Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "26412376",
    "label": "Welfare - Media (General)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26412376"
}

{
    "id": "26412376",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26412376",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Welfare - Media (General)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26412376",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
        "Cynthia Rice's Subject Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/76/4123/26412376/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2009-1414-S/2009-1414-S-JPG/Box_051/42-t-647851-20091414-S-051-023-2015/42_t_647851_20091414_S_051_023_2015_Page_001.JPG",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/76/4123/26412376/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2009-1414-S/2009-1414-S-JPG/Box_051/42-t-647851-20091414-S-051-023-2015/42_t_647851_20091414_S_051_023_2015_Page_001.JPG",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/76/4123/26412376/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2009-1414-S/2009-1414-S-JPG/Box_051/42-t-647851-20091414-S-051-023-2015/42_t_647851_20091414_S_051_023_2015_Page_001.JPG",
    "imageCount": 43,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26412376",
    "naId": 26412376,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "otherTitles": [
        "42-t-647851-20091414-S-051-023-2015"
    ],
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 43,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/76/4123/26412376/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2009-1414-S/2009-1414-S-PDF/Box_051/42-t-647851-20091414-S-051-023-2015.pdf",
    "mediaId": "d131bdb555fb6aed",
    "ocrText": "THE WORST THING BILL CLINTON HAS DONE\nhttp://www.theatlantic.c\na\n:/issues/97\n'edelman/edelman.htm\nDownload reliable\nClick here\nAT&T WorldNet*Service Software here.\nThe Atlantic Monthly\nMARCH 1997\nCover\nTHE WORST THING\nAtlantic\nUnbound\nBILL CLINTON HAS DONE\nThe Atlantic\nMonthly\nA Clinton appointee who resigned in protest over\nPost & Riposte\nthe new welfare law explains why it is so bad and suggests\nAtlantic Store\nhow its worst effects could be mitigated\nSearch\nby Peter Edelman\nSite Map\nI\nHATE welfare. To be more\nprecise, I hate the welfare\nsystem we had until last\nAugust, when Bill Clinton signed a\nhistoric bill ending \"welfare as we\nknow it.\" It was a system that\ncontributed to chronic dependency\namong large numbers of people\nwho would be the first to say they\nwould rather have a job than\ncollect a welfare check every month -- and its benefits were\nnever enough to lift people out of poverty. In April of 1967 I\nhelped Robert Kennedy with a speech in which he called the\nwelfare system bankrupt and said it was hated universally, by\npayers and recipients alike. Criticism of welfare for not helping\npeople to become self-supporting is nothing new.\nBut the bill that President Clinton signed is not welfare reform.\nIt does not promote work effectively, and it will hurt millions\nof poor children by the time it is fully implemented. What's\nmore, it bars hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants --\nincluding many who have worked in the United States for\ndecades and paid a considerable amount in Social Security and\nincome taxes -- from receiving disability and old-age assistance\nand food stamps, and reduces food-stamp assistance for\nmillions of children in working families.\nFrom the archives:\nWhen the President was campaigning for re-election last fall,\nhe promised that if re-elected he would undertake to fix the\n\"The Best of\nflaws in the bill. We are now far enough into his second term\nIntentions, the Worst\nto look at the validity of that promise, by assessing its initial\n1 of 21\n03/09/97 18:52:05\nTHE WORST THING BILL CLINTON HAS DONE\nhttp://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/issues/97mar/edelman/cdelman.htm\nof Results\" by Irving\ncredibility and examining what has happened since.\nKristol (1971). \"One\nwonders how many\nwhite middle-class\nI resigned as the assistant secretary for planning and evaluation\nfamilies would survive\nat the Department of Health and Human Services last\nif mother and children\nSeptember, because of my profound disagreement with the\nwere guaranteed the\nwelfare bill. At the time, I confined my public statement to two\nfather's income (or\nsentences, saying only that I had worked as hard as I could\nmore) without the\nfather's presence? And\nover the past thirty-plus years to reduce poverty and that in my\nhow many white\nopinion this bill moved in the opposite direction. My judgment\nmiddle-class fathers\nwas that it was important to make clear the reasons for my\nwould, under these\nresignation but not helpful to politicize the issue further during\ncircumstances, persist\nan election campaign. And I did want to see President Clinton\nat their\nnot-always-interesting\nre-elected. Worse is not better, in my view, and Bob Dole\njobs?\"\nwould certainly have been worse on a wide range of issues,\nespecially if coupled with a Republican Congress.\n\"The Key to\nWelfare Reform\" by\nI feel free to speak out in more detail now, not to tell tales out\nDavid Whitman\nof school but to clarify some of the history and especially to\n(1987). Whitman\nargued that that getting\nunderscore the damage the bill will do and explain why the bill\nlong-term recipients off\nwill be hard to fix in any fundamental way for a long time to\nthe rolls is the only way\ncome. It is also important to understand what is being done\nto reduce\nand could be done to minimize the damage in the short run,\npublic-assistance costs\nand what would be required for a real \"fix\": a strategy to\nprevent poverty and thus reduce the need for welfare in the\nDiscuss this article\nfirst place.\nin The Body\nPolitic.\nFour questions are of interest now. Did the President have to\nsign the bill? How bad is it really, and how can the damage be\nminimized as the states move to implement it? Can it be fixed\nin this Congress? What would a real fix be, and what would it\ntake to make that happen?\nDID THE PRESIDENT HAVE TO SIGN THE\nBILL?\nW\nAS the President in a tight political box in late July,\nwhen he had to decide whether to sign or veto? At\nthe time, there was polling data in front of him\nshowing that very few people were likely to change their\nintended vote in either direction if he vetoed the bill. But even\nif he accurately foresaw a daily pounding from Bob Dole that\nwould ultimately draw political blood, the real point is that the\nPresident's quandary was one of his own making. He had put\nhimself there, quite deliberately and by a series of steps that he\nhad taken over a long period of time.\nGovernor Clinton campaigned in 1992 on the promise to \"end\n2 of 21\n03/09/97 18:52:05\nTHE WORST THING BILL CLINTON HAS DONE\nhttp://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/issues/9/mar/edelman/edelman.hm\nwelfare as we know it\" and the companion phrase \"Two years\nand you're off.\" He knew very well that a major piece of\nwelfare-reform legislation, the Family Support Act, had\nalready been passed, in 1988. As governor of Arkansas he had\nbeen deeply involved in the enactment of that law, which was\nbased on extensive state experimentation with new\nwelfare-to-work initiatives in the 1980s, especially GAIN in\nCalifornia. The 1988 law represented a major bipartisan\ncompromise. The Democrats had given in on work\nrequirements in return for Republican concessions on\nsignificant federal funding for job training, placement\nactivities, and transitional child care and health coverage.\nThe Family Support Act had not been fully implemented,\npartly because not enough time had passed and partly because\nin the recession of the Bush years the states had been unable to\nprovide the matching funds necessary to draw down their full\nshare of job-related federal money. Candidate Clinton ought\nresponsibly to have said that the Family Support Act was a\nmajor piece of legislation that needed more time to be fully\nimplemented before anyone could say whether it was a success\nor a failure.\nInstead Clinton promised to end\nwelfare as we know it and to\ninstitute what sounded like a\ntwo-year time limit. This was\nbumper-sticker politics --\noversimplification to win votes.\nPolls during the campaign showed\nthat it was very popular, and a\nsalient item in garnering votes.\nClinton's slogans were also\ncleverly ambiguous. On the one\nhand, as President, Clinton could\ntake a relatively liberal path that\nwas nonetheless consistent with his campaign rhetoric. In 1994\nhe proposed legislation that required everyone to be working\nby the time he or she had been on the rolls for two years. But\nit also said, more or less in the fine print, that people who\nplayed by the rules and couldn't find work could continue to\nget benefits within the same federal-state framework that had\nexisted since 1935. The President didn't say so, but he was\nbuilding -- quite incrementally and on the whole responsibly --\non the framework of the Family Support Act. On the other\nhand, candidate Clinton had let his listeners infer that he\nintended radical reform with real fall-off-the-cliff time limits.\nHe never said so explicitly, though, so his liberal flank had\n3 of 21\n03/09/97 18:52:06\nTHE WORST THING BILL CLINTON HAS DONE\nhttp://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/issues/97mar/edelman/edeiman.htm\nnothing definitive to criticize. President Clinton's actual 1994\nproposal was based on a responsible interpretation of what\ncandidate Clinton had said.\nCandidate Clinton, however, had let a powerful genie out of\nthe bottle. During his first two years it mattered only insofar as\nhis rhetoric promised far more than his legislative proposal\nactually offered. When the Republicans gained control of\nCongress in 1994, the bumper-sticker rhetoric began to\nmatter. So you want time limits? the Republicans said in 1995.\nGood idea. We'll give you some serious time limits. We now\npropose an absolute lifetime limit of five years, cumulatively,\nthat a family can be on welfare. End welfare as we know it?\nYou bet. From now on we will have block grants. And what\ndoes that mean? First, that there will be no federal definition of\nwho is eligible and therefore no guarantee of assistance to\nanyone; each state can decide whom to exclude in any way it\nwants, as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution (not much\nof a limitation when one reads the Supreme Court decisions on\nthis subject). And second, that each state will get a fixed sum\nof federal money each year, even if a recession or a local\ncalamity causes a state to run out of federal funds before the\nend of the year.\nThis was a truly radical proposal. For sixty years Aid to\nFamilies with Dependent Children had been premised on the\nidea of entitlement. \"Entitlement\" has become a dirty word,\nbut it is actually a term of art. It meant two things in the\nAFDC program: a federally defined guarantee of assistance to\nfamilies with children who met the statutory definition of need\nand complied with the other conditions of the law; and a\nfederal guarantee to the states of a matching share of the\nmoney needed to help everyone in the state who qualified for\nhelp. (AFDC was never a guarantor of income at any\nparticular level. States chose their own benefit levels, and no\nstate's AFDC benefits, even when coupled with food stamps,\ncurrently lift families out of poverty.) The block grants will\nend the entitlement in both respects, and in addition the time\nlimits say that federally supported help will end even if a family\nhas done everything that was asked of it and even if it is still\nneedy.\nIn 1995 the President had a new decision to make. What\nshould he say about the Republican proposal? The Republicans\nstarted considering the issue in the House in the heady\npost-election period, when it seemed not at all dissonant for\nthem to talk of reviving orphanages and turning the\nschool-lunch program into block grants. The Administration\n4 of 21\n03/09/97 18:52:06\nTHE WORST THING BILL CLINTON HAS DONE\nhttp://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/issues/97mar/cdelman/edelnan.htm\nconcentrated its fire on these exponentially extreme measures\nand said nothing about time limits and the destruction of the\nentitlement. The President won the public argument about\norphanages and school lunches, but his silence on the rest of\nthe bill made it more difficult to oppose the time limits and the\nending of the entitlement. For months, while the Republican\nbill was going through the House and the Senate, the President\nsaid nothing further. He might have said, \"This isn't what I\nmeant in my campaign rhetoric of 1992.\" He might have said,\n\"This is totally inconsistent with the bill that I sent up to the\nHill last year.\" He might have sent up a new bill that clearly\noutlined his position. He might have insisted that the waivers\nhe was giving the states so that they could experiment with\nreform under the existing law were a strategy superior to the\nRepublican proposals. He did none of these things, despite\nimportuning from Hill Democrats, outside advocates, and\npeople within the Administration.\nThe House Democrats had remained remarkably unified in\nopposition to the House Republicans' bill, which gave new\nmeaning to the word \"draconian.\" But when Democratic\nsenators were deciding how to vote on the more moderate\nSenate bill, which nonetheless contained the\nentitlement-ending block grants and the absolute time limit,\nthey looked to the President for a signal. Had he signaled that\nhe remained firm in opposing block grants and the arbitrary\ntime limit, there is every reason to believe that all but a handful\nof Democratic senators would have stayed with him. The\nopposite signal left them with no presidential cover for a vote\nagainst the Senate bill. It invited them to vote for the bill.\nPrior to the Senate vote on September 19, 1995, the President\nsent the signal that he could sign the Senate bill (but warned\nthat he would veto a bill that was too much like the House\nversion). The Senate Democrats collapsed and the Senate\npassed its version of the bill by a vote of 87 to 12. To make\nmatters worse, the President had been presented with an\nanalysis showing that the Senate bill would push more than a\nmillion children into poverty. The analysis had been\ncommissioned from the Urban Institute by Secretary of Health\nand Human Services Donna Shalala's staff (specifically\nWendell Primus, the deputy assistant secretary for\nhuman-services policy), and Shalala had personally handed it\nto the President on September 15.\nTHE BOTTOM, REACHED\n5 of 21\n03/09/97 18:52:06\nTHE WORST THING BILL CLINTON HAS DONE\nhttp://www.theatlantic.c\n/s\nic/issues/97\n'edelman/edeiman.htm\nT\nHIS was the major milestone in the political race to the\nbottom. The President had said he was willing to sign\nlegislation that would end a sixty-year commitment to\nprovide assistance to all needy families with children who met\nthe federal eligibility requirements. In the floor debate Senator\nEdward Kennedy, who voted against the bill, described it as\n\"legislative child abuse.\" In late 1995 and early 1996 the\nRepublicans saved the President from having to make good on\nhis willingness to sign a welfare block-grant bill by sending\nhim versions of the bill that contained horrible provisions\nconcerning food stamps, disabled children, and foster care,\nwhich he vetoed. The Republican strategy at the time was to\nrun against the President as a hypocrite who talked welfare\nreform but wouldn't deliver when he had the chance.