The Shocking Success of Welfare Reform
1998; Hoover Institution; Issue: 87 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
0146-5945
Autores Tópico(s)Gender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
ResumoNear end of Losing Ground, his seminal 1984 book on poverty and welfare policy, Charles Murray lamented that the political systemAEs tolerance for [welfare] reform is extremely limited. . . . The number of aepolitically feasibleAE changes that would make much difference is approximately zero. What a difference a decade makes. Nationwide number of welfare cases has fallen by more than a quarter since peak of March 1994, and over last 18 months fall in caseload has accelerated to about 1 percent per month as more state welfare-reform plans take hold. It is important to keep in mind that welfare rolls swelled rapidly during early 1990s, so many states are just now returning to level before caseload surged. But reductions in early reform states such as Wisconsin, where caseload has fallen by 55 percent since 1993, show that even further progress is possible. (See Robert Rector, Welfare Miracle, Policy Review, March--April 1997.) Over past 18 months, several other states with large caseloads have begun to emerge as welfare-reform success stories, including Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida (see table). The magnitude and speed of caseload reduction in these leading states has exceeded expectations of even most optimistic reformers. Some skeptics suggest that booming U.S. economy and low unemployment are responsible for shrinking welfare caseload, but they forget that economic boom of 1980s barely dented welfare rolls. Clearly something else is going on. The Sine Qua Non These impressive results are being achieved for one big reason and a lot of small ones. The big reason is that presumption of welfare as an entitlement, with implicit (and often explicit) disdain for work ethic, has been reversed. Moreover, welfare reform is revitalizing faith-based and other private voluntary organizations whose role in fighting poverty had been eclipsed by expansion of welfare entitlement system in 1960s. The small reasons are various individual features of state reform plans themselves. Above all, most successful state reform programs have two features in common: a serious commitment to immediate work or real job training, and a person in charge of program with a serious commitment to transforming welfare. This leadership from top has been crucial to every successful effort. WisconsinAEs team effort began with Governor Tommy Thompson; other key members of this effort include Jason Turner and Jean Rogers (the former and current administrators of WisconsinAEs program, respectively). In Mississippi, was Larry Temple, director of Human Services Department (now head of welfare program in Texas); in Oregon, Adult and Family Services Director Sandra Hoback (with strong private sector help from American Institute for Full Employment, based in Klamath Falls, Oregon); in Tennessee, was Leonard Bradley, policy adviser to Governor Don Sundquist who helped design TennesseeAEs program, and Linda Rudolph, commissioner of Department of Human Services, which implemented plan. And there are hundreds more unsung individuals at lower levels of system who will emerge as heroes of welfare reform in fullness of time. The general political climate in 1990s of ending welfare as we know it has prompted many able-bodied recipients to get off welfare rolls and onto payrolls since before welfare reform passed Congress last year. That may explain why some studies appear to find little overall statistical correlation between caseload reductions and particular features of state reform plans. Many states have probably reaped an easy windfall from early reform efforts of trailblazers such as Wisconsin. The changing nomenclature of social-service industry reflects emphasis on work and personal responsibility that has been central to welfare-reform debate. …
Referência(s)