The Washington Peace Letter is published monthly for the social justice community of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Its purpose is to support local, national and international struggles against oppression. It seeks to present a radical analysis of current events, covering information not readily available in the corporate media.

The Peace Letter welcomes submissions of calendar announcements, articles, letters to the Editor, and artwork from the progressive community. Articles may be from 300-1200 words, but may be edited for space considerations. Preference is given to materials that cover actions or organizing campaigns in the D.C. metropolitan area.

We reserve the right to select or reject any submission.

Except as noted, Peace Letter items are copyright free and may be reproduced. Please give credit and send us a copy if you do use something.

Reforming Welfare Reform
By Sean D. Thomas-Breitfeld

March/April 2002
Volme 39, Number 2

In 1996 President Clinton, eager to compromise with a conservative Congress, delivered on his promise to "end welfare as we know it." From that debate five years ago came a plan that dramatically changed the nation's welfare system from one in which all who were eligible were entitled to cash assistance into a program that gives block grants to states and requires work in exchange for time-limited assistance. The laws and funding for this new program, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), must be reauthorized by September of this year, causing the debate over welfare to heat up yet again.

Welfare reform's block grant structure gave states the flexibility to design their assistance programs in nearly any manner. Although welfare reform had few requirements, states were mandated to prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and encourage and maintain two-parent families. The media's portrayal of "welfare queens" - single, usually Black, women raised on welfare and having babies to increase their welfare benefits - validated Congress' desire to control the sexuality of women on welfare. The strategies for advancing this "family values" agenda included abstinence-only education, a refusal to increase a mother's aid amount if she had a child while receiving assistance, and a bonus for states with the largest decreases in out-of-wedlock births.

For the last five years, despite the intentions of welfare reform, states have largely ignored the marriage promotion side of the family promotion agenda. After all, there is no certainty about whether government programs effectively promote marriage. Furthermore, marriage does not always eliminate poverty. Census information shows that even though immigrant and Latino families have a high rate of marriage, they are disproportionately poor. Clearly, the combined income of two parents with limited education and few skills does not lift a family out of poverty.

Of course, addressing the causes of poverty and decreasing the number of people in poverty was not the goal of welfare's reformers; instead they simply wanted to reduce dependency on public assistance. States encouraged women to take any job that would move them off welfare, ignoring the value of mothers caring for their children and forcing them to leave their children in child-care. Conveniently, the economic boom of the late 1990s created a need for low-skill, low-wage workers, enabling many former recipients to leave welfare for low paying jobs without benefits or job security. Welfare reform's work-first philosophy and the strong economy reduced the nation's caseload by 53%.

The caseload reductions do not tell the full story, however. Most women who left welfare found jobs that moved them from welfare poor to working poor, but did not improve their livelihood. Also, efforts to reduce the welfare caseload have not been successful in all areas. For instance, the caseload in Washington, DC has decreased by only 36% since the start of welfare reform, ranking the District 46th among all states and territories. In addition, the share of the nation's caseload that is Black and Hispanic has increased, showing that Whites are leaving the welfare rolls faster than people of color.

An obvious reason for the disparity in caseload changes among racial and ethnic groups is discrimination. A study focusing on the interactions between welfare caseworkers and recipients in two rural counties in northern Virginia found clear patterns of disparate treatment; Whites reported that their caseworkers encouraged them to go to school and provided them with transportation assistance, but none of the Black recipients received these supports. Also, in many cities, caseworkers violated civil rights laws by refusing to help Spanish-speakers unless they brought their own translators. This discrimination has kept many women of color on welfare and their families in poverty.

In addition to the discriminatory practices of individuals and welfare offices, the 1996 law instituted discrimination against legal immigrants. Welfare reform barred immigrants who arrived in the U.S. after 1996 from accessing all federal safety net programs including TANF, Medicaid, and Food Stamps. These restrictions have proved disastrous for immigrant communities who have paid taxes yet been ineligible for services. In an effort to woo Latino voters, President Bush and other conservative leaders have suddenly had a change of heart and are now encouraging Congress to restore some benefits to legal immigrants.

Aside from restoring fairness to immigrants, conservatives have primarily emphasized marriage promotion and responsible fatherhood in discussions about welfare reform. Furthermore, many on "the Hill" are considering passing a short-term reauthorization of the current program, without any reforms, until after the economy has begun to recover and government officials are feeling more generous. However, such a plan does nothing to address the immediate needs of low-income families who are suffering during this recession.

The welfare reforms of 1996 were somewhat successful during a time of prosperity. However, this next round of welfare reform must meet the challenges posed by an economic downturn which has disproportionately affected immigrants, women, people of color, and welfare leavers in low-skill, low-wage jobs. All families affected by the recession deserve a safety net, regardless of their citizenship. People must be equipped with the education and skills necessary to move from government assistance into jobs that will provide a living wage and offer opportunities for professional growth. People of color and those who do not speak English should be treated with dignity and not be discriminated against.

Unfortunately, progressive proposals to protect civil rights, improve educational programs, and address the root causes of poverty are constrained by budget shortfalls caused by Bush's tax cuts and war. Furthermore, the current wave of bipartisan patriotism sacrifices progress on much needed domestic policy in favor of extraordinary spending on foreign policy.

The only way to encourage legislators to be courageous in advocating for the poor, fearlessly opposing a president with absurdly high approval ratings, is through widespread pressure from constituents. Concerned citizens should also increase their support of local organizations that assist families living in poverty. If people get involved, raise their concerns, and support this nation's victims of economic and social injustice, this opportunity to reform welfare reform will not be squandered.

Check out these websites for more information about welfare reform:
http://www.welfareinfo.org
http://www.ctwo.org/growl/

---

Sean D. Thomas-Breitfeld is in the Lutheran Volunteer Corps, working on TANF reauthorization for a civil rights organization in Washington, DC.

Back to Top