Reality of Welfare.

[RandomGuy]

Myths and Facts About Welfare

The general public views poverty as the result of personal failures and deficiencies. This perception rests on several myths. The most prevalent are that poverty results from a lack of responsibility; welfare leads to chronic dependency; African American women make up the largest group of welfare recipients; welfare promotes single parenthood and out-of-wedlock births; welfare provides a disincentive to work; welfare creates a "culture of poverty" because recipients share and hand down to their children a set of defective behaviors, values, and personality traits; and welfare funds extravagant spending by welfare recipients (Ehrenreich, 1987; Katz, 1989). These myths of pathology translate directly to the debate of who deserves help. They also fuel powerful stereotypical racial and gender messages. It is mothers, especially African American and single mothers, who are viewed as undeserving. Unwed mothers are thought to have the choice of marriage and do not obtain the sympathy that widows have. Other groups that are perceived as undeserving are immigrants, especially if they are not fluent in English.

Even the term "welfare" has been pejorative, and distortions of facts about welfare perpetuate myths about public assistance and those who receive it. These negative myths and stereotypes reinforced the government's agenda in cutting welfare spending to those recipients viewed as undeserving. Reform will continue to be ineffective if those implementing it do not separate myth from fact.

Strategies for alleviating poverty and decisions about government spending continue to be closely linked to the perceived causes of poverty, as well as the extent to which these causes are perceived to be modifiable (Furnham, 1982). Poverty is seen as an individual problem or a social issue (such as education or crime) rather than an economic issue (such as unemployment and the economy)(Gallup, 1992). Consequently, solutions are geared toward fixing or punishing those individuals with the "problem." Little attention is focused on societal factors that may perpetuate under- and unemployment, such as inadequate education, transportation, child care, and mental health problems.

Myth: Poverty Results From a Lack of Responsibility

Fact: Poverty Results From Low Wages

Welfare programs have been our country's response to poverty, and everyone agrees that those programs have not solved the problem. Jared Bernstein (1996) of the Economic Policy Institute identifies wage decline as the crucial economic factor that has had the largest impact on poverty rates in the 1980s and 1990s. While hourly rates of pay have fallen for the majority of the workforce since the late 1970s, by far the largest losses have been for the lowest paid workers. According to Bernstein (1996), between 1979 and 1989, the male worker, for example, at the 10th percentile (meaning 90 percent of the male workforce earns more) saw his hourly wage decline 13 percent, and since 1989 he lost another 6 percent. For women workers at the 10th percentile, the decline over the 1980s was 18 percent. The low-wage female worker gained slightly since 1989, but by 1995, her hourly wage rate was $4.84, down from $5.82 in 1979 (all dollars are in 1995 inflation-adjusted terms).

Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients

Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget

Widespread misperception about the extent of welfare exacerbate the problems of poverty. The actual cost of welfare programs-about 1 percent of the federal budget and 2 percent of state budgets (McLaughlin, 1997)-is proportionally less than generally believed. During the 104th Congress, more than 93 percent of the budget reductions in welfare entitlements came from programs for low-income people (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1996). Ironically, middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive "welfare" in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude of other tax benefits. Yet these types of assistance carry no stigma and are rarely considered "welfare" (Goodgame, 1993). Anti-welfare sentiment appears to be related to attitudes about class and widely shared and socially sanctioned stereotypes about the poor. Racism also fuels negative attitudes toward welfare programs (Quadagno, 1994).

Myth: People on Welfare Become Permanently Dependent on the Support

Fact: Movement off Welfare Rolls Is Frequent

A prevalent welfare myth is that women who received AFDC became permanently dependent on public assistance. Analyses indicate that 56 percent of AFDC support ended within 12 months, 70 percent within 24 months, and almost 85 percent within 4 years (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). These exit rates clearly contradict the widespread myth that AFDC recipients wanted to remain on public assistance or that welfare dependency was permanent. Unfortunately, return rates were also high, with 45 percent of ex-recipients returning to AFDC within 1 year. Persons who were likely to use AFDC longer than the average time had less than 12 years of education, no recent work experience, were never married, had a child below age 3 or had three or more children, were Latina or African American, and were under age 24 (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). These risk factors illustrate the importance of structural barriers, such as inadequate child care, racism, and lack of education.

Myth: Most Welfare Recipients Are African American Women

Fact: Most Welfare Recipients Are Children-Most Women on Welfare Are White

Children, not women, are the largest group of people receiving public assistance. Less than 5 million of the 14 million public assistance recipients are adults, and 90 percent of those adults are women (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1995). The majority of the recipients are White (38 percent), followed by 37 percent African Americans, and 25 percent other minority groups (Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian Americans) (McLaughlin, 1997). However, African Americans are disproportionately represented on public assistance because they are only 12 percent of the population (O'Hare, Pollard, Mann, & Kent, 1991).

Myth: Welfare Encourages Out-of- Wedlock Births and Large Families

Fact: The Average Welfare Family Is No Bigger Than the Average Nonwelfare Family

The belief that single women are promiscuous and have large families to receive increased benefits has no basis in extant research, and single-parent families are not only a phenomenon of the poor (McFate, 1995). In fact, the average family size of welfare recipients has decreased from four in 1969 to 2.8 in 1994 (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). In 1994, 43 percent of welfare families consisted of one child, and 30 percent consisted of two children. Thus, the average welfare family is no larger than the average nonrecipient's family, and despite considerable public concern that welfare encourages out-of-wedlock births, a growing body of empirical evidence indicates that welfare benefits are not a significant incentive for childbearing (Wilcox, Robbennolt, O'Keeffe, & Pynchon, 1997).

Myth: Welfare Families Use Their Benefits to Fund Extravagance

Fact: Welfare Families Live Far Below the Poverty Line

The belief that welfare provides a disincentive to work by providing a well-paying "free ride" that enables recipients, stereotyped as "Cadillac queens," to purchase extravagant items with their benefits is another myth. In reality, recipients live considerably below the poverty threshold. Despite increased program spending, the average monthly family benefit, measured in 1995 dollars, fell from $713 in 1970 to $377 in 1995, a 47 percent drop. In 26 states, AFDC benefits alone fell 64 percent short of the 1996 poverty guidelines, and the addition of food stamps only reduced this gap to 35 percent (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996).

