The Essence Dialogue: Will Welfare Reform Work?
By Lise Funderburg
Essence
February 1997
When the welfare-reform bill was signed into law last August 22, some human-rights
advocates called it a day of shame. Under the new rules virtually all recipients,
including children, are entitled to only five years of aid in their lifetime,
and nearly all adult welfare recipients must find work after two years on assistance
-- or lose their benefits. Within the next five years, the law requires half
of all current welfare families to work or be removed from the welfare rolls
entirely.
For this ESSENCE Dialogue, we asked two experts on work and workfare to consider
how realistic -- or humane -- these goals are. Dr. William Julius Wilson, a professor
of social policy at Harvard University, is author of When Work Disappears:
The World of the New Urban Poor (Knopf). Dr. Megan McLaughlin is executive
director and CEO of the Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies, Inc., which
sponsors the Welfare Reform Network, a coalition that advocates for income-security
policies and-programs. What they have to say is deeply troubling, but these two
wise minds are rich in ideas.
ESSENCE: Will the new welfare-reform law actually get people off the welfare
rolls and onto payrolls, as President Clinton has promised?
W.J.W.: Onto payrolls, no. But it'll certainly get people off the welfare rolls.
I don't believe people will move onto payrolls unless the administration gives
some attention to job creation. This is a yery, very severe problem -- lack of
job opportunities, particularly in inner-city neighborhoods -- that has not been
addressed.
A study of applicants looking for jobs in fast-food businesses in Harlem found
that there were 14 applicants for every individual who was hired. Among those
applicants who were not hired, three quarters had not found a single job a year
later. Another study pointed out that, given the present growth rate of New York
City's economy, if every new job were given to the city's current welfare recipients,
it would take 21 years to absorb them into the city's labor force.
Even politicians who supported the new law are now pointing out that there will
be a serious problem if jobs are not created. Businesspeople are being encouraged
to hire mothers on welfare, but the private sector's record is not very encouraging,
so I don't have much confidence that it's going to work.
M.M.: I certainly concur with the view that the law will not get the majority
of mothers receiving AFDC [Aid to Families With Dependent Children] off welfare,
because there are so many other variables, such as the educational qualifications
of the persons who will be competing. Mothers on welfare who do not have sufficient
education or job skills and experience will be thrown into the job market to
compete with those who do. In New York City alone, about 271,000 residents are
looking for work and competing with these welfare clients. Additionally, some
studies have shown that employers do not want to hire people from inner-city
communities.
Another important factor is child care. If we're talking about getting mothers
to work, extensive child care must be made available.
ESSENCE: Are any men on AFDC?
W.J.W.: Not many. A very, very small percentage, about 7 percent.
ESSENCE: During the Depression, President Roosevelt created the Works Progress
Administration (WPA), a jobs program that you, Professor Wilson, have suggested
would be more effective than workfare. How so?
W.J.W: Workfare is really designed so that people on welfare will work for their
welfare checks. The jobs that will be created for them -- if they're created
at all -- are public-service jobs. I have called for the creation of a WPA-type
program or public-sector jobs that would go into effect when people reach the
five-year time limit and are cut off from welfare entirely and find themselves
faced with very, very severe joblessness. Dr. McLaughlin is correct: Firms in
the private sector refuse to hire many inner-city workers because of racial bias
and perceptions about their work-readiness skills. A study I recently concluded
in Chicago bears this out. And if firms in the private sector cannot or refuse
to hire low-skilled workers who are willing to take low-wage jobs, then the issue
of jobs for inner-city workers cannot be adequately addressed without considering
the policy of public-sector employment as a last resort.
ESSENCE: How would your WPA work?
W.J.W: I have in mind worthwhile public-sector jobs for anyone who wants one.
This would include work that's currently not being done for financial reasons,
such as filling potholes; painting bridges; cleaning streets twice rather than
once a day; collecting trash twice a week instead of once a week; cleaning municipal
parks and playgrounds and other public facilities at a level that would invite
use; supervising playgrounds to maximize safer adult-sponsored recreation for
all neighborhood children.