\nBut President Clinton was not finished. Perhaps he saw some\nthreat to himself in the Republican strategy. Perhaps he did not\nsee the entitlement as being quite so meaningful as others did.\nIt is important to remember that he is not only a former\ngovernor but the former governor of Arkansas. AFDC benefits\nin Arkansas were so low that he might not have seen the\nentitlement as meaning what it does in higher-benefit states.\nHe might have thought that as governor of Arkansas he would\nhave been able to design a better program if he had received\nthe federal money in the form of a block grant, without the\nrestrictions, limited as they were, that were imposed by the\nfederal AFDC program. And many people have remarked that\nhe seems never to have met a governor he didn't like -- an\nobservation that appeared valid even after the 1994 elections\nreduced the number of Democrats in the gubernatorial ranks.\nWhatever the reason, when the governors came to town for\ntheir winter meetings early last year, the President invited them\nto draft and submit new proposals on welfare and, for that\nmatter, Medicaid. For a time it seemed to some observers that\nthe President might even be willing to consider block grants\nfor Medicaid, but it quickly became apparent that Medicaid\nblock grants would have negative consequences for a much\nlarger slice of the electorate than would welfare block grants.\nLarge numbers of middle-income people had elderly parents in\nnursing homes whose bills were paid by Medicaid to say\nnothing of the potential impact on hospitals, physicians, and\nthe nursing homes themselves, all of which groups have\nsubstantial political clout. Welfare had no politically powerful\nconstituency that would be hurt by conversion to block grants.\nHill Republicans, still pursuing the strategy of giving the\nPresident only bills that he could not sign, tied the governors'\n6 of 21\n03/09/97 18:52:06\nTHE WORST THING BILL CLINTON HAS DONE\nhttp://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/issues/97mar/edelman/edelman.htm\nwelfare and Medicaid proposals into a single bill. It was clear\nthat the President would veto the combined bill, because by\nspring he had come out firmly against block grants for\nMedicaid.\nAs of late spring it looked as if a stalemate had been reached,\nand that 1996 might pass without enactment of a welfare bill.\nBehind the scenes, however, White House political people --\nRahm Emanuel and Bruce Reed, in particular -- were telling\nHill Republicans almost daily that if they separated the welfare\nand Medicaid bills, they could get a bill that the President\nwould sign. In early summer a new dynamic arose on the Hill.\nHouse Republicans, especially freshmen, began to worry that\nthey were vulnerable to defeat on the basis that they had\naccomplished so little of what they had come to Washington to\ndo. Thinking that Bob Dole was a sure loser anyway, they\ndecided to save their own skins even though it would be to the\ndetriment of the Dole candidacy. The Republicans decided to\nseparate welfare and Medicaid, and began to move a\nfreestanding welfare bill through Congress. The Senate and\nHouse bills were each roughly comparable to the respective\nSenate and House bills passed in 1995, but this time the\nconference outcome was very different: the conference\nproduced a bill that was fairly close to what the Senate had\npassed. This time the Hill Republicans wanted the President to\nsign it.\nThe game was over. Now no one could ever say again with\nany credibility that this President is an old liberal.\nHOW BAD IS IT, REALLY?\nB\nEFORE I begin my\ncritique, I need to say\nsomething about the\nmotivations of those who\ngenuinely support this new\napproach. Some of them,\nanyway, had in my estimation\ngotten impatient with the\nchronicity of a significant part\nof the welfare caseload and the\napparent intractability of the\nproblem. I believe they had\nessentially decided that handing everything over to the states\nwas the only thing left to try that didn't cost a huge amount of\nmoney. They may well understand that there will be a certain\n7 of 21\n03/09/97 18:52:06\nTHE WORST THING BILL CLINTON HAS DONE\nhttp://www.theatlantic.com/a\nic\n97mar/edelman/edelman.htm\namount of suffering, and may believe that the bucket of\nice-cold water being thrown on poor people now will result in\na future generation that will take much more personal\nresponsibility for itself and its children. I think they have made\na terrible mistake, as I will try to show, but I respect the\nfrustration that motivated at least some of them. How bad,\nthen, is it? Very bad. The story has never been fully told,\nbecause so many of those who would have shouted their\nopposition from the rooftops if a Republican President had\ndone this were boxed in by their desire to see the President\nre-elected and in some cases by their own votes for the bill (of\nwhich, many in the Senate had been foreordained by the\nPresident's squeeze play in September of 1995).\nThe same de facto conspiracy of silence has enveloped the\nissue of whether the bill can be easily fixed. The President got\na free ride through the elections on that point because no one\non his side, myself included, wanted to call him on it. He even\nmade a campaign issue of it, saying that one reason he should\nbe re-elected was that only he could be trusted to fix the flaws\nin the legislation. David Broder wrote in The Washington Post\nin late August that re-electing the President in response to this\nplea would be like giving Jack the Ripper a scholarship to\nmedical school.\nWhy is the new law so bad? To begin with, it turned out that\nafter all the noise and heat over the past two years about\nbalancing the budget, the only deep, multi-year budget cuts\nactually enacted were those in this bill, affecting low-income\npeople.\nThe magnitude of the impact is stunning. Its dimensions were\nestimated by the Urban Institute, using the same model that\nproduced the Department of Health and Human Services study\na year earlier. To ensure credibility for the study, its authors\nmade optimistic assumptions: two thirds of long-term\nrecipients would find jobs, and all states would maintain their\ncurrent levels of financial support for the benefit structure.\nNonetheless, the study showed, the bill would move 2.6\nmillion people, including 1.1 million children, into poverty. It\nalso predicted some powerful effects not contained in the\nprevious year's analysis, which had been constrained in what it\ncould cover because it had been sponsored by the\nAdministration. The new study showed that a total of 11\nmillion families -- 10 percent of all American families -- would\nlose income under the bill. This included more than eight\nmillion families with children, many of them working families\naffected by the food-stamp cuts, which would lose an average\n8 of 21\n03/09/97 18:52:06\nTHE WORST THING BILL CLINTON HAS DONE\nhttp://www.theatlantic.com/atiantic/issues/97mar/edelman/edelman.htm\nof about $1,300 per family. Many working families with\nincome a little above what we call the poverty line (right now\n$12,158 for a family of three) would lose income without\nbeing made officially poor, and many families already poor\nwould be made poorer.\nThe view expressed by the White House and by Hill\nDemocrats, who wanted to put their votes for the bill in the\nbest light, was that the parts of the bill affecting immigrants\nand food stamps were awful (and would be re-addressed in the\nfuture) but that the welfare-reform part of the bill was basically\nall right. The immigrant and food-stamp parts of the bill are\nawful, but so is the welfare part.\nThe immigrant provisions are strong stuff. Most legal\nimmigrants currently in the country and nearly all future legal\nimmigrants are to be denied Supplemental Security Income\nand food stamps. States have the option of denying them\nMedicaid and welfare as well. New immigrants will be\nexcluded from most federal means-tested programs, including\nMedicaid, for the first five years they are in the country. All of\nthis will save about $22 billion over the next six years -- about\n40 percent of the savings in the bill. The SSI cuts are the\nworst. Almost 800,000 legal immigrants receive SSI, and most\nof these will be cut off. Many elderly and disabled noncitizens\nwho have been in the United States for a long time and lack\nthe mental capacity to do what is necessary to become citizens\nwill be thrown out of their homes or out of nursing homes or\nother group residential settings that are no longer reimbursed\nfor their care.\nThe food-stamp cuts are very troubling too. Exclusive of the\nfood-stamp cuts for immigrants, they involve savings of about\n$24 billion. Almost half of that is in across-the-board cuts in\nthe way benefits are calculated. About two thirds of the benefit\nreductions will be borne by families with children, many of\nthem working families (thus reflecting a policy outcome wildly\ninconsistent with the stated purposes of the overall bill).\nPerhaps the most troubling cut is the one limiting food stamps\nto three months out of every three years for unemployed\nadults under age fifty who are not raising children. The Center\non Budget and Policy Priorities describes this as \"probably the\nsingle harshest provision written into a major safety net\nprogram in at least 30 years\" -- although it turns out that more\nstates than the drafters anticipated can ask for an exception\nthat was written to accommodate places with disproportionate\nunemployment. One of the great strengths of food stamps until\nnow has been that it was the one major program for the poor\n9 of 21\n03/09/97 18:52:06\nTHE WORST THING BILL CLINTON HAS DONE\nhttp://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/issues/97mar/edelman/edelman.htm\nin which help was based only on need, with no reference to\nfamily status or age. It was the safety net under the safety net.\nThat principle of pure need-based eligibility has now been\nbreached.\nNeither the cuts for immigrants nor the food-stamp cuts have\nanything to do with welfare reform. Many of them are just\nmean, with no good policy justification. The bill also contains\nother budget and benefit reductions unrelated to welfare. The\ndefinition of SSI eligibility for disabled children has been\nnarrowed, which will result in removal from the rolls of\n100,000 to 200,000 of the 965,000 children who currently\nreceive SSI. Although there was broad agreement that some\ntightening in eligibility was warranted, the changes actually\nmade will result in the loss of coverage for some children who\nif they were adults would be considered disabled. Particularly\naffected are children with multiple impairments no one of\nwhich is severe enough to meet the new, more stringent\ncriteria. Child-nutrition programs have also been cut, by nearly\n$3 billion over six years, affecting meals for children in family\nday care and in the summer food program. Federal funding for\nsocial services has been cut by a six-year total of $2.5 billion.\nThis is a 15 percent cut in an important area, and will hamper\nthe states in providing exactly the kind of counseling and\nsupport that families often need if a parent is going to succeed\nin the workplace.\nSo this is hardly just a welfare bill. In fact, most of its budget\nreductions come in programs for the poor other than welfare,\nand many of them affect working families. Many of them are\njust cuts, not reform. (The bill also contains an elaborate\nreform of federal child-support laws, which had broad\nbipartisan support and could easily have been enacted as\nseparate legislation.)\nT\nHIS brings us to welfare itself. Basically, the block\ngrants mean that the states can now do almost anything\nthey want -- even provide no cash benefits at all. There\nis no requirement in the new law that the assistance provided\nto needy families be in the form of cash. States may contract\nout any or all of what they do to charitable, religious, or\nprivate organizations, and provide certificates or vouchers to\nrecipients of assistance which can be redeemed with a contract\norganization. So the whole system could be run by a\ncorporation or a religious organization if a state so chooses\n(although the latter could raise constitutional questions,\ndepending on how the arrangement is configured). Or a state\n10 of 21\n03/09/97 18:52:06\nTHE WORST THING BILL CLINTON HAS DONE\nhttp://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/issues/97mar/edelman/edeiman.htm\ncould delegate everything to the counties, since the law\nexplicitly says that the program need not be run \"in a uniform\nmanner\" throughout a state, and the counties could have\nvarying benefit and program frameworks. For good or for ill,\nthe states are in the process of working their way through an\nenormous --- indeed, a bewildering -- array of choices, which\nmany of them are ill equipped to make, and which outside\nadvocates are working hard to help them make well.\nThe change in the structure is total. Previously there was a\nnational definition of eligibility. With some limitations\nregarding two-parent families, any needy family with children\ncould get help. There were rules about participation in work\nand training, but anybody who played by the rules could\ncontinue to get assistance. If people were thrown off the rolls\nwithout justification, they could get a hearing to set things\nright, and could go to court if necessary. The system will no\nlonger work that way.\nThe other major structural change is that federal money is now\ncapped. The block grants total $16.4 billion annually for the\ncountry, with no new funding for jobs and training and\nplacement efforts, which are in fact very expensive activities to\ncarry out. For the first couple of years most of the states will\nget a little more money than they have been getting, because\nthe formula gives them what they were spending a couple of\nyears ago, and welfare rolls have actually decreased somewhat\nalmost everywhere (a fact frequently touted by the President,\nalthough one might wonder why the new law was so urgently\nneeded if the rolls had gone down by more than two million\npeople without it).\nMany governors are currently crowing about this \"windfall\" of\nnew federal money. But what they are not telling their voters\nis that the federal funding will stay the same for the next six\nyears, with no adjustment for inflation or population growth,\nso by 2002 states will have considerably less federal money to\nspend than they would have had under AFDC. The states will\nsoon have to choose between benefits and job-related\nactivities, with the very real possibility that they will run out of\nfederal money before the end of a given year. A small\ncontingency fund exists for recessions, and an even smaller\nfund to compensate for disproportionate population increases,\nbut it is easy to foresee a time when states will have to either\ntell applicants to wait for the next fiscal year or spend their\nown money to keep benefits flowing.\nThe bill closes its eyes to all the facts and complexities of the\n11 of 21\n03/09/97 18:52:07\nTHE WORST THING BILL CLINTON HAS DONE\nhttp://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/issues/97mar/edelman/edelman.htm\nreal world and essentially says to recipients, Find a job. That\nhas a nice bumper-sticker ring to it. But as a one-size-fits-all\nrecipe it is totally unrealistic.