Despite the ready availability of facts, myths about welfare continue to be widespread. The media contributes to this lack of information. The media helps shape public perceptions about welfare recipients. The way in which a topic is reported can turn a neutral reader into an opinionated reader and can greatly influence public opinion. Although in an analysis of articles published in 10 major newspapers from January 1997 to April 1997, the tone was generally sympathetic to the poor, actual research and facts to counter myths were generally lacking (Wyche & Mattern, 1997).

Recommendations

1. Federal and state agencies should provide newspapers and other media with accurate information about welfare recipients and programs, including information on welfare reform.
2. Jobs need to pay better than welfare. Rather than focusing on welfare time limits, policy action at the state and federal levels must address reforming the low-wage labor market by raising wages and increasing the ability of low-wage workers to join unions and bargain collectively.
3. Public and private agencies should collaborate more effectively to promote and increase employment opportunities for women, especially of hard-to-place women.
4. States should provide training for case managers and other appropriate personnel to advocate for, support, and follow up with clients in ways that are not adversarial or punitive during their job search process.
5. States and federal agencies should fund and conduct research on the impact of the transition of mothers to work on the mother and the family and on what strategies best promote most positive outcomes for the mothers and their families.
6. States should require and fund formative and summative evaluations of proposed programs.

[RandomGuy]

Domestic Violence

Poor Women Are Often Battered Women

Women attempting to get off welfare and become economically independent face numerous obstacles. One of the most devastating is violence from intimate partners. Research increasingly and dramatically documents the pervasiveness of abuse against all women and the increased incidence among poor women, including welfare recipients. Violence, research shows, has a direct impact in keeping welfare recipients from holding jobs and becoming self-sufficient. For example, a recent study of a representative sample of welfare recipients in Massachusetts found that 65 percent were victims of violence by a current or former boyfriend or husband, and one-fifth had been victimized in the past 12 months (Colten & Allard, 1997). Similar results were found in a survey of welfare recipients in Washington State. There, 55 percent of the recipients reported being physically or sexually abused by a spouse or boyfriend (Roper & Weeks, 1993). Another study of 436 homeless and low-income housed mothers found that 63 percent reported assaults by intimate male partners (Bassuk, Browne, & Buckner, 1996a; Brooks & Buckner, 1996). This rate of intimate violence is substantially higher than that suffered by women in the general population, according to the National Crime Victimization Survey (Bachman & Saltzman, 1995).

Violence Is An Obstacle to Work

Job training providers report that a high proportion of women in welfare-to-work programs are being abused by their intimate partners. This abuse may take many forms, ranging from administering beatings to failing to fulfill child care responsibilities so that women cannot go to work (NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, 1997; Raphael, 1996). Disruptive and threatening actions by their intimate partners may sabotage women's efforts at financial independence, perhaps out of the partner's fear that the woman will leave the relationship or form other relationships at work (NOW Legal and Defense Fund, 1997). A 1997 study on intimate violence and Black women's health found that rates of severe partner violence are higher for low-income Black women than for higher income Black women. Black women who have unemployed husbands experience particularly high rates of severe violence (Russo, Denious, Keita, & Koss, 1997).

Violence interferes with work, job training, and education and thus undermines women's attempts at economic independence. In addition, pervasive violence may also leave women with physical injuries and psychological consequences that make work difficult. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and severe depression are common among victims of domestic violence (Koss, Goodman, Browne, Fitzgerald, Keita, & Russo, 1994; T.L. Weaver & Clum, 1995; Woods & Campbell, 1993). PTSD sufferers may feel helpless and terrified, experiencing flashbacks of the original trauma in recurrent and/or intrusive thoughts or dreams, have trouble sleeping and be unable to concentrate. Both physically and verbally abused women may experience PTSD; the more extensive the abuse, the greater the risk of PTSD (Kemp, Green, Hovanitz, & Rawlings, 1995).

Psychological control by the batterer, coupled with the demands of parenting and often by life in a dangerous neighborhood, isolates many victims of abuse (Bassuk et al., 1996a), leaving them without social and material support that could mitigate the psychological consequences of battering and could facilitate employment. Women need a range of psychological, medical, and social and legal services as they remove themselves from abusive relationships. Even after finding a safe environment, they need continuing psychological help to repair the damage to their self-esteem and to prepare them for job training and employment.

Some women may be unwilling to voluntarily identify themselves as victims. The Family Violence Option allows states to take the initiative to do the necessary screening. This initiative can save the lives of battered women, can help preserve their families, and can help them keep jobs and gain self-sufficiency.

Recommendations

1. States should adopt the Family Violence Option to the federal welfare law, which allows states to (a) screen welfare recipients for a history of domestic violence; (b) refer these individuals to counseling and support services; and (c) exempt individuals from certain requirements for as long as necessary when compliance would make it more difficult to escape a violent situation (Davis, 1996; Swarns, 1997).
2. States should grant extensions or temporary exemptions from time limits to welfare recipients who have experienced a history of domestic violence.
3. States should administer "good cause" exceptions which define domestic violence broadly without increasing the burden of proof upon the victim of abuse.
4. States should exempt young mothers living in abusive home environments from requirements that they live at home.
5. States should eliminate the two-tiered benefit system for welfare recipients who have relocated from other states to escape their abusers.
6. States should train job and employment staff to recognize domestic abuse among women applicants and should offer psychological services to women applicants identified as battered; this assistance is needed to support the efforts of these women to get training and to find and keep jobs.
7. States should protect battered women from benefit cuts as a result of reporting abuse by a live-in partner. This will mean a waiver of the rule attributing income of the man to the welfare recipient in states in which welfare benefits are available only to single-parent families.
8. States should establish "good cause" exemptions to requirements that paternity be established or child support enforced in situations in which it is likely to increase violence by or provoke retaliation from abusers.

