Welfare reform more complicated in real life

National Catholic Reporter, March 31, 1995 by Carol Warren

As Washington politicians outdo each other to cut programs and otherwise reinvent the nation's priorities, two articles describe how provisions of the "Contract with America" that result in cutting assistance to the poor or building more prisons take on a different life in the real world of people far outside the mythical Beltway.

Welfare reform -- the words are beginning to make my skin crawl. Not that the system is perfect; it's terribly flawed. But the "Contract with America" sounds like a "Contract on the Poor" and bad news for my own Appalachian region.

These proposals make me wonder if any of our legislators actually know anyone receiving assistance. My own representative never misses a chance to rail against those ignorant, irresponsible women who have child after child in order to lead a comfortable life on the taxpayer's hard-earned dollars. He obviously doesn't know the facts.

The average number of children in families on welfare is one to two -- about the same as other U.S. families. The average length of time on welfare is less than two years. In Kentucky, a woman receives less than $50 a month for an additional child. That would hardly keep the child in diapers, much less allow a luxurious lifestyle.

Getting people employed isn't a simple task. In a rural area, it can involve much more than seeing that the person gets the necessary skills. Certainly it requires that job opportunities exist. In my experience, there may be many more obstacles. A truly helpful welfare reform will need to deal with them.

A friend I'll call Susie is a good example. I became acquainted with this 35-year-old woman while she was a student in our county literacy program. Susie was an eager learner, and after about three years' work, I felt she could probably handle a job.

When I mentioned the prospect, her eyes- lit up. Employment could mean a new life for her and the two children. They were living in an old, dilapidated house in an isolated hollow about 20 miles from town. But as we discussed the idea, the very situations Susie was hoping to remedy proved to be obstacles to the plan.

Finding a job she could handle would be difficult in itself, as this is an area of high unemployment and jobs of any kind are scarce. And unfair as it seems, some very personal matters might mitigate against her being hired.

Some employers disqualify a job candidate based on their having a strong accent, or being from a particularly "notorious" community. Others discriminate on the basis of personal hygiene, even though this can be beyond the applicant's control. Not all homes in the area have running water, and soap, shampoo and detergent cannot be purchased with food stamps.

Fortunately, Susie's children were in school. But numerous other women ave a tremendous problem finding child care for their children while they work. There are a few day-care facilities in town, but they are relatively expensive, and the more isolated women do not have access to them. If a relative isn't available to keep the children, the women are simply out of luck.

Susie pointed out that she had no appropriate work clothes. Her clothing tended to be items given to her after use by another family member, so it didn't always fit and might be either patched or threadbare. Certainly it served well enough for everyday wear, but an employer would expect something neater. Of course, Susie didn't have money to buy even a few items.

Since she lived 20 miles outside town, Susie would have to have a way to get to a job. She didn't know how to drive and had no car. There is no public transportation. The only possibility would be getting a ride with someone going to town at the same time. If she could find rides at the right times, the person might charge her as much as $15 a trip to drive her to town -- in keeping with exorbitant local custom.

It seemed to me that if she were to have a real chance at employment, Susie would need to move. When I suggested she might find a place in town, her eyebrows flew up.

"Oh, I don't know!" she exclaimed. "We've never lived anyplace else. My kids would hate it -- this holler is their home. And Mommy's right up the road. She's not real well and needs me to check on her."

Susie's case is probably far more typical than the "freeloaders" we hear so much about. She's trying the best she can with very limited resources. She's making sure her kids stay in school. Her monthly check keeps them alive but it isn't helping them change their lives.

I don't know the answer for the Susies of our nation. I do know they don't deserve our scorn. Susie would never want us to see her as a victim, either. Her situation is "just the way things are." However reform is designed, I hope it will be flexible enough to help people like Susie conquer the problems that stand in their way.

Solutions might be as simple as guaranteeing a loan for an inexpensive car. This requires creativity and attention to individuals, both of which our current system lacks. We can't let politicians lump everyone in a pile marked "expendable" and then throw them away after two years on the program. If we don't insist on this out of charity, we should insist out of self-interest, because eventually all our destinies are tied together.