\nTotal cutoffs of help will be felt right away only by immigrants\nand disabled children -- not insignificant exceptions. The big\nhit, which could be very big, will come when the time limits go\ninto effect -- in five years, or less if the state so chooses -- or\nwhen a recession hits. State treasuries are relatively flush at\nthe moment, with the nation in the midst of a modest boom\nperiod. When the time limits first take effect, a large group of\npeople in each state will fall into the abyss all at once.\nOtherwise the effects will be fairly gradual. Calcutta will not\nbreak out instantly on American streets.\nTo the extent that there are any constraints on the states in the\nnew law, they are negative. The two largest -- and they are\nvery large -- are the time limit and the work-participation\nrequirements.\nThere is a cumulative lifetime limit of five years on benefits\npaid for with federal money, and states are free to impose\nshorter time limits if they like. One exception is permitted, to\nbe applied at the state's discretion: as much as 20 percent of\nthe caseload at any particular time may be people who have\nalready received assistance for five years. This sounds\npromising until one understands that about half the current\ncaseload is composed of people who have been on the rolls\nlonger than five years. A recent study sponsored by the Kaiser\nFoundation found that 30 percent of the caseload is composed\nof women who are caring for disabled children or are disabled\nthemselves. The time limits will be especially tough in states\nthat have large areas in chronic recession -- for example, the\ncoal-mining areas of Appalachia. And they will be even\ntougher when the country as a whole sinks into recession. It\nwill make no difference if a recipient has played by all the rules\nand sought work faithfully, as required. When the limit is\nreached and the state is unable or unwilling to grant an\nexception, welfare will be over for that family forever.\nUnder the work-participation requirements, 25 percent of the\ncaseload must be working or in training this year, and 50\npercent by 2002. For two-parent families 75 percent of the\ncaseload must be working or in training, and the number goes\nup to 90 percent in two years. The Congressional Budget\nOffice estimates that the bill falls $12 billion short of providing\nenough funding over the next six years for the states to meet\nthe work requirements. Even the highly advertised increased\n12 of 21\n03/09/97 18:52:07\nTHE WORST THING BILL CLINTON HAS DONE\nhttp://www.theatlantic.com/a\nc/issues/97mar/edelman/edelman.htm\nchild-care funding falls more than $1 billion short of providing\nenough funding for all who would have to work in order for\nthe work requirements to be satisfied. States that fail to meet\nthe work requirements lose increasing percentages of their\nblock grants.\nThe states are given a rather Machiavellian out. The law in\neffect assumes that any reduction in the rolls reflects people\nwho have gone to work. So states have a de facto incentive to\nget people off the rolls in any way they can, not necessarily by\ngetting them into work activities.\nThe states can shift a big chunk of their own money out of the\nprogram if they want to. There is no matching requirement for\nthe states, only a maintenance-of-effort requirement that each\nstate keep spending at least 80 percent of what it was\npreviously contributing. This will allow as much as $40 billion\nnationally to be withheld from paying benefits over the next six\nyears, on top of the $55 billion cut by the bill itself. Moreover,\nthe 80 percent requirement is a static number, so the funding\nbase will immediately start being eroded by inflation.\nBesides being able to transfer some of their own money out,\nthe states are allowed to transfer up to 30 percent of their\nfederal block grants to spending on child care or other social\nservices. Among other things, this will encourage them to\nadopt time limits shorter than five years, because this would\nsave federal money that could then be devoted to child care\nand other help that families need in order to be able to go to\nwork. Hobson's choice will flourish.\nThe contingency fund to cushion against the impact of\nrecessions or local economic crises is wholly inadequate -- $2\nbillion over five years. Welfare costs rose by $6 billion in three\nyears during the recession of the early nineties.\nThe federal AFDC law required the states to make decisions\non applications within forty-five days and to pay, retroactively\nif necessary, from the thirtieth day after the application was\nput in. There is no such requirement in the new law. All we\nknow from the new law is that the state has to tell the\nSecretary of Health and Human Services what its \"objective\ncriteria\" will be for \"the delivery of benefits,\" and how it will\naccord \"fair and equitable treatment\" to recipients, including\nhow it will give \"adversely affected\" recipients an opportunity\nto be heard. This is weak, to say the least.\nFIFTY WELFARE POLICIES\n13 of 21\n03/09/97 18:52:07\nTHE WORST THING BILL CLINTON HAS DONE\nhttp://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/issues/97mar/edelman/edelman.htm\nG\nIVEN this framework, what can we predict will\nhappen? No state will want to be a magnet for people\nfrom other states by virtue of a relatively generous\nbenefit structure. This is common sense, unfortunately. As\nstates seek to ensure that they are not more generous than\ntheir neighbors, they will try to make their benefit structures\nless, not more, attractive. If states delegate decisions about\nbenefit levels to their counties, the race to the bottom will\ndevelop within states as well.\nI do not wish to imply that all states, or even most states, are\ngoing to take the opportunity to engage in punitive policy\nbehavior. There will be a political dynamic in the process\nwhereby each state implements the law. Advocates can\norganize and express themselves to good effect, and\nlegislatures can frustrate or soften governors' intentions. There\nis another important ameliorating factor: many welfare\nadministrators are concerned about the dangers that lie in the\nnew law and will seek to implement it as constructively as they\ncan, working to avoid some of the more radical negative\npossibilities.\nCitizens can make a difference in what happens in their state.\nThey can push to make sure that it doesn't adopt a time limit\nshorter than five years, doesn't reduce its own investment of\nfunds, doesn't cut benefits, doesn't transfer money out of the\nblock grant, doesn't dismantle procedural protections, and\ndoesn't create bureaucratic hurdles that will discourage\nrecipients. They can press for state and local funds to help\nlegal immigrants who have been cut off from SSI or food\nstamps and children who have been victimized by the time\nlimits. They can advocate an energetic and realistic jobs and\ntraining strategy, with maximum involvement by the private\nsector. And they can begin organizing and putting together the\nelements of a real fix, which I will lay out shortly.\nTHE JOBS GAP\nE\nVEN given effective advocacy, relatively responsive\nlegislatures and welfare administrators, and serious\nefforts to find private-sector jobs, the deck is stacked\nagainst success, especially in states that have high\nconcentrations of poverty and large welfare caseloads. The\nbasic issue is jobs. There simply are not enough jobs now.\nFour million adults are receiving Aid to Families with\nDependent Children. Half of them are long-term recipients. In\n14 of 21\n03/09/97 18:52:07\nTHE WORST THING BILL CLINTON HAS DONE\nhttp://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/issues/97mar/edelman/edelman.htm\ncity after city around America the number of people who will\nhave to find jobs will quickly dwarf the number of new jobs\ncreated in recent years. Many cities have actually lost jobs\nover the past five to ten years. New York City, for example,\nhas lost 227,000 jobs since 1990, and the New York\nmetropolitan area overall has lost 260,000 over the same\nperiod. New York City had more than 300,000 adults in the\nAFDC caseload in 1995, to say nothing of the adults without\ndependent children who are receiving general assistance.\nStatistics aside, all one has to do is go to Chicago, or to\nYoungstown, Ohio, or to Newark, or peruse William Julius\nWilson's powerful new book, When Work Disappears, to get\nthe point. The fact is that there are not enough appropriate\nprivate-sector jobs in appropriate locations even now, when\nunemployment is about as low as it ever gets in this country.\nFor some people, staying on welfare was dictated by\neconomics, because it involved a choice between the \"poor\nsupport\" of welfare, to use the Harvard professor David\nEllwood's term, and the even worse situation of a low-wage\njob, with its take-home pay reduced by the out-of-pocket costs\nof commuting and day care, and the potentially incalculable\neffects of losing health coverage. With time limits these people\nwill no longer have that choice, unappetizing as it was, and\nwill be forced to take a job that leaves them even deeper in\npoverty. How many people will be able to get and keep a job,\neven a lousy job, is impossible to say, but it is far from all of\nthose who have been on welfare for an extended period of\ntime.\nThe labor market, even in its current relatively heated state, is\nnot friendly to people with little education and few marketable\nskills, poor work habits, and various personal and family\nproblems that interfere with regular and punctual attendance.\nPeople spend long spells on welfare or are headed in that\ndirection for reasons other than economic choice or, for that\nmatter, laziness. If we are going to put long-term welfare\nrecipients to work -- and we should make every effort to do so\n-- it will be difficult and it will cost money to train people, to\nplace them, and to provide continuing support so that they can\nkeep a job once they get it. If they are to have child care and\nhealth coverage, that will cost still more. Many of the jobs that\npeople will get will not offer health coverage, so transitional\nMedicaid for a year or two will not suffice. People who have\nbeen on welfare for a long time will too often not make it in\ntheir first job and will need continuing help toward and into a\nsecond job. Both because the private sector may well not\nproduce enough jobs right away and because not all welfare\n15 of 21\n03/09/97 18:52:07\nTHE WORST THING BILL CLINTON HAS DONE\nhttp://www.theatlantic.c /a\nc/issues/97\n'edelman/edelman.htm\nrecipients will be ready for immediate placement in a\nprivate-sector job, it will be appropriate also to use public jobs\nor jobs with nonprofit organizations at least as a transition if\nnot as permanent positions. All of this costs real money.\nFor a lot of people it will not work at all. Kansas City's\nexperience is sadly instructive here. In the past two years, in a\nvery well-designed and well-implemented effort, a local\nprogram was able to put 1,409 out of 15,562 welfare\nrecipients to work. As of last December only 730 were still at\nwork. The efforts of Toby Herr and Project Match in\nChicago's Cabrini-Green public-housing project are another\ncase in point. Working individually and intensively with\nwomen and supporting them through successive jobs until they\nfound one they were able to keep, Herr had managed to place\n54 percent of her clients in year-round jobs at the end of five\nyears. This is a remarkable (and unusual) success rate, but it\nalso shows how unrealistic is a structure that offers only a 20\npercent exception to the five-year time limit.\nI want to be very clear: I am not questioning the willingness of\nlong-term welfare recipients to work. Their unemployment is\nsignificantly related to their capacity to work, whether for\npersonal or family reasons, far more than to their willingness\nto work. Many long-term welfare recipients are functionally\ndisabled even if they are not disabled in a legal sense. News\ncoverage of what the new law will mean has been replete with\nheartbreaking stories of women who desperately want to work\nbut have severe trouble learning how to operate a cash register\nor can't remember basic things they need to master. A study in\nthe state of Washington shows that 36 percent of the caseload\nhave learning disabilities that have never been remediated.\nMany others have disabled children or parents for whom they\nare the primary caretakers. Large numbers are victims of\ndomestic violence and risk physical retaliation if they enter the\nworkplace. These personal and family problems make such\npeople poor candidates for work in the best of circumstances.\nArbitrary time limits on their benefits will not make them\nlikelier to gain and hold employment. When unemployment\ngoes back up to six or seven or eight percent nationally, as it\nwill at some point, the idea that the private sector will employ\nand continue to employ those who are the hardest to employ\nwill be even more fanciful than it is at the current, relatively\npropitious moment.\nWhen the time limits take effect, the realities occasioned by the\nmeeting of a bottom-line-based labor market with so many of\nour society's last hired and first fired will come into focus. Of\n16 of 21\n03/09/97 18:52:07\nTHE WORST THING BILL CLINTON HAS DONE\nhttp://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/issues/97mar/edelman/edelman.htm\ncourse, a considerable number will not fall off the cliff. An\nincreased number will have obtained jobs along the way. The\ntime limits will help some people to discipline themselves and\nration their years of available assistance. Some will move in\nwith family or friends when their benefits are exhausted. The\n20 percent exception will help as well.\nBut there will be suffering. Some of the damage will be\nobvious -- more homelessness, for example, with more\ndemand on already strapped shelters and soup kitchens. The\nensuing problems will also appear as increases in the incidence\nof other problems, directly but perhaps not provably owing to\nthe impact of the welfare bill. There will be more malnutrition\nand more crime, increased infant mortality, and increased drug\nand alcohol abuse. There will be increased family violence and\nabuse against children and women, and a consequent\nsignificant spillover of the problem into the already overloaded\nchild-welfare system and battered-women's shelters.\nCAN THE WELFARE BILL BE FIXED THIS\nYEAR?\nI\nAM amazed by the number of people who have bought\nthe line that the bill was some little set of adjustments that\ncould easily be done away with. Congress and the\nPresident have dynamited a structure that was in place for six\ndecades. A solid bipartisan majority of Congress and the\nPresident himself have a stake in what they have already done.\nFundamental change in the bill is therefore not possible this\nyear. So the answer to the question is no, not in any\nfundamental way. One possible area for adjustment is in the\nimmigrant and food-stamp provisions. These occasioned the\nmost hand-wringing from the President and some of the people\nwho voted for the bill. They could be changed without redoing\neverything. The President has made some proposals for limited\nchange on these items.\nThe bigger question is welfare. If there is going to be a\nshort-term fix of the new law, it will be not in the\nfundamentals of the new structure but rather in some of the\ndetails. It might possibly include the following, although I\nhasten to say that even this list stretches credulity.