Can the welfare system be reformed? - Column

Black Enterprise, July, 1992 by Kitty Dumas

Can the U.S. welfare system be reformed? In 1991, tough economic times have forced many Americans onto the welfare rolls and as a result, poverty's high cost has a prime spot on the national agenda. Congress is trying to figure out which road to take toward welfare reform. The Democratic front-runner, Gov. Bill Clinton, tells voters he has been shaping welfare policy issues for years in Arkansas. And President Bush supports the states' efforts to combat welfare dependency and spend less.

It is in the states, not Washington, D.C., where real change is underway. States are trying to cope with shrinking budgets by writing their own plans, some of which are dubbed Workfare, Learnfare or Bridefare. Each is a social contract with the state designed to change welfare recipients' behavior. Benefits are lost for failing to comply, but recipients can be rewarded if requirements are met.

The states' plans have their critics. Advocates for the poor argue that many programs are punitive and may spring from a racial backlash. They fear that in a climate unsympathetic to welfare recipients, states may be overzealous.

David Bositis, of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank, says the issue is more economic than racial. "A lot of states are doing things because they're desperate. It doesn't represent a hostile attitude toward welfare recipients," he says.

In its last attempt at large-scale reform in 1988, Congress chose what was termed a balanced approach. It required people on welfare to seek a job or an education, while providing increased day care, transportation and other services to help them meet the goal. With this sweeping initiative, the 1988 Family Support Act, legislators set a goal of self-sufficiency.

Many states felt that the 1988 act was not enough to solve their problems. And shortly after it passed the economy collapsed. As of October 1991, the number of families receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) had grown to a monthly average of 4.4 million families. By year end, 4.7 million families were on AFDC. But last year, 40 states either froze or cut AFDC benefits providing assistance primarily to poor women and children. The reason: AFDC is funded by the federal government with state-matched funds.

Wayne Bryant, the New Jersey Assembly Deputy Democratic leader has tried to devise a better way. Last January, the New Jersey legislature passed six of his bills, designed to move people off welfare, that were signed by the governor. Bryant says his package focuses on the family. It encourages marriage by allowing women to keep some of their benefits if they marry. A controversial section denies additional benefits to women on welfare who have more children. Mothers can earn up to 50% of their AFDC benefits through employment without having those benefits cut.

Bryant says he hopes the measures will facilitate the return of some black men who he calls "invisible males." The current system penalizes people for marrying, increasing the number of absentee husbands and fathers. As a result, Bryant says "the poor have often been pushed to fight for increased welfare benefits rather than tools to make them self-sufficient."

But will these initiatives really ease poor people's lives. Many recipients have problems that make it hard if not impossible to train them.

Bryant insists there will be few problems if states build programs geared toward family stability and independence. But the states must be willing to pay for them. "Conservatives and liberals can't keep saying that family is important and make decisions [denying funding] that destroys them," Bryant says.