M.M.: I would add that there has to be an equal emphasis on education and training.
Across the country, women are being asked to leave college to participate in
workfare programs. They must report for workfare or lose their check. There's
no attempt to help women get on a career track to ensure that they and their
children and grandchildren will be able to stay off welfare.
W.J.W: Education is important. We would hope public-sector employment would be
temporary. We eventually want to employ people in the private sector, and to
compete, they need training.
ESSENCE: What will happen to people who can't pull it all together within the
time restrictions of the new law? Are we becoming a country without a safety
net?
M.M.: There's no guaranteed safety net anymore. That is clear.
ESSENCE: Should we have a safety net?
M.M.: I think so.
W.J.W.: Every civilized society should have a safety net for needy citizens,
and every civilized society should provide every citizen the opportunity to get
a decent job, have adequate health care and so on. Let me just point out one
thing I think is vital: There is a popular view that people go on welfare because
they don't want to work. Our research indicates that the mothers hate welfare.
It is anathema to them; they want to get off. And many do try. They'll take subminimum
wage jobs and then pay for child care, transportation and clothes to wear to
work. But more important, because they are working, they lose their Medicaid.
These jobs don't carry medical insurance, so the mothers worry about what's going
to happen when their kids get sick. Then they fall deeper into poverty, can't
make ends meet and end up back on welfare. This is not being discussed. .
M.M.: It's not as if most of the women on welfare have never been in the labor
force and are not trying to get back in. That's pure fiction, and it is deliberately
put across that way because of the distaste many people have for welfare.
But you asked about the safety net. The only safety net that will remain is the
child-welfare net, specifically foster care. Some predict that system will balloon
greatly. Right now, 460,000 children across the country are in foster care. We
can expect refugees from AFDC to fall into this much more expensive program.
Something sinister is happening. Newt Gingrich's orphanage proposal was taken
off the public agenda, but it seems to be very much on the agenda, because if
parents are cut off from AFDC and don't have jobs, what will they do with their
children?
ESSENCE: Do any programs or efforts exist that actually help people get off welfare
rolls and onto payrolls?
W.J.W.: The successful programs have been where jobs are available. Wisconsin's
welfare plan has received a great deal of attention. This plan includes, by the
way, significant public-sector employment along with private-sector employment.
One of the reasons it has been able to move people off welfare is that Wisconsin
has had a very tight labor market, with low unemployment. If we had sustained
tight labor markets with low unemployment [everywhere], then I would feel more
comfortable about this law, because jobs would be available. But what happens
when we enter a recession? What will happen in Wisconsin when Wisconsin enters
a recession?
M.M.: And what happens in states that are still experiencing high unemployment
and low job growth?
ESSENCE: How can African-Americans respond to this legislation? Is there some
way individuals can make a difference?
M.M.: The African-American community must begin to pay attention and speak up
about these issues. We have somehow removed ourselves from the issue of welfare
and child welfare. We also have to pay attention to what the states are going
to do; that's where a lot of the action will shift. We have to visit our statehouses
to make sure that no major harm comes to children. Finally, I would urge a greater
focus on education so that we can prevent people from needing to enter the welfare
system.
ESSENCE: Why hasn't the Black community paid attention to this issue?
W.J.W: The Black community is somewhat ambivalent about welfare. And many Blacks
have internalized the myths about public assistance. The Black community is going
to have to learn more about the nature of welfare and the reasons so many Blacks
are on it.
Some states will do the right thing and keep people from becoming homeless. Other
states are not going to come through, and I think the Black community, particularly
educated leaders, must monitor this. We just can't rely on others. Community
groups have to work with other progressive groups to make sure we don't create
a human tragedy. We need to hold forums in our neighborhoods, in churches and
other Black institutions, inviting researchers who can report on what's happening
to people on welfare, so that everyone is kept informed and aware. African-Americans
can also apply pressure, particularly on certain politicians who are vulnerable.