\nJobs. Congress could make extra funds available to the\nstates for job creation, wage subsidies, training, placement,\nsupport and retention services, and so on. The President has\nproposed a fund of $3 billion over three years for this kind of\n17 of 21\n03/09/97 18:52:07\nTHE WORST THING BILL CLINTON HAS DONE\nhttp://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/issues/97mar/edelman/edelman.htm\nactivity, saying it would result in a million new jobs. As\ncampaign rhetoric, this was pure spin. It amounts to $3,000\nper job. There is simply no way in which $3,000 per job will\nget a million jobs for people who have been on the welfare\nrolls for extended periods of time. The President has also\nproposed a modest additional tax credit for hiring welfare\nrecipients. This, too, will have little practical effect.\nTime limits. The Democrats tried very hard to create a\nvoucher covering basic necessities for children in families that\nhad run up against the time limit. The idea failed by a narrow\nmargin in the Senate, and is worth pursuing. Another item\nworth advocating would be raising the 20 percent exception to\nthe time limit to 25 or even 30 percent.\nWork requirements. The states are chafing under the\nrequirements about the percentage of the caseload that has to\nbe participating in work or related activities. It would help a\nlittle if people were permitted to receive vocational training for\nlonger than the twelve months the law allows.\nLimits on state flexibility in the use of funds. The law is\nexcessively flexible on what the states can do with the\nblock-grant funds. A number of possible changes would be\nhelpful: reducing the percentage that can be transferred out of\nthe block; raising the requirement for states' contributions of\ntheir own funds; requiring states to comply with the plans they\nadopt; requiring states to process applications for assistance\nexpeditiously; and clarifying the procedural protections for\npeople denied or cut off from assistance.\nData. It is vitally important that adequate data be gathered\nand reported on what happens under the new legislation. The\nnew law contains some funding for research and some\ninstructions about data to be gathered, but additional funds\nand specification would be helpful.\nIf reliable and affordable health care and child care were added\nto this list, and were available beyond a transitional period, it\nwould help a lot. However, my crystal ball tells me that\nwhatever is enacted in these areas will be modest at best, and\nthe new structure will remain substantially in place. And of\ncourse not even these adjustments would solve the\nfundamental problems created when the previous structure\nwas dynamited: the disappearance of the national definition of\neligibility and of the guarantee that federal funds will be\navailable for all eligible children.\n18 of 21\n03/09/97 18:52:07\nTHE WORST THING BILL CLINTON HAS DONE\nhttp://www.theatlantic.c\n'a\nic/issues/97\n'edelman/edelman.htm\nWHAT WOULD A REAL FIX INVOLVE?\nA\nREAL fix would involve, first, jobs, jobs, jobs --\npreferably and as a first priority in the private sector,\nbut also in the public sector, where there is real work to\nbe done. And then everything that enables people to be\nproductive citizens. Schools that teach every child as well as\nthey teach every other child. Safe neighborhoods. Healthy\ncommunities. Continuing health-care and day-care coverage,\nso that people can not only go to work but also keep on\nworking. Ending the racial and ethnic discrimination that\nplagues too many young people who try to enter the job\nmarket for the first time.\nWhen we discuss jobs, we need to be talking about\nopportunities for men and women both. That may seem\nobvious, but the welfare bill skews our focus. By allocating to\nlong-term welfare recipients such a large share of the limited\nresources available for jobs and training, we may be draining\nfunds and attention from others who deserve to be a higher\npriority. Inner-city young men come particularly to mind. We\nneed to be promoting responsible fatherhood, marriage, and\ntwo-parent families. If young men cannot find work, they are\nfar less likely to marry. They may have children, but\neconomics and low self-esteem may defeat responsibility.\nTough child-support enforcement is part of the solution, but\ngenuine opportunity and clear pathways to opportunity are\nvital.\nThe outside world tends to believe that the inner city is\nhopeless. (I do not mean to neglect strategies to reduce rural\npoverty.) That is not the case. In the toughest neighborhoods,\nwith all the dangers and pitfalls of street life, there are young\npeople who beat the odds, stay in school and graduate, and go\nto college or get a job. These young people have exceptional\nstrength and resiliency. But there are many more who could\nmake it with a little extra support and attention. It is\nenormously important that we increase the number of young\npeople who make it. We give a lot of lip service to prevention,\nwhether of crime or drug abuse or teen pregnancy. But we will\nnever prevent these negative outcomes as well as we could\nuntil we pursue a general strategy of creating opportunity and\nclear pathways to opportunity -- a positive youth-development\nstrategy.\nMany of the jobs that welfare recipients and other low-income\npeople get do not pay enough to pull them out of poverty.\n19 of 21\n03/09/97 18:52:07\nTHE WORST THING BILL CLINTON HAS DONE\nhttp://www.theatlantic.c\n'a\nic/iss\n97mar/edelman/edelman.htm\nContinuing attention to the minimum wage and the Earned\nIncome Tax Credit will be necessary. States should insist, as\nthe city of Baltimore has, that all their contractors pay all their\nworkers a sufficient wage to keep them out of poverty (or at\nleast approximately enough to keep a family of four out of\npoverty), and should fund their contracts accordingly. Current\nchild-care and health-care policies are insufficient to allow\nlow-wage workers to stay out of poverty even if transitional\nsubsidies let them escape temporarily when they leave the\nwelfare rolls. Federal and state child-care subsidies should help\nall workers who would otherwise be poor, not just those who\nhave recently left the welfare rolls. And at the end of the day\nwe still have 40 million Americans, including 10 million\nchildren, who do not have health coverage. We still have to\ndeal with that as part of a real antipoverty strategy.\nWe have been reduced to the politics of the waitress mom. She\nsays, all too legitimately, \"I bust my tail. I don't have decent\nchild care. I don't have health coverage. Why should 'these\npeople' get what I don't have?\" We started to bring greater\nequity to the working poor but, except for the recent\nminimum-wage increase, progress was halted by the 1994\ncongressional elections. A real fix would help the waitress\nmom as well as those a rung below her on the income ladder.\nWe are not just talking policy; we are talking values. We are\ntalking people, especially young people growing up, who\nunderstand that they have to take responsibility for themselves,\nboth as earners and as parents.\nPersonal responsibility and community responsibility need to\nintersect. The community has a responsibility to help instill and\nnurture values. The community has a responsibility to offer\nsupport, especially to children and youths, so that everyone\nhas an opportunity to acquire the tools necessary to achieve\nthe personal responsibility that is such a vital element in the\nequation. The community has a responsibility to help parents\ndo their job. And community means something different from\nprograms, something larger, although programs are part of the\nequation. Liberals have tended to think in terms of programs.\nThe community's taking responsibility is a much larger idea.\nBut communities cannot succeed in isolation. National\nleadership and policy are essential as well.\nWelfare is what we do when everything else fails. It is what we\ndo for people who can't make it after a genuine attempt has\nbeen mounted to help the maximum possible number of people\nto make it. In fact, much of what we do in the name of welfare\n20 of 21\n03/09/97 18:52:08\nTHE WORST THING BILL CLINTON HAS DONE\nhttp://www.theatlantic.com/s\n:/issues/97\nedelman/edeln\nhtm\nis more appropriately a subject for disability policy. The debate\nover welfare misses the point when all it seeks to do is tinker\nwith welfare eligibility, requirements, and sanctions. The 1996\nwelfare law misses the point.\nTo do what needs to be done is going to take a lot of work --\norganizing, engaging in public education, broadening the base\nof people who believe that real action to reduce poverty and\npromote self-sufficiency in America is important and possible.\nWe need to watch very carefully, and we need to document\nand publicize, the impact of the 1996 welfare legislation on\nchildren and families across America. We need to do\neverything we can to influence the choices the states have to\nmake under the new law. We can ultimately come out in a\nbetter place. We should not want to go back to what we had.\nIt was not good social policy. We want people to be able to\nhold up their heads and raise their children in dignity. The best\nthat can be said about this terrible legislation is that perhaps\nwe will learn from it and eventually arrive at a better approach.\nI am afraid, though, that along the way we will do some\nserious injury to American children, who should not have had\nto suffer from our national backlash.\nIllustrations by Robert Goldstrom\nCopyright c 1997 by The Atlantic Monthly Company. All rights reserved.\nThe Atlantic Monthly; March 1997; The Worst Thing Bill Clinton Has Done; Volume 279,\nNo. 3; pages 43-58.\nCover Atlantic Unbound The Atlantic Monthly Post a Riposte Atlantic Store Search\n21 of 21\n03/09/97 18:52:08\nBY AEROSPACE BLDG.\n; 3-13-97 05AM :\nACF/SUITE 600-\n94567028: # 8/11\nWelfare Reform Morning Report - March 12, 1997 (PAGE 6)\nMoreover, the Government jobs profiled will pay wages that will lift few above poverty level. Add this to the lack of\naffordable child care and health benefits and we must conclude that reducing the numbers of people on welfare was a higher\npolitical consideration than reducing the numbers living in dire straits. And that is incxcusable.\nMIKE BISESI\nHouston, March 10. 1997\nPHOTOCOPY\nUSA\nCopyright 1997 Gannett Company, Inc.\nPRESERVATION\nTODAY\nMarch 12, 1997, Wednesday, FIRST EDITION\nWelfare-to-work not an easy road\nBYLINE: Richard Wolf\nDATELINE: KANSAS CITY\nAs more welfare recipients enter the workforce because of a welfare overhaul, many employers are finding that it is\ndifficult to keep them on the job.\nKANSAS CITY\nThe sign on the wall of Davidson Archives reads, \"You become successful by helping others become successful.\" But\nwhen it comes to hiring welfare recipients, Tom Davidson finds, success has proven elusive.\nThe problem, he and other employers here say, is that too many welfare recipients have trouble keeping jobs. They lack\nworkplace skills. They arrive late. They take offense at supervisors' orders. They stay home when faced with child-care or\ntransportation woes.\nAs states rush to place welfare clients in jobs under the new federal reform law, more business owners are echoing\nDavidson's complaint. And no wonder: Nationwide, about 40% of those who leave welfare for work return to the rolls\nwithin a year; two-thirds go back on welfare by the end of five years, according to welfare researcher LaDonna Pavetti of the\nUrban Institute, a Washington think tank. About half lack a high school education. Many have problems with drugs or\ndepression. And years of dependence have left many without a strong work ethic.\n\"These people come with terrible baggage,\" says Davidson, who has kept six of the 15 welfare recipients he has hired.\n\"They don't have personal management skills to keep appointments and be on time and follow instructions.\"\nStates, job-training firms and private employers across the nation are grappling with the same problem: keeping former\nwelfare recipients in the workforce. Their difficultics may become the Achilles' hcel of welfare reform, which places a\npremium on finding jobs for millions of welfare recipients who face eventual loss of their benefits. \"Pcople don't realize how\nhard it's going to be.\" says Gary Stangler, Missouri's social services director. \"You're talking about socializing people into\nthe workplace.\"\nSince 1994, Kansas City has been one of the nation's leading welfare-to-work laboratories. Businesses have created\nhundreds of jobs for welfare recipients. Government has paid half their salaries by turning over welfare and food stamp\npayments to the employers as wage subsidies. Clients have been offered up to four years of medical and child care benefits.\nWelfare officials from about 15 states have looked to Kansas City for advice on setting up programs. Said President\nClinton in a recent visit: \"These people in Kansas City, they know what they are doing.\"\nYet even with thousands of new jobs in areas ranging from casinos to telecommunications, Kansas City has found that\nwage subsidies alone don't keep wclfare clients in jobs. The stark fact: Only 53% of 1,500 recipients placed in jobs in the\npast two years remain employed. Nearly one in four of those who left were fired for not even showing up after being hired,\nand one in five for absenteeism.\nPlease contact Dana Colarulli if you would like to receive the WR Morning Report by e-mail or If you have questions about\narticles found in this publication. (dcolarulli @acf.dhhs.gov (e-mail) or 202-401-6951 (voice)).\nBY AEROSPACE BLDG.\n: 3-13-97 06AM :\nACF/SUITE 600-\n94567028: # 9/11\nWelfare Reform Morning Report - March 12, 1997 (PAGE 7)\nLandon Rowland, president and chief executive of Kansas City Southern Industries and chairman of a commission\ndirecting Kansas City's program, says failing to keep welfare recipients at work could lead to a \"national disenchantment\"\nwith welfare reform.\nOfficials now recognize it can take several jobs before a welfare client sticks in the workplace. So they are emphasizing\njob-skills training, on-the-job counseling, and help in landing second and third jobs rather than subsidies.\n\"We're all grabbing a little bit at straws right now,\" says William Esery, chairman and chief executive officer of Kansas\nCity-based Sprint, which has pledged jobs to three graduates of a six-weck telecommunications course at Metropolitan\nCommunity Colleges. Without solid training, Esery says, \"you're probably going to create a revolving door, and we're all\ngoing to be frustrated two years from now.\"\nTo help prevent that, Kansas City has put a new emphasis on teaching welfare recipients the workplace skills they need.\nThree-day workshops have been increased to five days and may grow to eight. There, clients learn resume writing,\ninterviewing and dress codes, along with work-cthic traits such as motivation and handling change. New workers will\nreceive more counseling when problems arise, both from peer groups and professionals. A data base will help match clients\nto jobs, with new emphasis on growth industrics.\n\"We want to stop the cycling back on to welfare, or we've solved nothing,\" says Marge Randle, who runs the Kansas City\nprogram for the state Division of Family Services.\nMichelle Gordon, a 30-year-old mother of four, has been on welfare most of the past decade. Last summer, she landed a\njob in the marketing department of a Kansas City health insurer. After three months, she quarreled with her boss, quit and\nwent back on welfare.\n\"The supervisor just kind of talked to me like a child, and I'm not her child,\" she says. \"Maybe I should have thought\nabout what I said and what went on. If I thought it through a little more, I would have probably still been there.