Fw: Off welfare, luckiest join benefit-less working poor FWD

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: H. C. Covington: "Fw: NCPA Policy Digest 11-23-98"
• Previous message: gbacque@idirect.com: "National Post Story"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0124_01BE1778.FB8BA560
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable




http://www.globe.com/dailyglobe/globehtml/326/Off_the_welfare_rolls_to_wh=
ere_.shtml
FWD Boston Globe 11/22/98 page E03
POLICY

OFF THE WELFARE ROLLS TO WHERE?
THE LUCKIEST JOIN THE UNCARED-FOR,
BENEFIT-LESS WORKING POOR

By Randy Albelda
Professor of Economics
University of Massachusetts at Boston


The start of a new era in welfare regulation is imminent. On Dec. 1, the =
first wave of recipients will hit their 24-month time limit. They and =
their families will no longer be eligible for cash assistance unless =
granted a special six-month extension.=20

Time limits are just one of the many new ''get tough'' welfare =
provisions in Massachusetts. Others include stiff work requirements and =
reduced benefits for those who did not report the whereabouts of their =
children's fathers, received aid while becoming pregnant, or whose =
children skipped school too many times.=20

Governor Paul Cellucci, and his predecessor William F. Weld, along with =
the Department of Transitional Assistance, all have argued that welfare =
is working. The sole piece of non-anecdotal evidence is that the =
caseload has plummeted. But that is something we would have expected =
anyway in a booming economy.=20

To date, the governor's office has not produced any reliable data on the =
success or failure of these new tough policies, or how families are =
faring under them. Are families replacing public assistance with =
earnings? Are children going hungry? Who is taking care of children when =
women work? How are families coping with their new mandate to be =
self-sufficient or be cut off?=20

A special legislative commission established last year to study the =
impact of welfare reform has met several times and hired a researcher to =
review administrative data such as employment records. But, on the eve =
of the next wave of ''get tough'' changes, we've had no published =
reports from this panel.=20

Welfare reform is one of the largest social experiments ever conducted =
in the state. At the time it was enacted in 1995, it affected about =
300,000 of our most vulnerable residents, two-thirds of whom are =
children.=20

As we mark the second anniversary of federal welfare reform - and usher =
in Massachusetts' fourth year of implementing its own changes - it seems =
that we should know more about how the people receiving welfare, and =
those no longer on the rolls, are doing.=20

Instead, we have to look to what other states are finding to get a =
glimpse of what is happening. A forthcoming report from the Center for =
Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington-based research and policy =
institute, makes that task easier. It summarizes the findings from =
evaluations of earnings and employment outcomes for welfare recipients =
performed in 13 states.=20

The studies differ in many ways, including who was followed (former and =
current recipients); the time periods of employment that were evaluated =
(from one quarter to one year); and how researchers got their =
information (surveys or looking at unemployment insurance quarterly =
records).=20

Still, the results are remarkably similar: The typical former welfare =
recipient is employed, working a substantial number of hours, making =
poverty wages in a job that has no paid vacation, sick leave, or =
employer-sponsored health care.=20

Studies of former welfare recipients in Indiana, Maryland, South =
Carolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin found that between one-half and two-thirds =
of parents were employed soon after leaving the welfare rolls, =
regardless of why they left.=20

In Florida, Indiana, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington state, =
researchers found that the majority of current and former recipients =
work a substantial numbers of hours a week when they are employed - =
usually 30 hours or more.=20

So far, so good. But before celebrating, stop to consider what the =
studies found about how much people are earning.=20

In Pensacola, Fla., three-quarters of former and current recipients =
earned less than $7 an hour. The average wage was $6.55 an hour in =
Minnesota, $7.34 an hour in Portland, Ore., and $6.44 in South Carolina. =
That's hardly enough to support a single person, let alone a family.=20

In the studies that looked at total earnings received over several =
months (rather than hourly wages when employed), researchers found that =
the majority had earnings well below poverty level. In Milwaukee, 75 =
percent of former recipients had earnings below the poverty line. In =
Maryland, the average earnings amounted to $9,500 a year.=20

Researchers in Los Angeles, Delaware, Pensacola, Minnesota, and Oregon =
found that current recipients, most in state work-demonstration =
programs, had earnings that are two-thirds the official poverty line.=20

These earnings levels should come as no surprise when you look at the =
kinds of jobs former recipients find. More that one-third of former =
recipients in Maryland were working in wholesale or retail trade. Almost =
half of those in South Carolina were in service occupations, mostly in =
food preparation or lodging establishments. Close to one-third of the =
employed former recipients in Milwaukee found jobs in temporary =
employment agencies.=20

And what about ''family-friendly'' policies at such workplaces? In the =
four states where researchers looked at whether employers offered health =
insurance in the jobs held by working former or current recipients, they =
found that between 40 and 60 percent did not. The two studies that asked =
about vacation and sick leave found that about one-third of employers =
offered sick days and less than half had paid vacation time. There was =
no provision for mothers who had to miss work because their children =
were sick.=20

Even with this set of studies, there is still much we don't know. Paid =
work can build self-esteem, but it also conflicts with providing care to =
families. What is happening to the children of mothers in the workplace? =
Who watches the children when their mothers are working between 30 and =
40 hours a week?=20

The work many recipients are finding is clearly not what most of us =
would consider good, or even stable, work. Are the workplaces safe, are =
bosses abusive or exploitative, knowing their women employees have few =
choices?=20

And perhaps the scariest questions of all: What is happening to the =
''missing'' recipients - those who have left the rolls but do not turn =
up in surveys or on unemployment insurance records? How are they =
surviving?=20

Massachusetts, like the other states studied, has pursued a ''work =
first'' strategy with a vengeance. For those who do find and keep paid =
employment, welfare reform is translating into a ''working poor =
creation'' policy. For those who can't find paid employment or can't do =
paid work, it is worse than that.=20

Massachusetts, indeed the nation, has succeeded in implementing welfare =
reform but not in addressing the problem of poverty, especially among =
women and children. To call this a ''success'' is to stretch beyond =
recognition the meaning of the word.=20

[Randy Albelda is a professor of economics at the University of =
Massachusetts at Boston.]=20


H. C. Sonny Covington  @  I CAN America
Louisiana Instuite on Homelessness & Housing
125 S. Buchanan Street - Lafayette, LA  70501
(318) 235-7005  Fax 318-235-7602 1-877-734-4664
hccovington@usa.net
icanamerica@usa.net
ach1@sprynet.com

------=_NextPart_000_0124_01BE1778.FB8BA560
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">