[RandomGuy]

Education and Training

The Double Message About Education

President Clinton has stressed the importance of education for the nation's workforce and for national well-being-assuring us that his education proposals will improve access to higher education and reward academic achievement by including tuition tax deductions and tax credits for students who maintain a "B" average (Clinton reaffirms, 1997). By stark contrast, the new welfare law will drastically limit the number of recipients who can participate in education, and it specifically mandates a work first policy. Poor women on welfare will be required to take any available jobs, with extremely limited options for job training and none for higher education. Higher education has been one of the most promising pathways out of poverty. But the double message from policymakers seems to be that "yes," widely available education and training is critical, but "no," this critical education and training will not be available to those who need it the most-women on welfare.

Education has long been honored in our society as a route to social mobility and material security. In the past, policymakers gave opportunities for postsecondary education to such disadvantaged groups as minorities and war veterans. Millions of Americans continue to take advantage of "educational welfare" in the form of government scholarships, student loans, GI bills, work-study programs, and work-based continuing education programs. Tax benefits support parents who can set up college trusts for their children, college tuition breaks are available to advantaged families who can lock in tuition costs by prepaying, and free postsecondary education is available to affluent retirees who as "guest students" on college campuses across the country take tuition-free college courses. Yet policymakers have continued to ignore the potential education has to help welfare recipients achieve similar goals.

Inadequate preparation and training place women in a revolving door of welfare. They are never able to earn the income necessary to lift themselves and their families out of poverty or to even match the welfare payment. A head of a family who is a single earner and female faces almost impossible odds of raising her family out of poverty when it takes two wage earners just to make ends meet. When that single wage earner does not have adequate skills or education, the odds against her increase. As our economy grows more dependent on technology, a rise out of poverty increasingly depends on technical and professional skills available only through postsecondary education, be it college, advanced technical training, or both. For example, it is estimated that by the turn of the century, 50 percent of all new jobs will require a college education (Solomon, 1990).

More welfare recipients may be eligible for postsecondary education than is generally believed (Bane & Ellwood, 1994). About half of welfare recipients already have a high school education or a General Equivalency Diploma (GED)(Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1993). In fact, many are already involved in some higher education (Burghardt & Gordon, 1990; Burke-Tatum, 1988).

However, under the new law a student on welfare who wants and needs income must get a job, even if taking a job forces her to leave school. While the President is sounding the theme that the country needs a better educated workforce, caseworkers are telling welfare recipients to find jobs and drop out of college. It is estimated that community colleges will lose up to 60 percent of their welfare students as states are mandated to put larger proportions of their caseloads to work (Ritter, 1997).

The new law restricts the type of education and training that count as work up to 1 year of job training or vocational training, although it is up to the states to interpret the rules. States can be more restrictive than the federal guidelines require or more open in their interpretation. However, given the current political mood of the country, states are tending toward a narrow work first interpretation of the provisions of the law. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, Illinois, Kansas, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin have limited the access of welfare recipients to college, some by limiting recipients to short-term training programs or by limiting college attendance to 1 year only (Nine issues affecting higher education, 1997).

High school graduates make 20 percent higher wages than do dropouts and are more likely to have administrative support jobs and blue collar jobs requiring skills. However, this by itself does not protect against a return to welfare. Women welfare recipients with a high school education are far more likely than women with more education to go back on welfare. One study found that only a quarter of high school graduates and 15 percent of high school dropouts left welfare for a job lasting 18 months or longer (Pavetti, 1992). This is in large part because there are fewer and fewer low-paying jobs requiring minimum skills. At minimum wage and with no income assistance, a woman must work 60-70 hours a week for 50 weeks a year to squeak above the poverty threshold. Census data clearly show that earning college credits and attending college for even short periods of time have a positive impact on earned income.

Access to Postsecondary Education Changes Lives

College brings the same advantages to welfare recipients as it does to anyone else-financial independence and security, social status, and mobility. The work first approach discounts the important studies that document the amazing economic, personal, and familial success of women who, despite enormous odds and institutional barriers, finish postsecondary advanced training and get jobs providing adequate earnings.

While education does not eliminate gender and racial discrimination in the job market, the persistent gap between the pay of women and men decreases with more education. In 1990, a woman with a master's degree earned 69 percent of the average male salary, whereas a woman with a high school diploma or less education earned less than half the wage of a man employed at a comparable level (Greenberg, 1993). The median weekly earnings of women with college degrees was $453, compared with a median $308 in weekly earnings of women with high school diplomas. Both, of course, were considerably less than the $548 weekly median earning of men with high school diplomas. A woman who is head of a household, in particular, needs a college degree to earn a living family wage that approaches that of a man with a high school diploma (Blank, 1995). Although every year of additional education brings an increase in earnings, it is still difficult for a woman head of household without a college degree to find a stable job that pays enough to support a family on that one income alone. Only women with bachelor's degrees earn enough ($19,404) to raise a family of three much above the poverty threshold, which was $11,890 for a family of three in 1993 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1993).

Follow-up studies of minority recipients who have attended college show significant improvement in their jobs, salaries, finances, family life, and self-esteem (Gittell, Gross, & Holdaway, 1993; Gittell, Schehl, & Facri, 1990; Johnson, 1991; Kates, 1991). Most telling, research has found that only 21 percent of families headed by African American women with at least 1 year of postsecondary education were at the poverty level versus the much larger 51 percent for those families headed by African American women whose formal education ended with a high school degree. Thus, the poverty rate for African American women heads of household was cut in half with only 1 year of postsecondary schooling. Similarly, 41 percent of families headed by Latina high school graduates lived in poverty, but that number dropped to 18.5 percent when the mother had 1 year of postsecondary education. For White women, the number dropped from 22 percent to 13 percent (Sherman, 1990).