\"\nTorran Sayles lasted nine months with an agency running group homes for the retarded before differences with her\nemployer led to her firing. For seven months, she stayed at home; now she is trying to become a nurse's aide.\n\"It was me being lazy. It was me not wanting to get up and do something,\" Sayles says.\nDespite setbacks, nearly 200 Kansas City firms have supported the program and are seeing more success stories.\n-- Lennie Davis, 45, a mother of three who has shuttled on and off welfare for 25 years, credits the training for her being\nable to keep a job packaging brass fittings for Midland Metals. \"My self-esteem was kind of low, but I got it together,\" she\nsays. \"I'm not going back. 1 plan to retire here.\"\n-- Shaira Burriss, 33, with two children, has spent two years at Arrow Fabricare cleaners after a similar period on welfare.\nThe Kansas City training program taught her willpower and the work ethic, while dealing with her son's chronic health\nproblems. \"If you want to keep a job, you've got to be at work every day.\"\nPHOTOCOPY\nCopyright 1997 U.S. Newswire, Inc.\nPRESERVATION\nU.S. Newswire\nMarch 12, 1997 14:52 Eastern Time\nExcerpts from Press Briefing by Deputy Secretary of Transportation Mortimer Downey Part 1 of 2)\nBYLINE: White House Press Office. 202-456-2100\nDATELINE: WASHINGTON, March 12\nPlease contact Dana Colarulli if you would like to receive the WR Morning Report by e-mail or if you have questions about\narticles found in this publication. (dcolarulli @acf.dhhs.gov (e-mail) or 202-401-6951 (voice)).\nSPACE BLDG.\n: 3-21-97 35PM :\nACF/SUITE 600-\n94567431 :# 8/12\nWelfare Reform Morning Report - March 21, 1997 (PAGE 6)\nA partner at Coopers & Lybrand who is leading the tcam, Stan Hawthorne, said the firm had worked on other\nimmigration projects for the service for at least two years.\nThe agency is trying to correct some flaws. In one change immigrants will now be naturalized only after the\nF.B.I. checks their fingerprints for past arrests.\nCopyright 1997 The Washington Post\nThe Washington Post\nMarch 21, 1997, Friday, Final Edition\n$8.50 an Hour and a Helping Hand; 26 Firms Seek Ways to\nRetain Low-Wage Workers\nBYLINE: Kirstin Downey Grimsley, Washington Post Staff Writer\nExecutives at more than two dozen of the nation's largest corporations have been meeting quictly over the past\nyear to brainstorm ways to recruit and retain workers who make less than $ 8.50 an hour.\nThe media spotlight may be focusing on the minimum wage debate and welfare reforms that are drawing the\nhard-corc poor into the workplace, but these executives are reluctantly realizing they already have a serious\nproblem dealing with their low-wage work force.\nScattered labor shortages in parts of the country have made the issue more acute.\nThe human resources executives, gathering yesterday and today in Miami, have dubbed themselves the Employer\nGroup. Of the 26 major corporations participating, only 10 have agreed 10 go public, with others fearing a potential\npublic stigma of acknowledging that a large portion of their workers carn less than federal poverty guidelincs.\nThe companies that own fast-food restaurant chains Burger King and Pizza Hut are in the Employer Group, as\nare Hyatt Hotcls Corp., financial services giant Aetna Life & Casualty Co. and clothing manufacturer Levi Strauss\n& Co. The General Services Administration also is participating. Together, the firms represent about 2.5 million\nworkers nationwide.\nThe executives describe their motives as cconomic, not altruistic. All operate in highly price-competitive\nindustrics that depend on stable, low-wage work forces, and they say market realities make it impossible to raise\nsalaries significantly. Yet, the executives say they have learned it is in their interest to help these workers cope with\na variety of life's crises.\n\"Wc are being dragged into all these issues. forced to recognize this work force exists,\" said Charles Romeo,\ndirector of employee benefits at ConAgra Refrigerated Foods in Geneva, III., the meat processing company that\nproduces Swift and Armour products and Butterball turkeys. \"If we don't, we won't exist. We need to better manage\nit.\"\n\"We're simply trying to attack our challenges inore effectively.\" said Jay Hundley, director of personnel at retailer\nJ.C. Penney Co.. a co-founder of the group along with Bethesda-based Marriott International Inc. Hundley said that\nJ.C. Penney's studies have shown that retention of good workers is crucial because employees become most\nproductive after being on the job at least three years.\nBut these low-wage employees face difficulties finding adequate child care, reliable transportation and affordable\nhousing, which can turn into costly business problems, including absenteeism, tardiness and lost productivity.\nPlease contact Dana Colarulli if you would-like to receive the WR Morning Report by e-mail or if you have questions\nabout articles found in this publication. (dcolarulli @acf.dhhs.gov (e-mail) or 202-401-6951 (voice)).\nJSPACE BLDG.\n: 3-21-97 12:36PM :\nACF/SUITE 600-\n94567431 # 9/12\nWelfare Reform Morning Report - March 21, 1997 (PAGE 7)\nIn many cases, formerly good workers simply disappear or quit unexpectedly, citing a collapse of makeshift child\ncare arrangements or the breakdown of the family car, forcing companics to hire and train new groups of workers,\naccording to group members.\n\"To the degree we can reduce turnover, we become more efficient,\" Hundley said.\nThe price adds up: ConAgra's Romeo estimates it costs $ 2,000 to $ 3,000 to train a worker to understand health\nand safety standards and to learn how to properly trim meat off an animal carcass. Turnover at ConAgra,\ndepending on the job and the location, can be so great that managers have to fill the same slot two or three times a\nyear. Job turnover is even higher among some of the group's members.\nThe Employer Group focuses on sharing what members call \"best-practices\" policies that help workers manage\ntheir lives and stay productive. Many firms have introduced subsidized child care, specialized training for\nmanagers, prenatal care programs and on-thc-job immigration and tax-filing advice.\nFor example, many McDonald's restaurants have expanded employee food discounts by offering 50 percent off\nfor the workers' families as well. Hyatt has reduced employee turnover by emphasizing flexible work hours. That's\nan unusual practice among low-paid hourly-wage workers, particularly housekecpers, whose work must be\ncompleted in the morning so rooms can be ready for new customers.\nMarriott International Inc. is trying to help employees get to work with a telephone hot line linked to social\nworkers who assist with transportation and child-care crises.\nThe company also helps workers file federal tax forms that would allow them to get earned income tax credits on\na weekly basis rather than in one refund.\nA single mother earning $ 192 a week, or about $ 10,000 a year, could get an extra $ 24 per week in her\npaycheck if she filed the forms. That \"makes a big difference when you are poor,\" said Donna Klein, Marriott's\ndirector of work-life programs.\nOther workers use the extra money as a financial cushion. Rita Whitaker, a security guard at Marriott's Bethcsda\nheadquarters, says the form has meant an extra $ 20 a week in her paycheck, which she uses for gasoline to get to\nwork. \"It's a plus for me,\" Whitaker said.\nExecutives in the Employer Group say they cannot consider raising wages in an era of tight profit margins and\ncompetitive price pressures. \"These are the economics of our business,\" said Klein. Only about 1.5 cents of every\nlodging dollar is profit for Marriott, she added, leaving little extra for higher salaries.\n\"If you were able to raise wages to a level that would make a difference, you would have to double their wages,\"\nshe said. \"It would end up eliminating a whole economic sector, and it's just not possible.\"\nThe companies are defining as \"low-wage\" those workers who carn less than $8.50 an hour, which is roughly\nthe figure used by the federal government to determine eligibility for federal housing, child care and food subsidies.\nThat benchmark figure was tabulated by the Families and Work Institute, a New York City-based management\nconsulting firm, which is helping coordinate the organization's efforts.\nFor seven of the 10 companies whose executives agreed to be interviewed, these hourly employees compose one-\nhalf to four-fifths of their total work force.\nAl McDonald's, for example, about 80 percent of its 600,000 U.S. workers earn an average wage of about $6 an\nhour. At Hyatt, at least half of its 40,000 employees receive less than $ 8.50 an hour, and at Levi Strauss, 19,000 of\nits clothing production workers or 90 percent of its American work force -- receive about $8 an hour.\nPlease contact Dana Colarulli if you would like to receive the WR Morning Report by e-mail or if you have questions\nabout articles found in this publication. ([email protected] (e-mail) or 202-401-6951 (voice)).\nJSPACE BLDG.\n: 3-21-97 2:36PM :\nACF/SUITE 600-\n94567431 #10/12\nWelfare Reform Morning Report - March 21, 1997 (PAGE 8)\nParticipant Faith Wohl, director of the office of workplace initiatives at the General Services Administration and\nformerly a personnel executive with DuPont Co., said the group's discussions marked a startling change in\nexecutive perspective from only a few years ago.\nInstead of talking about downsizing and cutting employee benefit programs, the participants were considering\nmeasures that could improve their workers' lives, she said. In effect, she said, the companies are pondering a role\nthat she described as a \"surrogate for the social service system.\"\n\"I said, 'Wait 8 minute,' Wohl said. \"These people are talking about the old social contract [between employer\nand worker] and intensifying it.\nI felt like my head was whipped around.\"\nHOW THEY'RE HELPING\nTo try to help and keep - their low-wage workers, some employers are providing such services as these:\nSubsidized child care\nOn-the-job immigration and tax-filing advice\nFood discounts to workers' families\nFree prenatal programs for employees or spouses\nA telephone hot line to social workers who help with transportation and child-care crises\nA dormitory for employees who had been living in crowded, unsanitary conditions\nSpecialized training for managers\nEMPLOYER GROUP MEMBERS AND THEIR LOW-WAGE WORKERS\n(KEY: Company, Location, Number of U.S. employees, Wages)\nMarriott International\n80 percent earn an average $ 6\n21,148 (in North America)\nBethesda\nan hour.\n90 percent earn an average of $\n185,000\n8 an hour.\n80 percent earn an average $ 8\nConAgra Refrigerated Foods\nan hour.\nGeneva, Ill.45,000\nAetna\n65 percent are low-wage, with\nHartford, Conn.\nHyatt Hotels\nsalaries ranging from $ 5.50 to\n31,000\nChicago\n$ 13 an hour.\n3.5 percent earn less than $ 8.50\n40,000\nan hour, but large numbers of\n85 percent meet low-wage\nJ.C. Penncy\nback-office file clerks and\ncriteria.\nPlano, Tex.\ncustomer service representatives\n220,000\nmake about $ 10 an hour.\nMcDonald's\n60 percent meet low-wage\nOak Brook, III.\ncriteria.\n600,000 total (company-owned\nstores and franchises)\nLevi Strauss\nSan Francisco\nSOURCE: Company human resource officials. For purposes of defining their salary scales, the member\norganizations have accepted $ 8.50 an hour as representing the low-wage worker, based on federal poverty-\nguideline figures used to determine who qualifies for food stamps and housing and child care subsidies. Data\ncould not be obtained from other group members.\nGRAPHIC: Marriott International helped guard Rita Whitaker fill out tax credit forms that put another $20 a\nweek in her paycheck.\nPlease contact Dana Colarulli if you would like to receive the WR Morning Report by e-mail or if you have questions\nabout articles found in this publication. ([email protected] (e-mail) or 202-401-6951 (voice)).\nEROSPACE BLDG.\n: 3-11-97 : 49PM :\nACF/SUITE 600-\n94567431 # 5/17\nA24 THE WALL STREET JOURNAL TUESDAY. MARCH 11, 1997\nMany States, Overwhelmed by Welfare Shift,\nDelay Cutoff of Food-Stamp Aid to Thousands\nBy CHRISTOPHER GEORGES\nStaff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL\nFood Stamps-To Cut or Not To Cut\nWASHINGTON - This month welfare\noverhaul is supposed to start biting. As\nStates that have applied for federal exemptions from requirements to cut off food stamps to\nmany as one million people are in jeopardy\ncertain adult jobless recipients without dependents and states that haven't applied.\nof being cut off from food stamps.\nSteles that haven't applied\nBut. for many. the day of reckoning is\nHave applied\nbeing postponed.\nWASH.\nMICH.\nVT\nMAINE\nA growing number of states. over-\nMONT.\nN.D.\nwhelmed with welfare changes, are put\nMINN.\nDRE.\nting the cuts on hold for hundreds of\nthousands of recipients. In Illinois. for\n10AHO\nS.D.\nWISL\nN.Y.\nMASS\nexample. at least 44,000 of the 61,000 adults\nWAIG.\nA.I\nonce in danger of losing benefits this\nNEB.\nBITA\nPA.\nNEV\nCONN\nmonth because they haven't found a job\nUTAH\nILL.\nIND.\nOHIO\nCOLO.\nW\ncan stay on the rolls for at least another\nMRL\nMO.\nVA\nVA.\nDEL\nyear. \"Our only disappointment is that we\nCALIF\nKY.\nhaven't been able to exempt all 61,000,\"\nN.C.\nTENN.\nsays Tim Grace. head of the state's Bureau\nARIZ.\nN.M.\nOKLA.\nARK.\nS.C.\nof Food Stamps.\nALA\nGA.\nSo far. 40 states and the District of\nLA.\nColumbia have submitted or received\nTEXAS\nMISS\nwaivers under a provision in the new\nwelfare law to continue to give food stamps\nIFLA\nto jobless adults because they live in areas\nHAWAR\nwhere few jobs are available.\nThe willingness of states to continue\nSource Department of Agriculture\nfood-stamp aid provides a clue to how they\nwill act in future years when larger\nintended to force the able-bodied to take a\nhelp persuade the federal government to\nsegments of the welfare population ap-\njob, even a low paying one, also included\nexempt as much of the state as possible.\nproach time limits and yet remain jobless.\nthe escape clause allowing states to ex-\nAl the same time. some states not\nThe early indication already riles some\nempt areas with high unemployment or an\nbackers of welfare overhaul. \"This is very\nseeking walvers are taking related steps.\nexcessive number of workers.\nIn Massachusetts, for example. GOP Gov.\ndispleasing.' says GOP Rep. Bob Ney of\nThough many states were at first reluc-\nWilliam Weld has requested a $7 million\nOhio, a key author of the food-stamp\ntant to apply for the so-called waivers,\nInfusion from the state Legislature to\noverhaul legislation. \"I would caution\nrequests have been pouring in to the\nassist food-stamp recipients.\nstates: If they try to exempt every person\nDepartment of Agriculture in recent\nA large part of the reason for states'\nthey can, I guarantee we will sit down and\nweeks. The Clinton administration. uni-\ncagerness 10 bypass the new law is that it\nlook at fightening the loopholes.\"\nhappy with the new food-stamp require-\ncosts relatively little to do so. \"It just\nCongressional officials worry. too,\nments. \"is trying to be as responsive\nmakes good business sense.\" says South\nabout losing savings expected from the\nas possible in the states' requests,\" says\nDakota's Ms. Osnes.