother had used the system to take that step up. She got support from AFDC for herself and her children while getting a college degree. She had a job lined up in Texas after graduation.
While the other women congratulated her sincerely, they pointed out that she had to move to get a job, that not many jobs paying a family-supporting wage could be found, even for a college graduate.
CONCLUSIONS It is clear from this focus group that welfare reform initiatives must take certain key factors into consideration if the primary goal of moving people to self-sufficiency is to become reality. A program that takes people off welfare must not leave them without the ability to provide for themselves and their children. Jobs which pay family-supporting wages must be available. Without adequate employment opportunities, it will be impossible to "end welfare as we know it." Many recipients who have been on welfare for a long time will require substantial supports before they are ready for employment. Assistance may need to include not only education and training, but psychological and emotional supports as well. Lack of adequate health insurance in minimum-wage jobs is a major barrier for welfare recipients who otherwise want to work. To choose between supporting oneself and medical care for one's child is not a choice any American parent should ever have to make. Programs should be designed to strengthen families, not discourage two-parent households. Sufficient child care funding must be available to assist low-income working parents and guarantee the quality of available child care. There must be financial incentives for people to work. Keeping more of their earnings and benefits can enable people to work their way off assistance. Allowing AFDC families to accumulate some savings could help them "get out of the hole." Parents would see the possibility of getting ahead. Strict time limits on benefits would hurt children, the majority of AFDC recipients. And finally, in discussions about welfare reform, it is important not to stereotype people. If we understand that families receive welfare for many different reasons, and that many parents want to work, perhaps we can hear and learn from those who have experienced this system. Their knowledge can then be included in designing a welfare system that would support families and children while enabling them to take "a step higher."
|
Loss of benefits