National survey data show that 40 percent to 50 percent of women who exited welfare returned within 2 years. Five years after leaving welfare, nearly 80 percent of women remained poor or near poor. However, women who had more postsecondary education were more likely to consistently escape poverty (Meyer & Cancian, 1997). Similarly, in a 1990 survey in New York state by Gittell and Associates, 88 percent of welfare respondents who returned to college and graduated had been employed since graduation; 45 percent were earning more than $20,000, and 7 percent were earning, over $30,000. All who had degrees were off welfare. Those with a 4-year degree began earning an average income of $23,017, and those with an associate's degree, $19,738. Over half had gone on to undertake additional training, and 22 percent were in graduate school. Most significantly, only 13 percent of the respondents were still on public assistance, and all of these individuals had young children (Gittell et al., 1990).

Almost the same results were found in a replication of the survey in five other widely varying states (Illinois, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wyoming). Across these states, 81 percent of female AFDC recipient college graduates had been continuously employed since graduation. When asked about what most helped them complete college, 90 percent listed financial aid as the single most important factor. The great majority of women were convinced that they could not have left welfare without their college degree, and it was college that enabled them to secure their present jobs (Gittell et al., 1993). Those who had completed a 4-year degree were the most likely to have left welfare for stable employment and adequate earnings to support a family.

One college counselor noted, given the great obstacles-personal, medical, and familial-and the institutional barriers these students face, "it is almost miraculous that any of our students graduate." Students who are on welfare may not be able to work or attend school because they cannot afford or find adequate child care or transportation or may be ill or disabled. Lack of money, time, or child care; sexual victimization; abusive relationships; substance abuse; and responsibility for sick and disabled relatives are common sources of stress among these students. Coping with family members who have been shot or killed or have AIDS is not uncommon (Hamilton, Brock, & Vargas, 1994; Polakow, 1993a; Raphael, 1996).

Special programs can greatly help women on public assistance succeed in postsecondary programs.

The City University of New York (CUNY) is one of the largest providers of higher education for people on public assistance. In 1993, 17 percent, or some 27,000 CUNY students, were on welfare or in families receiving welfare. For some of the CUNY colleges, up to 40 percent of their students were on welfare or from families on welfare. About 80 percent of these students were people of color, and 63 percent were women of color. Gittell et al. evaluated several special programs that were designed specifically for welfare recipients and that provided a mix of counseling, academic support, and financial aid. The students who were in programs that combined more rigorous requirements with more extensive services targeted to student needs did better than any other group of students. Students on welfare in all of these programs made above-average progress toward their degrees , which was not the case with welfare students not in programs.
Regardless of whether they participated in a special program, students on welfare accumulated credits toward their degrees at the same rate as students not on welfare, demonstrating their potential for success in college. Focus interviews on 13 campuses in 22 programs with hundreds of students turned up a clear consensus: They were eager to leave public assistance, and they were convinced that only higher education would ensure them stable employment and economic independence (Gittell, Vandersall, Holdaway, & Newman, 1996).

Empowering poor women through higher education not only improves their income and job prospects, but also positively affects their children.

Kates's (1991) study of welfare recipients in 28 states found that the college experience of the mothers has a profound effect on their children and that their own educational experiences helped to raise their children's desire and aspiration for college. Other studies in several states have consistently found similar results: that students on welfare report that their college experience has a significant and beneficial impact on the educational attitudes and aspirations of their own children and that the mother's level of education is a significant predictor of children's overall development and performance in school (Gittell et al., 1996; Kates, 1991; Quint, Musick, & Ladner, 1994; Zill, Moore, & Smith, 1991).

We have long understood that education is a powerful and dependable way to interrupt the intergenerational transmission of poverty. Individual mothers tell how that happens. Ninety-five percent of the students in one study said that the college experience had made them feel proud of themselves; they became more confident (90 percent), developed new insights into their abilities (85 percent), found their children were prouder of them (81 percent), and learned to better meet their children's needs (75 percent). They reported that they were better able to help their children with their homework, gave their children a more secure and safe home environment, and modeled reading and studying for their children. The children saw and experienced the direct results of their mother's motivation and work in school when she graduated and later found and kept a good job. The report concluded that-

"Without exception, every woman interviewed had a significant influence on at least one other person's education, ambition, or achievement, and the women with younger children [were] the most determined that their children [would] also go to college "(Gittell et al., 1990).

Low educational goals and low academic achievement are also positively associated with early initiation of sexual activity at a younger age, among both African American and White adolescents.

However, contrary to popular stereotype, no relationship has been documented between welfare per se and pregnancy; 77 poverty researchers signed a statement asserting that accumulated research indicates that "welfare has not played a major role in the rise of out-of-wedlock childbearing." Teenage pregnancy is, however, closely related to the absence of a future, of hope for anything beyond producing a child.

Job Training

Job training, remediation, and educational services are critical to ensure the success of the welfare-to-work transition for women on welfare.

The current labor market requires advanced technical skills, but welfare recipients are largely unskilled and therefore unable to secure jobs that will allow them to successfully support their families (Danziger & Danziger, 1995). They also often lack sufficient work experience and training. This is particularly true for longer term welfare recipients. Recent research indicates that among women who have been on welfare for 5 or more years, 50 percent have no work experience, and 63 percent have less than a high school degree (Pavetti, 1995).

Without job training and education, welfare mothers are often forced to work in jobs that require nontraditional work hours, a situation that further limits their child care options and taxes resources to pay for child care (Danziger & Danziger, 1995). Typically, welfare mothers are most likely to be employed as child care providers, waitresses, cleaners, orderlies, and attendants (U.S. Department of Labor, 1993). Single mothers are at high risk for being able to secure only part-time, minimum wage jobs, with poor opportunities for advancement, and the work options for women of color who are single are the most limited (Institute for Women's Policy Research [IWPR], 1995).

Middle-aged and older women and displaced homemakers face other work barriers. Most federal and state job training programs appear to overlook them (Butler & Weatherley, 1992). Older women have the additional disadvantage of having been bypassed by the computer age, and this technical illiteracy is a significant barrier to employment (Marsh, Pollan, McFadden, & Price, 1990). Therefore, many older, as well as younger, welfare recipients are likely to benefit from specific technical job training and reading instruction that is specific to targeted jobs and that promotes technical literacy.