\nmeasure. Last year, budget analysts pre-\nYvette Jackson. deputy administrator for\nStates such as Illinois are making that\ndicted a five-year savings of $5 billion, but\nthe food-stamp program at the Agriculture\noption more accessible by eliminating\nnow. due to a combination of factors, they\nDepartment.\nmuch of the paperwork involved. Recipi-\nare estimated at about $1 billion less.\nIt remains unclear exactly how many of\nents there now only need to show food-\nStates requests for exemptions partly\nthe one million adults originally in jeop-\nstamp case workers a single form signed\nreflect their preoccupation with efforts to\nardy of being cut off will continue to get\nby, say, a church official stating that\ncarry out provisions of larger welfare\naid. but food-stamp experts now estimate\nvolunteer work was performed.\noverhaul, which affect poor families. Im-\nthe figure at less than half. The number\nOn the other hand. a handful of states,\nmigrants, the disabled and drug addicts.\nexempted may still grow as states continue\nsuch as Michigan, refuse to take advan-\nWhile welfare rolls in general are drop-\nto seek waivers for more areas.\nlage of waivers and instead are focusing\nping. states are still pressed to develop\nIn New York. for example, advocates\nonly on pushing recipients into workfare.\nprograms to put thousands of people to\nfor the poor estimate that nearly 80% of the\nThere. 25 hours per month of community\nwork. \"It comes down to resources. says\nadult beneficiaries can stay on the rolls.\nJulie Osnes, South Dakota's food-stamp\nservice will allow beneficiaries to stay on\nThere, Republican Gov. George Pataki is\nadministrator, who also heads the Ameri-\nthe rolls. \"We felt that was the best way to\nseeking to exempt 38 labor-surplus areas.\ncan Public Welfare Association coalition of\nbuild skills and good work habits,\" says\nincluding all of New York City.\nMargarete Gravina. a representative of\nfood-stamp directors. \"The closer we get\n\"For us, it's a big victory,\" says Liz\nMichigan's welfare office.\nto the cutoff date, the more States realize it\nKrueger. a director at the Community\nThat approach. however, draws criti-\nmakes sense to waive out as many people\nFood Resource Center, which lobbied\ncism from community-service organiza-\nas we can.\nheavily for New York's waiver. In West\ntions, who say they are being saddled with\nAs part of last year's landmark welfare\nVirginia, Al of 55 counties will be exempt.\nvirtually the entire cost of assisting this\nbill, food-stamp recipients aged 18-50 with-\nIn New Jersey, 23,000 of 39,000 recipients\npopulation. \"It's not that we don't want to\nout dependent children are to lose aid\nwill continue to get aid.\nhelp, but who is going to train these\nafter three months if they have not found a\n\"We don't want to tell them 'tough\njob or entered a workfare program. The\npeople? And supervise them?\" asks Sally\nluck, says Illinois's Mr. Grace. He adds\nclock started ticking in most states In\nWhalen. an official with the Michigan\nthat his staff \"massaged\" the state's\nCatholic Conference. \"There are very few\nDecember or January. But the provision.\nunemployment\nand\nlabor-sumine\nThe New York Times\nWashington Final\n\"All the News\nWashington and Baltimore: decreas-\ning clouds, windy, mild. High 60. To-\nThat's Fit to Print\"\nnight, partly cloudy. Low 40. Tomor-\nrow, partly to mostly sunny and cooler.\nHigh 56. Details are on page A20.\nVOL. CXLVI\nNo. 50,727\nCopyright © 1997 The New York Times\nMONDAY, MARCH 10, 1997\n+\nONE DOLLAR\nIn Fine Print,\nCONGRESS WEIGHS\nCustomers Lose\nMORE REGULATION\nAbility to Sue\nON MANAGED CARE\nArbitrators, Not Courts,\nRule on Complaints\nBIG JUMP IN MEMBERSHIP\nBy BARRY MEIER\nH.M.O.'s and Employers Fight\nAmericans are giving up their\nright to sue. To sue their banks over\nFederal Rules Establishing\ncredit card and account disputes. To\nsue their real estate agents over-\nTreatment Standards\nPHOTOCOPY\ndeals gone awry. To sue their mort-\ngage companies over false advertis-\ning. To sue their doctors for malprac-\nBy ROBERT PEAR\ntice or their health plans over cover-\nWASHINGTON, March 9 - Con-\nage. Even to sue a computer maker\ngress has begun a great debate on\nover a defective machine.\nthe proper role of Government in\nOften they are giving up the right\nregulating health care and seems\nwithout even knowing it, consenting\nquite likely to set standards for\nto have disputes settled outside a\nhealth maintenance organizations as\ncourtroom through arbitration in\nDemocrats and Republicans scram-\nwhich a private referee or panel ren-\nble to outdo each other in protecting\nders a binding, nonappealable deci-\nconsumers.\nsion.\nManaged-care companies de-\nMonica Almelda/The New York Times\nOn many occasions, companies\nnounce the prospect of new Federal\nMore Rain Arrives\nhave unilaterally wiped out custom-\nregulation but find themselves in an\ners' right to sue by sending out no-\nawkward position because they also\nStorm clouds in the Louisville area unleashed additional water yesterday in the already sodden region along the Ohio River, but forecasters said it\ntices of new arbitration require-\nsay they want to protect consumers.\nwould not have a widespread effect on the flood. In hard-hit areas like Falmouth, Ky., people struggled to get their lives back to normal. Page A10.\nments in the form of envelope stuff-\nEmployers strenuously oppose new\ners. And with recent court decisions\nregulation, fearing that it would\nupholding the use of arbitration over\nhamper their ability to control the\nlitigation, it is easier than ever for\ncost of employees' health benefits\nCampaign Finance Complicates China Policy\nTelevision Audience\ncompanies to demand that claims be\nthrough managed care.\nhandled out of court.\nSince Congress convened two\nShrinks. Or Does It?\nCertain companies have long re-\nby President Clinton's first trip to\nmonths ago, lawmakers, often with\nWARNED OF ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTIONS\nquired customers to resolve their\nPresident\nBy ELAINE SCIOLINO\nBeiling next vear\nTerection campaign.\nand protec\nI be the most surprised\nhave grea\nle United States of Amer-\ncess to Ca\nid there is any participa-\nKennedy\nChinese Government in\nPHOTOCOPY\ncases, the\ncontributions,\" Mr. Sasser\nPRESERVATION\ner profits,\nnterview in Memphis.\nLawma\nestic politics have a way\neral stand\ninto even the best-built\nrollment i\ntcies.\nber of peo\nin eight y\nNearly th\nworkers\nNetherlands,\nceive that\nother mar\ncted Churches\nThe sta\nlated insu\nGiven New Use\nCongress\nessential\nAmerican\nemployer-\nMARLISE SIMONS\nexempt fi\n:DAM - Every Friday\nthe numb\na courtyard along a busy\nAlthoug\n1 street fills with Muslim\nstandards\nng their bicycles and re-\nnot decid-\nir shoes as they prepare\nmake the\nThey may not see it this\nIf H.M.O.'\ne worshipers at the Fatih\nregulation\nque are part of a funda-\nis likely to\nnge in the Netherlands.\nAngel Franco/The New York Times\nservices\nwhere Allah is now loudly\nA treeless street in Brooklyn's Southside, where new welfare rules are having an impact, and residents and merchants fear for the future.\nmastector\ndi to be a Roman Catholic\nCongress\nhas been stripped of its\nI paintings, and the spires\nContinu\nlump towers now carry a\nIn a Pocket of Brooklyn Sewn by Welfare, an Unraveling\noon.\nnot Islam, brought here\nBy JOE SEXTON\nAngel Feliciano, owner of the Latin Corner\nMoroccan and Turkish\nWELFARE NEIGHBORHOOD\nS, that is troubling the\nSouthside, a Latino and Hasidic section of\nbodega, studies his bank statements - more\nsts and pastors. Rather it\nChange Comes to Southside\nthan two-thirds of his income comes from food\nRap Art\nWilliamsburg, sits on one edge of Brooklyn, a\nneighborhood staring out at the lights of Man-\nstamps - and frets about his store's prospects\nar-reaching shift, the con-\nChristoph\nin a world of shrinking public assistance. Mr.\nline of Christianity.\nhattan. It is a neighborhood of dying industry\nknown as\nSouthside, where roughly half the 27,000 resi-\nFeliciano has decided that his bodega's future\ng church attendance by\nand full-blown poverty, a neighborhood of\nfatally s]\ndents receive public assistance, money that not\nand mainstream Protes-\nis perilous enough that he will not make his\nchurches and shuls, of immigrants and their\nmonths a\nonly supports families but also holds together\nusual contribution to the neighborhood's Little\norced the clergy in much\nchildren.\nrapper, T\nthe modest economy of bodegas, discount\nLeague program. Mr. Feliciano said he be-\n0 confront the same, often\nIt is also a welfare neighborhood, and so it\nstores and travel agencies.\nlieved that the city's aggressive efforts to trim\nNew Fo\nstion their counterparts\nnow feels a deep unease about the new welfare\nThe effect can already be seen in tales of\nork and other American\nthe welfare rolls during the last two years had\nLabor le\nlegislation and what it and similar local\nhardship and success and in the decisions of\nasked: What to do with\nalready helped reduce his monthly food stamp\nfrom a tr\nchanges have done, and will mean.\nbusiness people and institutions that function\nDUS churches, the myriad\ners throu;\nFear of the future is already reshaping life in\non welfare money.\ndi sprawling monasteries\nContinued on Page A18, Column 1\nto have el\necome redundant and re-\nthey supp\n[ fortunes to keep up.\nchurches can be found in\nPalesti\nNews Summary\nA2\nanee, Germany and else-\nrthern Europe, and many\nOld Friends, Once Felons, Regroup to Fight Crime\nSaying it\nArts\nB1-8\ntinians re\nply closed. German\nBusiness Day\nD1-12\nwithdraw\nhough, are supported by\nnights for the last six years, and all\nknew we had to do something. We all\nEditorial, Op-Ed\nA24-25\noccupied\nes, and French churches\nBy MICHAEL JANOFSKY\nthey could talk about was Darryl's\nknew.\"\nInternational\nA3-8\nGovernm\nbecame municipal prop-\ndeath and the insanity of four lives\nMeet the Alliance of Concerned\nNational\nA10-16\nWASHINGTON. March 9 - Of all,\nMen of Washington a collection\nNew York\nA17-21\nPHOTOCOPY\nA18\nNE\nPRESERVATION\nTHE NEW YORK TIMES NEW YORK MONDAY, MARCH 10, 1997\nWhere Welfare Is in the Fabric of a Neighborhood, an Unraveling\nContinued From Page Al\nincome to $1,600, from $2,100.\nA former building superintendent, Hugo\nContreras, 48, sent his three children back to\nthe Dominican Republic after he was cut off\nfrom welfare for refusing his work assign-\nment.\nMiguel Pena, a 72-year-old Dominican\nimmigrant in whom mental illness has been\ndiagnosed, will lose his Federal disability\nbenefits, known as Supplemental Security\nIncome, within months because-he is not a\ncitizen. He, like many of the 80,000 legal\nimmigrants similarly affected, has no other\nsource of income.\nThe insular world of the neighborhood's\nHasidim, one rich with children, will also\nfeel the force of change. Rabbi David Nie-\nderman, a leader of the Satmar sect, esti-\nmates that 30 percent of the roughly 30,000\nHasidim in Williamsburg receive some\nform of public assistance. \"As we don't\nbelieve in birth control, there is only one\nbreadwinner in our families,\" he said. \"Sec-\nular education for our men ends early. What\njobs can they get? Doctors? Journalists?\"\nMeanwhile, working mothers wind up in\ntears daily at Nuestros Niños, a city-fi-\nnanced day care center, after being told\nthere is no space for their children, partly\nbecause the city has made welfare mothers\nPhotographs by Angel Franco/The New York Times\nits top priority for available slots.\nSo there is a palpable sense in Southside\nIn Southside, part of the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, the proportion of children is 50 percent higher than in New York City as a whole, according to census figures.\nthat its economy and people are on the cusp\nof a major transition as a result of the\ngovernment's redefinition of what it will do\nfor the poor. The complex currency of wel-\nWelfare Neighborhood\nGRAND ST\nREQUEENS\nBROOKLYN\nfare reaches places obvious and not in\nA Portrait of Southside\nArea\nof\nSouthside. It is spent on drugs, but also pays\nThe nation's welfare system is be-\nWILLIAMSBURG\nDetail\nCensus tracts surveyed within Southside, a neighborhood in\nBRIDGE\nBROOKLYN\npeople's tithes to the dozens of Pentecostal\ning reshaped with an array of policy\nchurches; it buys fancy clothes, but also\nchanges at the local, state and Fed-\nWilliamsburg, are indicated by a lighter shade in the map.\nEXPWY\nCatholic school tuition and Torah studies.\neral levels. Some people have fore-\nThe shading does not reflect the boundaries of Southside.\nThe forces starting to reshape Southside\ncast disaster for the poor; others see\nThe data are for 1990 unless noted.\ndo not flow from one piece of legislation.\nthe end of decades of dependence and\nNew York\nBROADWAY\nFOURTH ST\nQUEENS\nUNION AVE.\nLORIMER ST\nWelfare reform is a series of changes in\ndishonesty. In the coming months,\nSouthside\nCity\nsocial policies, made at several levels of\nENT AVE.\nS,\nthis series will examine how the\nEIGHTH ST\n27,762\n7.3 million\nDRIGGS\nJMZ\nPopulation\nB'KL\nFIFTH ST.\ngovernment. It is a patchwork of new laws\nchanges come together in one Brook-\nThe forces starting to reshape Southside\ncast disaster for the poor; others see\nThe data are for 1990 unless noted.\ndo not flow from one piece of legislation.\nthe end of decades of dependence and\nNew York\nBROADWAY\nWelfare reform is a series of changes in\ndishonesty. In the coming months,\nSouthside\nCity\nsocial policies, made at several levels of\nPopulation\n27,762\nDRIGGS\nJMZ\nthis series will examine how the\n7.3 million\ngovernment. It is a patchwork of new laws\nchanges come together in one Brook-\nand pending proposals, many of which will\nlyn neighborhood, Southside in Wil-\nWhite (non-Hispanic)\n15%\n43%\nBlack (non-Hispanic)\n9%\n26%\nbe phased in over weeks, months and years.\nliamsburg. It will measure conse-\nWilliamsburg\nOf the 27,000 people in Southside, 6,200\nquences and opinions. This is the first\nHispanic (of any race)\n80%\n24%\nBROADWAY\nSUBWAY\nhave been receiving guaranteed cash and\nvisit.\nPeople under age 18\n35%\n23%\nLINES\nother assistance through the core Federal\nwelfare program, Aid to Families with De-\nMedian household income\n$14,328\n$29,823\nAdults 25 and older with college degree\n5%\n26%\npendent Children. The Federal Government\nthat makes loans in Williamsburg have in-\nPeople living below the poverty level\n45%\n19%\nHousing that is overcrowded*\n26%\n12%\nhas given control of this and other welfare\ncluded talk of welfare reform's potential\nPeople on public assistance (1996)\n49%\n22%\nChildren born to parents on Medicaid (1994)\n77%\n52%\nprograms to the states, and decreed that no\neffects. Officials with a nonprofit economic\nperson or family in neighborhoods like\nAdults 25 and older with high school degree 33%\n68%\nInfant deaths per 1,000 (1994)\n16\n9\ndevelopment project acknowledge it may be\nSouthside will receive Federal money for\nmore difficult to attract investors.\nlonger than five years. Gov. George E. Pa-\nSources: Census Bureau, New York City Human Resources Administration, New York City Department of Health\n*More than one person per room.\nMoises Esdaille, the owner of the C-Town\ntaki has proposed slashing the size of those\nSupermarket on Havemeyer Street, closed\nFederal payments year by year as the five-\nPHOTOCOPY\nThe New York Times\nhis store last month after he was refused a\nyear limit approaches for families. The\nloan by the Empire State Economic Develop-\nDRESERVATION\nresults of the coming debate in the Legisla-\nDon't Sell It Short\nment Corporation, the state agency that\nture over his proposal will have direct con-\nsequences for the people of Southside.