Welfare reform: Can the states fly solo?

Policy Review asked four state welfare officials-Eloise Anderson of California, Vance McMahan of Texas, Don Taylor of Mississippi, and Jason Turner of Wisconsin-to comment on the following questions about what the welfare-reform legislation of 1996 will mean for their states:

Q States have been ahead of the federal government in welfare reform for many years, and 43 states have already received some sort of waiver from federal welfare rules. What will be the most important changes for your state as a result of the federal legislation? How do these compare in magnitude with reforms your state has already embarked on?

Eloise Anderson, director, California Department of Social Services: Under the new federal welfare legislation, recipients will no longer be able to receive aid indefinitely (until the youngest child at home turns 18) without working. Time limits will force more people into jobs. This will lead to more families entering the mainstream and over time becoming self-sufficient. Government will cease to be the first place families turn to when in trouble. And childbearing and parenting will again be a primary responsibility of parents.

Families will become more accountable to each other. States will be given the opportunity to treat married and single-parent families more equally so that there is no penalty for marriage. Stricter paternity establishment will lead to greater child support. There will be no aid for teen parents who drop out of school and they will be required to live at home or in an adultsupervised setting as a condition of aid.

The legislation also will remove costly and restrictive federal mandates and give states a little more flexibility to design programs that work best for their communities.

Vance McMahan, policy director, Office of the Governor, State of Texas: The biggest impact of the federal welfare legislation may, at first, be more symbolic than substantive. The decision to end the federal entitlement to Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) marks a reversal of 61 years of social policy, an admission that the current welfare system has become more a cause of poverty than a cure, and a recognition that perhaps someone outside Washington, D.C., may be able to do a better job at helping those in need. By so doing, the federal law gives states and communities more freedom to tailor their policies to reflect the values and specific needs of their people.

Ending the welfare entitlement has also changed the fundamental question. Instead of asking, "What is this person entitled to?," states can now ask, "What does this person need to become self-sufficient?" By changing the question, the bill gives states the freedom to try different answers.

As a practical matter, the bill's initial impact will be limited, since it allows states to continue to operate under existing waivers. Texas will be affected by the decision to cut off food stamps and SSI to some legal immigrants. State officials are trying to determine the impact of this provision.

The new work-participation requirements will also affect Texas. Texas does not have a generous welfare grant ($188 a month for a family of three) and thus tends to have a welfare population that is relatively poorer and less educated than other states. Governor George Bush is, however, committed to marshaling all necessary resources to liberate as many people as possible from dependence on government. Welfare rolls in Texas have shrunk by 15 percent during his term.

Don Taylor, executive director, Mississippi Department of Human Services: The current legislation provides a long overdue shifting of the balance of power between federal and state levels of government. Congress finally acknowledged that the "one size fits all" federal programs are an abysmal failure, so states will now be allowed to tailor welfare plans to meet specific needs of their states. We may now correctly measure the success of our programs by the number of individuals placed in the work force, not the number enrolled in training programs that often have no connection to the actual job market.

Jason Turner, director of capacity building, Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development The new law could not have been passed at a more propitious time for Wisconsin-just as we were negotiating with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services over the terms of the waiver, the new law made it possible to implement Governor Tommy Thompson's radical welfare replacement program, "Wisconsin Works," or "W2," without major compromises. This plan eliminates AFDC entirely and replaces it with a system of work opportunities for individuals of all abilities. It differs from other reform initiatives (such as two-years-and-off plans) in that no unrestricted cash assistance is provided, not even temporarily. Instead, individuals who need family income will have four work options available, starting at the top (private employment) and working down to community-service jobs or sheltered workshops, if necessary. Temporary "bridge" loans, subsidized child care, and subsidized medical insurance will be made available-whatever is absolutely necessary to make work possible. But in the end, all parents will enjoy the dignity of earning their family income through work.