Over the last 30 years, three strategies have been used to boost the employability of welfare recipients: financial incentives, requirements to search for and take jobs, and education and training programs. These three strategies, however, can only be successful when complemented by medical health insurance and earned income tax credits (Lerman, 1995), as well as quality child care.

The Institute on Women's Policy Research has shown that most mothers on welfare work, but they are unable to earn enough money to escape poverty, as their jobs are low paying, unstable, and do not offer health insurance and other benefits that would increase retention. For these families to escape poverty, they must be able to secure higher paying jobs with more benefits (Institute for Women's Policy Research, 1995).

More than 70 percent of mothers receiving assistance spend some time in the workforce, and those individuals not working are typically involved in the job search process. IWPR found that the most critical variables predicting successful work transition were the physical and emotional ability to work; living in states with good job availability and low unemployment; not having toddlers or infants (lower child care costs and reduced role strain); receiving child support and financial resources from other family members; and possessing the human capital of job training, that is previous labor force participation, and a high school education. IWPR concludes that job training and work incentives are beneficial and necessary, but not sufficient. Short-sighted attempts to lower welfare costs by placing restrictive time limits on food stamps, insurance, and financial resources will not successfully move mothers on welfare to work.

[RandomGuy]

Source is the Women's Program Office of the American Psychological Association website.

http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/homepage.html

[clambake]

but the Christian's call you a free-loader. ironic,huh?

[PEP]

Can you break all that down in 3 sentences?

[PixelPusher]

Can you break all that down in 3 sentences?
Americans don't like to read anything longer than a bumper sticker.
Americans don't like to think about any idea more complicated than can fit on a bumper sticker.
America is going to hell.

How's that?

[2centsworth]

Americans don't like to read anything longer than a bumper sticker.
Americans don't like to think about anything more complicated than fits on a bumper sticker.
America is going to hell.

How's that?

1. how about America is going bankrupt because of it's entitlement policies.
2. how about demagoging anti-entitlement as anti-poor demonstrates
how small your brain really is.
3. as for demonizing christians, see number 2.

[PEP]

Americans don't like to read anything longer than a bumper sticker.
Americans don't like to think about any idea more complicated than can fit on a bumper sticker.
America is going to hell.

How's that?

Yes except the last sentence.

[2centsworth]

but the Christian's call you a free-loader. ironic,huh?

the dude is a free-loader and it's people like him who are primary examples of what's wrong with welfare. Nevertheless, welfare as it stands is not as big of a problem as MOST "REPUBLICANS" make it out to be. It's Medicare and social security that are the problem. That no political party will touch, so that's why a zillion times I've posted that I'm a pessimist about the our fiscal future. I'm not exagerrating neither, there's no chance we get out of this without the worst depression in our history which will probably result in a totalitarian shift in government

[Don Quixote]

but the Christians call you a free-loader. ironic,huh?

What does this have to do with Christianity? There are lots of Christians that are for a welfare state.

[SPARKY]

It's amusing how spending other people's money is the new measure of compassion.

[PixelPusher]

1. how about America is going bankrupt because of it's entitlement policies.
2. how about demagoging anti-entitlement as anti-poor demonstrates
how small your brain really is.
3. as for demonizing christians, see number 2.

^a perfect example of a fine, upstanding American who doesn't like to read or think; otherwise he wouldn't have assigned religious and political ideology to a neutral statement regarding America's capacity to read and think.

[Don Quixote]

Americans don't like to read anything longer than a bumper sticker.
Americans don't like to think about any idea more complicated than can fit on a bumper sticker.


Oo oo oo . You smart. Me stupid.

[Don Quixote]

So, RandomDude. What is your conclusion? And what do you propose we do about welfare?

[jochhejaam]

The Stubborn Welfare State
By Robert Samuelson

WASHINGTON -- Spend a moment studying the small table below. It illuminates why another of our annual budget battles -- begun last week, when President Bush submitted his 2008 proposal -- seems so fruitless and (yes) repetitious. Every year we hear complaints about accounting gimmicks and unrealistic assumptions. There's a ferocious crossfire of charges and countercharges. Hardly anything ever gets resolved. Budgets almost always remain in deficit (41 out of 47 years since 1960).

The table shows the rise of the American welfare state. In 1956, defense dominated the budget; the Cold War buildup was in full swing. The welfare state, which is what "payments to individuals'' signifies, was modest. Now everything is reversed. Despite the war in Iraq, defense spending is only a fifth of the budget; so-called entitlement payments to individuals are almost 60 percent -- and rising. In fiscal 2006, the federal government spent almost $2.7 trillion. Social Security ($544 billion), Medicare ($374 billion) and Medicaid ($181 billion) dominated. There was $199 billion more for payments to the poor, including the earned-income tax credit and food stamps, among others.

Almost no one wants to slash these programs. They have huge constituencies; they're popular. Paradoxically, their invulnerability and size also protect much of the rest of the budget. Look again at the table. After payments to individuals, defense spending and interest on the debt (which must be paid), only about a seventh of the budget remains. Many of these remaining programs are widely supported. Does anyone really want to end the National Institutes of Health at $28 billion? Or how about the $41 billion we spend to support federal courts, prosecutors and police (the FBI, DEA, border patrol)?

Of course, some programs are wasteful, ineffective or outmoded. My favorite example is Amtrak, which serves a tiny number of passengers, is concentrated in the Northeast and costs $1.3 billion annually. But politically, ending programs like this is hardly worth the trouble. The bad publicity of antagonizing aggrieved advocates -- here, railroad buffs and maybe environmentalists -- is too high for the small budget savings. In a nearly $3 trillion budget, even 10 Amtraks are a footnote.

The welfare state has made budgeting an exercise in futility. Both liberals and conservatives, in their own ways, peddle phony solutions. Cut waste, say conservatives. Well, network-TV reports of $20 million federal programs that don't work may seem -- and be -- scandalous, but like Amtrak they're usually mere blips on the total budget. For its 2008 budget, the Bush administration brags it would end or sharply reduce 141 programs. But most are microscopic; total savings would be $12 billion, or 0.4 percent of spending. Worse, Congress has previously rejected some of these cuts.