\nawards grants and loans to entrepreneurs\nand institutions across New York. More than\nIn addition, 1,100 single childless adults in\nA Neighborhood\nthe neighborhood, ineligible for A.F.D.C.,\n60 percent of Mr. Esdaille's business at the\nreceive money through Home Relief, a state\nsupermarket resulted from food stamps.\nWith Resources\nMr. Esdaille, who admits he has had sev-\ncash assistance program that Governor Pa-\ntaki has proposed be eliminated. For the\neral financing problems, has been left to\nIn the end, Southside may be up to the\nwonder how much the uncertain economic\nlast year, New York City has been requiring\nchallenges. Many working people in South-\nboth A.F.D.C. recipients and Home Relief\nfuture of the neighborhood made his store\nside say they think that many recipients\nrecipients to work for their benefits.\nappear a risk. \"It was never said to me\ncheat the government and could be working.\nAnother 2,400 residents exist on Supple-\ndirectly that they worried about what was\n\"I know what goes on here,\" said Lena\nmental Security Income, which is Federal\ngoing to happen to the neighborhood,\" said\nManino, owner of Aldo's Coffee Shop in the\nMr. Esdaille, who laid off 15 workers. \"But\nassistance for the elderly or disabled and is\nhow could it not have been one reason?\"\nheart of Southside. \"Those are my taxes.\noften used for medical care. The govern-\nment has sent letters to hundreds of immi-\nRandy Daniels, a senior vice president for\nYes, there are people who need help. But out\ngrants lacking citizenship saying they will\neconomic revitalization at the Empire State\nof 10 people on welfare in this neighborhood,\nbe cut off from the program no later than\nDevelopment Corporation, said concerns\nmaybe two deserve it.\"\nabout Mr. Esdaille's debt and other prob-\nThe neighborhood, too, is not without re-\nthis summer. Changes in Supplemental Se-\nlems were much much greater than any\nsources. Physically rehabilitated from the\ncurity Income will also affect scores of\nunease about the economic impact of welfare\ndays of arson and abandonment in the 1970's\nchildren who will lose their monthly checks\nreform. Mr. Daniels, however, said, \"We\n- the number of reported felony crimes has\nas a result of a toughening of Federal regu-\nlations for who qualifies as disabled.\nhave to take note of anything that might have\nfallen 42 percent during the last three years\nAn additional 3,700 people receive Medic-\na positive or negative impact on a local\nwin\n- the neighborhood has churches, an alter-\naid as their only public subsidy. Food\neconomy, and SO the impact of welfare re-\nnative high school, an array of addiction\nform will have to be taken note of in any\ntreatment centers. Parts of the neighborhood\nstamps will be eliminated for much of the\ndecisions we make.\"\nfall within the boundaries of a major city and\nwelfare population: people who reach their\nThe store's supplier, Krasdale Foods Inc.,\nstate plan to build affordable housing. And\nwelfare time limits, those who fail to meet\nwhich deals with small supermarkets across\nthere is a legacy of political organizing\nthe work requirements and immigrants who\nthe city, was even more blunt about how the\nA landlord, Ari Gottman, ordered Debra Brown, Robin Sirota and Evelyn Cardona off\namong the Puerto Ricans.\nare not citizens.\nhis property last month. The women were protesting changes in welfare rules.\nBut any positive remaking of the neighbor-\nThe supporters of the welfare legislation\nchanges in welfare might affect its decisions\nhave their own forecast for the future of a\nin welfare neighborhoods.\nhood will be difficult. Southside reflects dis-\n\"I think a lot of the store owners we deal\nplace like Southside: its residents will re-\nroughly one-fifth of the 280 students will lose\nthought, for my kids. Now I want to do\ncouraging national demographic realities:\nclaim their independence, find work, give up\nwith have bought into the idea that if welfare\ntheir monthly checks of $500 to $800 in the\nsomething for me.\"\nmore Latinos are now officially defined as\nthe corrosive burden of welfare. And its\nreform works, dealing with a neighborhood\ncoming months because they will not meet\nOthers forced to work for their benefits\npoor than are members of any other group,\neconomy, despite short-term damage, will\nof working people that results is going to be\nthe new standards of disability.\nremain mystified, uncertain why such a fu-\nand their incomes are declining further; only\nemerge as an authentically healthy engine.\ngood for them financially,\" said Ray Thek, a\nAs a result, school administrators are pre-\nror has been directed at women living on a\n5 percent have college degrees; nearly 90\nlawyer for Krasdale. \"The question is what\nhappens short term. It's absolutely true that\nparing the staff of 140 for layoffs.\nsum that averages, for a family of three, $577\npercent do not speak English as their prima-\n\"We know what might happen,\" said Car-\nwe are going to be very conservative, even\na month, plus $230 in food stamps.\nry language.\nRipple Effect\nmen Pagan, a classroom aide and former\nRoughly 15 percent of the neighborhood's\nreticent, about what stores we get involved\nMany of the women, a significant percent-\nin.\"\nrecipient, \"and SO those who work here look\nchildren are born to teen-age mothers;\nEconomic Change,\nage in their 50's, are unsure what they are\nPeople have been making painful deci-\nat each other and think: 'I hope it's you that\nscores of its households include the welfare-\nexpected to do in the years to come. They do\nYou\ndon't\nwant\nsupported granddaughters of welfare-de-\nportie,\nlawyer for Krasdale. \"The question is what\nAs a result, school administrators are pre-\nror has been directed at women living on a\n5 percent have college degrees; nearly 90\nhappens short term. It's absolutely true that\nparing the staff of 140 for layoffs.\nsum that averages, for a family of three, $577\npercent do not speak English as their prima-\nwe are going to be very conservative, even\n\"We know what might happen,\" said Car-\na month, plus $230 in food stamps.\nry language.\nRipple Effect\nmen Pagan, a classroom aide and former\nRoughly 15 percent of the neighborhood's\nreticent, about what stores we get involved\nMany of the women, a significant percent-\nrecipient, \"and so those who work here look\nchildren are born to teen-age mothers;\nin.\"\nEconomic Change,\nage in their 50's, are unsure what they are\nPeople have been making painful deci-\nat each other and think: 'I hope it's you that\nscores of its households include the welfare-\nexpected to do in the years to come. They do\nsions, great and modest, and preparing for\ngoes when the layoffs come.' You don't want\nsupported granddaughters of welfare-de-\nDismal Decisions\nnot consider their job prospects good, partic-\nto feel that in your heart. But you do.\"\npendent grandmothers; much of its work\ndifficult realities elsewhere in Southside.\nularly in a neighborhood like Southside.\nforce consists of illegal immigrants. There is\nAn example of that has taken place at the\nAntonia Medina, 58, arrived in Southside\nalso virtually no medical infrastructure in\nIt is hard to measure cause and effect SO\nFrancis of Paola Preschool for disabled chil-\nWorkfare Woes\nfrom Puerto Rico 30 years ago. A former\nSouthside. The distant Woodhull Medical and\nearly on in the life of welfare reform, but the\ndren in Williamsburg. The Federal Govern-\nfactory worker, she has been required to\nment, in addition to ending Supplemental\nMental Health Center is the site of nearly all\neconomic ripples are already being felt.\nThe administrators at a parochial elemen-\nSecurity Income benefits to legal immi-\nWork Requirement\nclean McCarren Park, blocks north of South-\ncare. Drug use remains a plague. Domestic\nside, for more than six months, receiving no\ngrants lacking citizenship, will no longer\nviolence, which studies have shown often\ntary school, SS. Peter and Paul, worry about\nCuts Welfare Rolls\nguidance or training.\nhaving to raise tuition if hardship forces\nextend hundreds of dollars in monthly bene-\nshackles women to welfare, is widespread.\nparents to withdraw their children. Conver-\nfits to children with learning delays or be-\n\"Go to the factories, they are Dominicans,\nManufacturing, once the thumping eco-\nsations in the boardroom of at least one bank\nhavioral problems. School officials say that\nMexicans, and they don't have papers,\" said\nnomic heart of the area, is a faint presence.\nThe greatest impact on Southside has re-\nMs. Medina, who works 44 hours every two\nsulted from the city's program to make\nMany remaining factories flout laws govern-\nweeks for her $68.50 in cash benefits and\npeople work for their benefits. The program,\ning wages and legal employment.\nroughly $150 in food stamps. \"They take $3\nin place for two years, has helped reduce the\n\"I have worked for 10 years, put money\nA CLOSER LOOK\nan hour. I can't take that work. I didn't come\ncity's welfare rolls, city officials say, to\naway for my kids, seen the neighborhood\nhere for welfare. But this WEP program is\n900,000 from 1.1 million. More than 110,000\nimprove,\" said Mike Vasquez, a building\nChanging Rules, New Deadlines\nnot a serious program to have people work.\"\npeople have gone through the Work Experi-\nsuperintendent raised by a mother on wel-\nence Program, called WEP.\nPalmira Rodriguez, 55, suffers from asth-\nfare. \"Maybe the neighborhood now goes\nSo Far\nComing Up\nScores of the 35,000 now participating in\nma and was hospitalized during a trip to her\ndown the drain. Welfare has been a kind of\nthe workfare program come from Southside.\ncity-mandated workfare job. But city offi-\nsecurity for the neighborhood.\"\nFEBRUARY 1995 Mayor Rudolph-W.\nMARCH3 Many legal residents who are\nWilliamsburg Works, an agency with a lim-\ncials insisted she could work, and cut her off\nResidents say the welfare measures could\nGiuliani begins a program that includes\nnoncitizens receiving S.S.I. will have\nited staff on Union Avenue that tries to find\nfrom benefits. She had her benefits restored,\nwiden the fractures already coursing\nbut doctors hired by the city now say she can\nthrough the neighborhood.\ninvestigations of new applicants for\nbeen notified that they are no longer\nwork for welfare recipients, has been SO\nwelfare, the fingerprinting of recipients to\noverwhelmed with people sent by the city\ndo office work. She is awaiting a hearing.\nDivides of distrust have long separated the\neligible for benefits.\nthat it informed state and city officials that\n\"I was an independent woman once,\" she\nold-line Puerto Rican households from those\nprevent fraud and mandatory work\nthey would have to rethink their contract.\nsaid. \"I worked at Bellevue Hospital. I don't\nof the more recent Latino arrivals, with\nrequirements for adult recipients.\nAPRIL 1 The city can begin removing\nOne week, 35 welfare recipients involved in\nwish to be on welfare. It's embarrassing. I\nmany Puerto Ricans saying that Dominicans\nlegal immigrants from the food stamp\nAUG. 22, 1996 President Clinton signs\nthe city's mandatory work program showed\nfeel like I am begging. But I am sick.\"\nand Mexicans have helped destroy the job\nprogram. An estimated 100,000 to\nup to look for jobs. No one got a job there.\nThe work requirements have also strained\nmarket, taking jobs for substandard wages.\nsweeping welfare legislation, ending 60\n130,000 people receive stamps. They\nThe workfare program has produced casu-\nthe neighborhood's day care system. The city\nAnother chasm has separated the Latinos\nyears of guaranteed Federal financial\nmust be removed by Aug. 22.\nalties and successes. Mr. Contreras, who\nhas directed the day care centers it finances\nand the Hasidim, groups that are as suspi-\nhelp for the poor.\nlives alone and gets by on odd jobs, said he\nto give first priority to welfare recipients.\ncious of each other about welfare and the\nAPRIL 1 Toughened immigration rules go\nrefused his work assignment because he was\nSo in January, the board of the Nuestros\nreal need for it as they always have been\nSEPT. 21, 1996 The city begins denying\ninto effect, including no judicial review of\nfrightened and humiliated by having to\nNiños Child Development Center decided not\nabout housing, police protection and political\nFederal food stamps to new applicants\npeople seeking asylum, and no\nsweep streets for his welfare benefits. But\nto expand its operation, fearing that expand-\nclout.\nwho are legal immigrants but not\nMaggie Montalvo, a mother fearful of losing\nguaranteed legal aid for those seeking\ning to meet the demand caused by work\nThe Rev. Matthew Foley, pastor of Epiph-\ncitizens.\nher benefits after 15 years on welfare, now\nrequirements for welfare mothers might\nany Roman Catholic Church in Southside for\nasylum.\nmeets her 20-hour-a-week work requirement\ncompromise its quality of care. So there is\n37 years, said: \"There were families on\nJAN. 1, 1997 All people receiving\nby assisting teachers at her daughter's Head\nJULY 1 Because of limitations placed on\nvirtually no room for the children of the\nwelfare in great numbers when I came, and\nSupplemental Security Income benefits\nStart program. She is studying for a high\nparents who stream through the door daily.\nthere are even greater numbers of them\nbecause of substance abuse or alcohol\nthe criteria for qualification, children\nschool equivalency diploma.\n\"It's not fair to make people who work\nnow. For some it was a moral question. For\nproblems are to be terminated unless\nreceiving S.S.I. for disabilities that are no\n\"A lot of people are scared at first,\" Ms.\nwait longer,\" said Maria Rodriguez, 27, a\nothers it was a practical question. Mainly it\nthey can show another underlying\nlonger applicable will begin to have their\nMontalvo said. \"They think their children\nlegal secretary with two children and no\nwas a question of surviving and finding a\ndisability.\nbenefits terminated.\nwill be deprived. But I needed help, a push.\nsubsidized day care options. \"Everybody\nway to do that. Now we will see if there is\nHalf my life I stayed inside. I stayed inside, I\nshould have the same rights.\"\nanother way.\"\nPHOTOCOPY\nE,\nOCOPY\nPRESERVATION\nIVATION\nmother's life was in danger.\nNEW YORK STATE\nused and only in cases where the\nfamily\nSPM\nabortion\nquiting\ntial\nClinton\n3]\ness ]\n, to Get Welfare Recipients Work\nhttp://\nh.nyt\ncom/web/docsroot/yn /day/early/clinton-work.html\nClick here for a FREE\nMake Your\ntwo week subscription to\nMessage Hit\nThe New York Times\nthe Mark!\nthe Wall Street Journal\nNCISA\nInteractive Edition\nClick Here\nHome\nSections\nContents\nSearch\nForums\nHelp\nJanuary 11, 1997\nClinton Seeks Business Help to Get Welfare\nRecipients Work\nBy JAMES BENNET\nW\nASHINGTON -- Noting that the changes he approved last year to the\nwelfare system \"did not put anybody to work,\" President Clinton\nembarked Friday on his post-election campaign to persuade business leaders to\nhire welfare recipients.\nCiting new time limits for most adults receiving welfare benefits, Clinton said\nbefore meeting with business executives at the White House: \"Unless we can\ncreate new jobs in the private sector within the two-year time line, the welfare\nreform effort will not succeed.\"\nBeginning what his aides said would be a national effort as the changes to the\nwelfare system take hold, Clinton Friday brought together executives who are\nalready trying to hire people receiving welfare.