Liberals have their own cures. Cut defense, some say. OK. In 2006, military spending (including the war in Iraq) totaled $520 billion, slightly less than Social Security. If it had been halved, the savings would have just covered the deficit ($248 billion). Little would be left for new programs. Raise taxes on the richest 1 percent, say some. OK. The richest 1 percent pay about a quarter of all federal taxes. In 2006, that was about $600 billion. To cover the deficit would require about a 40 percent tax increase. Needless to say, neither proposal is politically plausible.

Annual budget debates are sterile -- long on rhetoric, short on action -- because each side blames the other for a situation that neither chooses to change. To cut spending significantly, conservatives would have to go after popular welfare programs, including Social Security and Medicare. To raise taxes significantly, liberals would have to go after the upper-middle class, a constituency they covet (two-thirds of all federal taxes come from the richest fifth). Deficits persist, because neither side risks its popularity, and indeed, both sides pursue popularity with new spending programs and tax breaks.

It might help if Americans called welfare programs -- current benefits for select populations, paid for by current taxes -- by their proper name, rather than by the soothing (and misleading) labels of "entitlements'' and "social insurance.'' That way, we might ask ourselves who deserves welfare and why.

We could consider all of federal spending and not just small bits of it. But most Americans don't want to admit that they are current or prospective welfare recipients. They prefer to think that they automatically deserve whatever they've been promised simply because the promises were made. Americans do not want to pose the basic questions, and their political leaders mirror that reluctance. This makes the welfare state immovable and the budget situation intractable.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/americans_should_take_the_budg.html

[RandomGuy]

This message is hidden because 2centsworth is on your ignore list.

I will take a wild leap and say that 2cents hasn't said anything worth responding to.

I am flattered for the attention though. :toast

[RandomGuy]

Can you break all that down in 3 sentences?


Myth: People on Welfare Become Permanently Dependent on the Support, Fact: Movement off Welfare Rolls Is Frequent


Myth: People on Welfare Become Permanently Dependent on the Support, Fact: Movement off Welfare Rolls Is Frequent


Myth: Welfare Encourages Out-of- Wedlock Births and Large Families, Fact: The Average Welfare Family Is No Bigger Than the Average Nonwelfare Family


Myth: Welfare Families Use Their Benefits to Fund Extravagance, Fact: Welfare Families Live Far Below the Poverty Line

People like to believe a lot of things that aren't true and don't stand up to the actual data that is available. I think this is more because people like to feel better about themselves than the fact that they have actually studied the problem of poverty in this country, or done any real reading on the subject.

[RandomGuy]

The Stubborn Welfare State
By Robert Samuelson

WASHINGTON -- Spend a moment studying the small table below. It illuminates why another of our annual budget battles -- begun last week, when President Bush submitted his 2008 proposal -- seems so fruitless and (yes) repetitious. Every year we hear complaints about accounting gimmicks and unrealistic assumptions. There's a ferocious crossfire of charges and countercharges. Hardly anything ever gets resolved. Budgets almost always remain in deficit (41 out of 47 years since 1960).

The table shows the rise of the American welfare state. In 1956, defense dominated the budget; the Cold War buildup was in full swing. The welfare state, which is what "payments to individuals'' signifies, was modest. Now everything is reversed. Despite the war in Iraq, defense spending is only a fifth of the budget; so-called entitlement payments to individuals are almost 60 percent -- and rising. In fiscal 2006, the federal government spent almost $2.7 trillion. Social Security ($544 billion), Medicare ($374 billion) and Medicaid ($181 billion) dominated. There was $199 billion more for payments to the poor, including the earned-income tax credit and food stamps, among others.

Almost no one wants to slash these programs. They have huge constituencies; they're popular. Paradoxically, their invulnerability and size also protect much of the rest of the budget. Look again at the table. After payments to individuals, defense spending and interest on the debt (which must be paid), only about a seventh of the budget remains. Many of these remaining programs are widely supported. Does anyone really want to end the National Institutes of Health at $28 billion? Or how about the $41 billion we spend to support federal courts, prosecutors and police (the FBI, DEA, border patrol)?

Of course, some programs are wasteful, ineffective or outmoded. My favorite example is Amtrak, which serves a tiny number of passengers, is concentrated in the Northeast and costs $1.3 billion annually. But politically, ending programs like this is hardly worth the trouble. The bad publicity of antagonizing aggrieved advocates -- here, railroad buffs and maybe environmentalists -- is too high for the small budget savings. In a nearly $3 trillion budget, even 10 Amtraks are a footnote.

The welfare state has made budgeting an exercise in futility. Both liberals and conservatives, in their own ways, peddle phony solutions. Cut waste, say conservatives. Well, network-TV reports of $20 million federal programs that don't work may seem -- and be -- scandalous, but like Amtrak they're usually mere blips on the total budget. For its 2008 budget, the Bush administration brags it would end or sharply reduce 141 programs. But most are microscopic; total savings would be $12 billion, or 0.4 percent of spending. Worse, Congress has previously rejected some of these cuts.

Liberals have their own cures. Cut defense, some say. OK. In 2006, military spending (including the war in Iraq) totaled $520 billion, slightly less than Social Security. If it had been halved, the savings would have just covered the deficit ($248 billion). Little would be left for new programs. Raise taxes on the richest 1 percent, say some. OK. The richest 1 percent pay about a quarter of all federal taxes. In 2006, that was about $600 billion. To cover the deficit would require about a 40 percent tax increase. Needless to say, neither proposal is politically plausible.

Annual budget debates are sterile -- long on rhetoric, short on action -- because each side blames the other for a situation that neither chooses to change. To cut spending significantly, conservatives would have to go after popular welfare programs, including Social Security and Medicare. To raise taxes significantly, liberals would have to go after the upper-middle class, a constituency they covet (two-thirds of all federal taxes come from the richest fifth). Deficits persist, because neither side risks its popularity, and indeed, both sides pursue popularity with new spending programs and tax breaks.

It might help if Americans called welfare programs -- current benefits for select populations, paid for by current taxes -- by their proper name, rather than by the soothing (and misleading) labels of "entitlements'' and "social insurance.'' That way, we might ask ourselves who deserves welfare and why.

We could consider all of federal spending and not just small bits of it. But most Americans don't want to admit that they are current or prospective welfare recipients. They prefer to think that they automatically deserve whatever they've been promised simply because the promises were made. Americans do not want to pose the basic questions, and their political leaders mirror that reluctance. This makes the welfare state immovable and the budget situation intractable.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/americans_should_take_the_budg.html

In Fiscal Year 2006, the U. S. Government spent $406 Billion of your money on interest payments* to the holders of the National Debt. Compare that to NASA at $15 Billion, Education at $61 Billion, and Department of Transportation at $56 Billion.

Heh, there is something in the budget to piss everybody off. Welcome to democracy.:lol

[RandomGuy]

The Stubborn Welfare State
By Robert Samuelson
Annual budget debates are sterile -- long on rhetoric, short on action -- because each side blames the other for a situation that neither chooses to change. To cut spending significantly, conservatives would have to go after popular welfare programs, including Social Security and Medicare. To raise taxes significantly, liberals would have to go after the upper-middle class, a constituency they covet (two-thirds of all federal taxes come from the richest fifth). Deficits persist, because neither side risks its popularity, and indeed, both sides pursue popularity with new spending programs and tax breaks.

... and there is the problem in a nutshell.

Lord help a moderate who steps in and suggests comprimise...

[RandomGuy]

So, RandomDude. What is your conclusion? And what do you propose we do about welfare?

Astonishingly, welfare per se is a rather tiny component of the overall federal budget, as the OP points out.

Budget hawks, like the author of the article that joccejaam posted, like to add in Social Security to the federal budget to get the % of entitlement programs as high as possible to spin their viewpoint.

They also seem to ignore that the vast majority of government spending goes right back out into the economy. The government must still buy electricity, office supplies, vehicles, nuts and bolts, government employees still pay mortgages, buy groceries, etc.

In macroeconomics, government spending is actually a term in the equation that describes GDP and GDP growth. If government spending were actually a drag on the economy, as many would have us believe, that term would have a factor multiplier less than one, i.e. ".95G". It doesn't. It is simply "G".

(GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)) read more here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product)

As we see here just in this thread, a lot of what people think about government seems to be from emotions rather than data.

Personally, I would prefer that we simply suck it up, both raise taxes and cap spending, especially on defense weapons projects, for about 5 to 10 years, in order to pay down the overall debt.

Another goal would be making earmarks and pork a LOT more transparent.

There are a lot of other things we could do that would provide overall boosts to the economy, but that is for other threads, and I have made the case for those solutions there.

[101A]

Myth: People on Welfare Become Permanently Dependent on the Support, Fact: Movement off Welfare Rolls Is Frequent

As is there returning to the welfare rolls; admitted in the piece. 45% who come off are back on w/in a year. How big is the number after 4? (which is the time frame the author so proudly takes his premise out to). I'm betting in approaches, or exceeds the 85% number that supports his hypothesis.


Myth: Welfare Encourages Out-of- Wedlock Births and Large Families, Fact: The Average Welfare Family Is No Bigger Than the Average Nonwelfare Family


O.K. He didn't answer the question; he simply gave a size comparison; as in, the average welfare family is the same SIZE as the average non-welfare family. Does it include a father? If it doesn't, and as I suspect, the "average" welfare family doesn't include a father, then, in fact, the average welfare family has an additional child.


Myth: Welfare Families Use Their Benefits to Fund Extravagance, Fact: Welfare Families Live Far Below the Poverty Line

Isn't the poverty line defined by income? By definition anyone on welfare is not going to be over the poverty line. Silly argument. I'll use my poor brother in law as my single anecdote again....has a late model car, high speed internet, and a satellite; two T.V.'s and his own house (such as it is).

Certainly not extravagent, but in his own words, "I'm happy with my standard of living." He is NOT being encouraged to get a job.

Also, regarding salaries....as I understand it, inflation, after a long hiatus is beginning to creep back into the picture.

When did we raise the minimum wage? What did conservatives warn about that? I know, it's just a coincidence, nothing to see here.

[RandomGuy]

The City University of New York (CUNY) is one of the largest providers of higher education for people on public assistance. In 1993, 17 percent, or some 27,000 CUNY students, were on welfare or in families receiving welfare. For some of the CUNY colleges, up to 40 percent of their students were on welfare or from families on welfare. About 80 percent of these students were people of color, and 63 percent were women of color. Gittell et al. evaluated several special programs that were designed specifically for welfare recipients and that provided a mix of counseling, academic support, and financial aid. The students who were in programs that combined more rigorous requirements with more extensive services targeted to student needs did better than any other group of students. Students on welfare in all of these programs made above-average progress toward their degrees, which was not the case with welfare students not in programs.

Regardless of whether they participated in a special program, students on welfare accumulated credits toward their degrees at the same rate as students not on welfare, demonstrating their potential for success in college. Focus interviews on 13 campuses in 22 programs with hundreds of students turned up a clear consensus: They were eager to leave public assistance, and they were convinced that only higher education would ensure them stable employment and economic independence (Gittell, Vandersall, Holdaway, & Newman, 1996).

[101A]

Regardless of whether they participated in a special program, students on welfare accumulated credits toward their degrees at the same rate as students not on welfare, demonstrating their potential for success in college. Focus interviews on 13 campuses in 22 programs with hundreds of students turned up a clear consensus: They were eager to leave public assistance, and they were convinced that only higher education would ensure them stable employment and economic independence (Gittell, Vandersall, Holdaway, & Newman, 1996).

No crap, they were able to accumulate credits at the same pace as people who were working AND attending school? Amazing.

[RandomGuy]

No crap, they were able to accumulate credits at the same pace as people who were working AND attending school? Amazing.