\n\"My single message is the CEOs of America need to step up and recognize this\nnow is a private sector initiative,\" Gerald Greenwald, the chief executive of\nUAL Corp., said as he left the hourlong meeting. \"The challenge really of\nwelfare reform is the challenge in the private sector. We're the ones that have\nthe jobs.\"\nHe said United Airlines had hired 25,000 people in 21/2 years, 15,000 of them\nat $7 to $10 an hour. \"A lot of them have been coming off welfare,\" he said.\nProdded by reporters asking why the White House was not leading by example,\nClinton's staff is looking into hiring welfare recipients, Michael McCurry, the\nWhite House press secretary said Friday. \"We have to look very carefully at\nwhat federal guidelines and restrictions are and whether it's possible,\" he said.\nAfter signing welfare legislation in August over the anguished objections of his\nliberal supporters, Clinton met with business leaders twice during his re-election\ncampaign to urge them to hire welfare recipients, while promising to amend the\nnew law to soften its impact. He also proposed $3.4 billion in grants and tax\nincentives to help provide jobs for people being forced off welfare benefits.\n1 of 3\n03/09/97 21:08:19\nClinton S\nBt\nHelp to Get Welfare Recipients Work\nhttp://\n:h.nyt\nc\n'web/docsroot/yr/mo/day/early/clinton-work.html\nExecutives who attended Friday's meeting said Clinton had promised federal\nhelp with efforts like worker training, day care and transportation from the inner\ncities to jobs. But they said they anticipated little new federal money.\n\"It's not a question of money, because there's a lot of money going to people on\nwelfare,\" said Bill Esery, the chairman and chief executive of Sprint. \"It's a\nquestion of how you can use that money in a different way to get people\ngainfully employed.\"\nClinton also announced Friday that his administration had granted waivers for\nthree more states -- Louisiana, Maryland, and North Carolina -- to carry out\ntheir welfare plans. In all, 29 states have waivers.\nWhile critics of the president praised him for reaching out to business leaders,\nsome raised concerns about federal encouragement to hire welfare recipients.\n\"We must proceed with caution,\" Rep. Bill Archer, chairman of the Committee\non Ways and Means, wrote in a letter to Clinton on Thursday. \"Welfare\nrecipients should not be given jobs at the expense of the working poor, who may\nnot qualify for a corporate tax credit but who, nonetheless, still need jobs.\"\nA further obstacle to hiring welfare recipients was suggested by a question put\nto Clinton during his appearance Friday. Citing new jobs data, a reporter asked\nif Clinton worried that unemployment had dropped too far.\nAs Labor Secretary Robert Reich left the meeting with executives, he said:\n\"Even at a low unemployment rate of 5.3 percent, there are still some 7 million\npeople unemployed and actively looking for jobs. People who are now welfare\nbeneficiaries are likely to be at the end of any job queue. The ultimate answer is\neconomic growth, and simultaneously, a better match between unemployed\nworkers and jobs.\"\nAnother question is how responsive business leaders will be to jawboning from\nthe White House.\nReich said: \"In my experience, it's difficult to get most of the business\ncommunity to rally behind a request that they do the right thing. Unless they see\na direct relationship between profit maximization and doing the right thing, they\nwill not be persuaded.\"\nSome business people at the meeting Friday said hiring welfare recipients made\ngood business sense. Robert Lowes, the chief executive of Burger King, said\none of his franchisees recently opened stores in federal empowerment zones in\nthe depressed city centers in Baltimore and Detroit, employing \"a high\npercentage of welfare recipients.\"\nThose stores, he said, were averaging $2 million in sales a year, compared with\n$1.1 million for Burger King restaurants nationwide. \"It's not just the right thing\n2 of 3\n03/09/97 21:08:19\nClinton Seeks Business Help to Get Welfare Rec\nWork\nhttp:// :h.mytimes.com/web/docsroot/yr/ day. ly/clinton-work.html\nto do, it's a tremendous business opportunity,\" he said.\nHome I Sections I Contents I Search I Forums I Help\nCopyright 1997 The New York Times Company\nTis/The Wall Street Journal of\nMake Your Message Hit the Mark!\nNEWED smes.\nINCISA\nClick here for a FREE two week subscription.\nCisck Here\nI\n3 of 3\n03/09/97 21:08:20\ne - Best Policy - Mar. 8, 1997\nhttp://www.slate.c\n/\nPolicy/97-03-08/1\n'olicy.asp\nIF YOU'RE ITCHING FOR\nA NEW CAR. SCRATCH HERE\nTOYOTATERCEL\nSlate\n12\nthe best\npolicy\nWelfare Scare\nIs the new welfare law really as\ncruel as they say?\nBy Jodie T. Allen\n(1,467 words; posted Saturday, March 8; to be\ncomposted Saturday, March 15)\nYou have a reasonably soft heart. You\nwouldn't feel comfortable seeing little kids\nbegging in the streets, or stepping over the\nbodies of old folks gasping in the gutters.\nMaybe you read the Atlantic Monthly article\nby Peter Edelman, a former\nClinton-administration official, who called\nthe welfare-reform law signed last fall by his\nformer boss \"terrible legislation.\" Edelman\nsays the result will be \"more malnutrition\nand more crime, increased infant mortality,\nand increased drug and alcohol abuse.\" You\ndon't defend the previous welfare\nsystem--who could?--but you wonder: Are\nthe scaremongers right?\nHow worried should you be? Here's a quick\nreview of what is--and isn't--likely to be truly\ntroublesome as the great welfare-reform experiment\nbegins.\n1 of 7\n03/09/97 18:51:17\nSlate - Best Policy - Mar. 8, 1997\nhttp://www.slate.com/BestPolicy/97-03-08/\nPolicy\n1.\nStates that are too \"kind.\" Some folks'\nworries are the opposite of Edelman's. They\nfear that the welfare system won't change enough.\nThe new welfare law abolishes the current\nfederal welfare-entitlement program, Aid to Families\nWith Dependent Children, and replaces it with block\ngrants to the states. States have to create\nreplacement programs that set limits (five years) on\nhow long most (four out of five) families can get\nwelfare, and ensure that half the families still on the\nrolls in 2002 have at least one (part- or full-time)\nworking member. States also have to contribute 75\npercent of the money that they used to spend on\nAFDC to the new Temporary Assistance to Needy\nFamilies (TANF) program--the so-called\nMaintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement.\nBeyond that (and a bunch of other eye-glazing\nrules and exceptions to exceptions that will keep\nfederal regulation writers off the dole), states are\nbasically free to offer whatever combination of cash\nand services they think is best.\n2 of 7\n03/09/97 18:51:20\nSlate - Best Policy - Mar. 8, 1997\nhttp://www.slate.com/BestPolicy/97-03-08/BesfPolicy.asp\nS\n0 what are states likely to do? One option\nis--nothing much. If a state really wants to\nmaintain the status quo, it can probably get away\nwith it. Welfare law has long been loaded with\nrequirements that states must cut fraud on the rolls,\nmove recipients into jobs, provide necessary service,\nblah, blah, blah. The requirements go unmet. The\ngovernor makes a few calls to the White House or\nCapitol Hill. Eyes are averted.\nMoreover, the new law, for all its seeming\ntoughness, allows states plenty of leeway if they\nwant to be generous. And welfare consultants are\nalready showing the way. States are free, for\nexample, to redirect the money that they used to\nspend on matching federal AFDC grants (about 45\npercent of the total) to provide help for families who\nhave lost their \"temporary assistance\" coverage. The\nnew law also provides an incentive for states to use\ntheir own money to continue grants to families that\nexhaust their five-year eligibility.\nNot so long ago, states like New York,\nMassachusetts, and California might have brazened\nit out. But times have changed. Most states have\nalready toughened their welfare programs under\nwaivers granted under the old pre-reform rules.\nSome of these waivers are for more generous\nprograms, but others are just as tough as the new\nlaw.\n2.\nStates that are too mean. So how nasty\nmight states get? Some were pretty mean\nalready. People tend to forget that under the old\nrules, states got to set the key parameter--the\nbenefit level. AFDC payments ranged from 11\npercent of the official poverty line in Mississippi to\nabout 65 percent in New York's Suffolk County.\n(This doesn't count food stamps, Medicaid, the\nEarned Income Tax Credit, and federal aid for\nhousing, home heating, child care, and so forth,\nwhich will still be available.) At least in theory,\nMississippi now could replace even its small cash\ncontribution with the proverbial \"bus ticket North.\"\nNot likely, perhaps, but worth watching out for.\n3 of 7\n03/09/97 18:51:23\nSlate - Best Policy - Mar. 8, 1997\nhttp://www.slate.com/BestPolicy/97-03-08/BestPolicy.asp\n3\nA shortage of money. Under the old rules,\nthe federal government would match the\nmoney states spent, according to a formula that\ntook account of state need and benefit levels. The\nnew rules cap federal welfare payments at the 1995\nlevel (with some allowances for rising\nunemployment and other contingencies). For now\nthat's a windfall for all but a couple of states, since\nwelfare caseloads have dropped by almost 10\npercent nationally since 1995. But what if times get\ntough and caps start to pinch? Well, the Food\nStamp program has long been\ncapped--supposedly--yet Congress has never failed\nto provide extra funds when governors needed\nthem.\n4.\nA lack of \"suitable\" jobs. Welfare\nadvocates are already complaining that\nrecipients will be pushed into \"dead-end\" jobs. But\nsuccessful job-program operators have learned a key\nlesson since the last time we had this argument\n(back in Jimmy Carter's day): Most jobs in this\neconomy are \"dead end.\" People who work hard\nand build a good record move on to better jobs.\nAnd the labor-market success of millions of\nunskilled immigrants in recent years makes it hard to\nsustain the case that only highly trained or educated\nworkers are in demand--at least for the moment.\n4 of 7\n03/09/97 18:51:23\nSlate - Best Policy - Mar. 8, 1997\n5\nIncapable workers. What about welfare\nparents who, in practice, just cannot hold jobs\n(or perform other \"work activities\") as the new law\nrequires they do after two years on the rolls? Maybe\nthey have low mental or physical abilities. Maybe\nthey are drug or alcohol addicts or have multiple\nfamily or behavioral problems--or maybe they\nsimply have a bad attitude. Nobody really knows\nhow big a problem this is, and the extent will surely\ndiffer from area to area. But we won't know till we\npush the limits.\nMany states are already finding that a simple\nshove can have surprising results. Wisconsin's\nambitious (and relatively expensive) welfare reform\nhas cut its caseload by more than half.\nMassachusetts put in a tough program in November\n1995 and has seen its welfare rolls drop to the\nlowest level in 23 years. Oklahoma's welfare rolls\nhave dropped by 17 percent over the last year, even\nthough it has only talked about tougher rules.\nHealthy job markets surely helped, but the\neconomy has boomed at other times with little effect\non welfare. State officials think many potential\nrecipients simply got the message that times have\nchanged, and found jobs on their own. Moreover,\ncredible studies have shown that many families have\nhidden income. A recent study from California's\nPublic Policy Institute, for example, found that nine\nout of 10 teen-age welfare mothers in the state have\nincome sources other than AFDC. Reporters across\nthe country who have set out looking for early\nhorror stories have returned with articles that are,\non the whole, remarkably upbeat.\n5 of 7\n03/09/97 18:51:23\nSlate I\nPolicy - Mar. 8, 1997\nhttp://www e.com/BestPolicy/97-03-08/BestPolicy.asp\n6.\nNot enough training and supportive\nservices. The new law is pretty tough on\ntraining. Only short-term job-readiness or search\nassistance, on-the-job training, or a maximum of 12\nmonths of vocational training count as \"work\nactivities\"--though recipients who are working part\ntime can take other classes in their spare hours. But\ntraining programs have a dismal record. Some have\neven been shown to impede movement into jobs.\nLos Angeles County, for example, was having no\nluck with its basic-education GAIN (Greater\nAvenues for Independence) program until, two\nyears ago, it shifted the focus to getting jobs. The\nresult: a 160 percent increase in job placements and\nbig benefit savings.\nAs for \"supportive services,\" in Massachusetts,\nat least, most of the special jobs set aside for\nwelfare recipients have gone unfilled, and there has\nbeen no increased demand for medical help or\nchild-care assistance.\nT\nwo things you really should be alarmed\nabout (both of which President Clinton now\nproposes to remedy):\nPeople between the ages of 18 and 50 who\nhave no kids lose food stamps after six\nmonths if they aren't working or in training.\nThat might not sound so tough. Street-level\ntrafficking in food stamps has got out of\nhand, and it's time for another round of\ncleanup and streamlining. And many of the\npeople in question are real deadbeats--drunks,\naddicts, and the like. But that's just the point.\nFood stamps are the last resort, the pittance\nthat a rich country doles out to even its least\n\"deserving\" citizens. Of course, this new\nrequirement, like many others, is \"waivable,\"\nand many big cities have already got--or\napplied for--dispensation.\nLegal immigrants who are not yet naturalized\n(unless they are refugees, seeking asylum,\nhave worked here 10 years, or are veterans or\nin the military) lose both food stamps and\nbenefits they might be receiving from the\nSupplemental Security Income (SSI) program\nfor the aged and disabled. Most immigrants\nare supposed to have sponsors who stand\n6 of 7\n03/09/97 18:51:23\nSlate - I P / Mar. 8, 1997\nhttp://www.slate.c BestPolicy/97-03-08/BestPolicy\nready to make sure they do not become public\ndependents. Yet the number on SSI,\nespecially, has soared. Putting some teeth into\nsponsorship requirements for future entrants,\nas the new law will do, is reasonable. But\npulling the rug out from under people who\nmay have no practical recourse is unfair. And\nunlike the cutoff for childless food stampers,\nthis requirement can't be \"waived\" away.\nLinks\nFor a dire view of the new welfare law, see Peter\nEdelman's Atlantic Monthly piece, \"The Worst\nThing Bill Clinton Has Done.\" Then check out\nClinton's defense on the White House\nwelfare-reform page. The Institute for the Study of\nCivic Values also has a very informative\nwelfare-reform page. So how mean are the states?\nHandsNet's \"Welfare Reform Watch\" tracks the\nimplementation of welfare reform, and the Welfare\nInformation Network provides more on that topic.\nThe Urban Institute and Idea Central post extensive\nanalyses of the new law. The Washington Post went\nout in search of a horror story and came back\nMarch 6 with one that's not so horrific. In February,\nthe Post found some evidence that was downright\npromising.\nIllustrations by Robert Neubecker\nPrevious The Best Policy columns\nSlate\n12345 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 14\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23\ncontents\nc 1997 Microsoft and/or its suppliers. All rights reserved.\n7 of 7\n03/09/97 18:51:23"
}