Indeed.

Without removing the barrier of childcare, I wonder how they would have fared?

Remember a lot of people in these programs have children to support and care for, their peers didn't.

Give people the tools to improve themselves, and, not astonishingly, they do.

[RandomGuy]

The ultimate productive capacity of any economy is in people.

Invest in human capital, and reap the rewards. Fail to invest, and you will also reap what you sow.

Anyhoo, I gotta get to work. Be back on my lunch break.

[101A]

The ultimate productive capacity of any economy is in people.

Invest in human capital, and reap the rewards. Fail to invest, and you will also reap what you sow.

Anyhoo, I gotta get to work. Be back on my lunch break.


Sounds great, the problem is that history has demonstrated, time and again, that allowing people to reep the rewards of their individual productivity and ingenuity, by far, is the greatest engine for an economy's productivity. I have not seen a cost/benefit study of public assistance/investment that shows such correlation.

[Extra Stout]

I didn't know that RandomGuy was an unmarried white woman.

[RandomGuy]

Sounds great, the problem is that history has demonstrated, time and again, that allowing people to reep the rewards of their individual productivity and ingenuity, by far, is the greatest engine for an economy's productivity.

That's pretty much what I said.

Allowing people to invest in themselves and their children can only benefit us as a nation.

[RandomGuy]

Sounds great, the problem is that history has demonstrated, time and again, that allowing people to reep the rewards of their individual productivity and ingenuity, by far, is the greatest engine for an economy's productivity. I have not seen a cost/benefit study of public assistance/investment that shows such correlation.

Tax benefits support parents who can set up college trusts for their children, college tuition breaks are available to advantaged families who can lock in tuition costs by prepaying, and free postsecondary education is available to affluent retirees who as "guest students" on college campuses across the country take tuition-free college courses. Yet policymakers have continued to ignore the potential education has to help welfare recipients achieve similar goals.

[RandomGuy]

I have not seen a cost/benefit study of public assistance/investment that shows such correlation.


a student on welfare who wants and needs income must get a job, even if taking a job forces her to leave school. While the President is sounding the theme that the country needs a better educated workforce, caseworkers are telling welfare recipients to find jobs and drop out of college. It is estimated that community colleges will lose up to 60 percent of their welfare students as states are mandated to put larger proportions of their caseloads to work (Ritter, 1997).

[RandomGuy]

New Jersey reluctantly releases welfare study (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3693/is_/ai_n8762364)


The study concludes that additional cash benefits have no effect on the birth rate of women who receive public assistance. Mothers who received extra benefits per child and those whose monthly benefits remained the same had equal birth rates.

[RandomGuy]

Iowa Welfare Study Shows Mixed Results (http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=14678)


80 percent of the heads of families found employment shortly after leaving welfare, but one in four of these was no longer working 12 months later...

Why did people on welfare lose the jobs they had? Kauff says the primary reason was due to physical or mental health problems. To combat the job loss, "policymakers will need to pay attention to that [factor] as well as child care and transportation," she says

[RandomGuy]

The Labor Market Consequences of an Inadequate Education (http://www.tc.columbia.edu/centers/EquitySymposium/symposium/presentation.asp?PresId=3)


Summary:
“The income and tax revenue losses associated with a lack of high school completion are already large… While it is difficult and expensive to improve educational attainment among those at-risk of not completing high school, as a society it will also become increasingly costly not to.”

A high school dropout earns about $260,000 over a lifetime than a high school graduate and pays about $60,000 less in taxes.
Annual losses exceed $50 billion in federal and state income taxes for all 23,000,000 U.S. high school dropouts ages 18-67 -- enough to cover the annual discretionary expenditures of the U.S. Department of Education.
America loses $192 billion – 1.6% of GDP -- in combined income and tax revenue losses with each cohort of 18 year olds who never complete high school. Increasing the educational attainment of that cohort by one year would recoup nearly half those losses.

[RandomGuy]

I didn't know that RandomGuy was an unmarried white woman.

??

[Don Quixote]

She's black.

[RandomGuy]

She's black.

Damn, you ferreted out my real identity. I am Cleopatra Jones.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/58/Tamaradobson-cleopatrajones.jpg/200px-Tamaradobson-cleopatrajones.jpg

Let me know where Doodlebug is and no one gets hurt. I'm gonna school that sucka.

[101A]

The Labor Market Consequences of an Inadequate Education (http://www.tc.columbia.edu/centers/EquitySymposium/symposium/presentation.asp?PresId=3)


Ah yes, the static world of the economist.

IF EVERYONE had a college degree, hell, a Masters degree - some people would still have to have the shit jobs. Then you'd have to find a different criteria on which to base lifetime earnings shortfalls.

Those kinds of studies are silly.


As my wife is a professor at a large state school in PA - one that is not particularly selective, believe me when I say that right now we are graduating many many people from college who aren't going to make all that much money. The trends you cite are going to change. People without the academic fortitude to earn a degree are getting them anyway; professors are dumbing down classes - standards are lowering. The schism between high school and college graduates in terms of income earning potential is going to shift to college degrees from schools that offer, basically 13 - 17 grade, and real universities. Tradesmen, however, are going to make out real good.

I'd also like to see the disparity between people that graduated from private vs. public schools. Bet it's dramatic.

[xrayzebra]

RG, what is the real purpose of welfare? No where in all the
items you have posted does it spell it out. Is it suppose to be from
cradle to grave. A helping hand. Tell me what you think the purpose
of welfare should be.

[RandomGuy]

I'd also like to see the disparity between people that graduated from private vs. public schools. Bet it's dramatic.


Would that be a function of the school, or a function of the income level of the parents?

Poverty tends to be "sticky" for the reasons outlined in the article.

Yes, people still will have to do crappy jobs. But people with kids should be given every opportunity to get out of poverty, because those kids will be tomorrows criminals that require $50k per year each in prison costs.

Republitards don't want to spend tax money on poor kids, but will throw trillions at a prison system without batting an eyelash.

Seems to me that this is a very inefficient use of money.