Newsday OP-ED October 30, 2006
New Rules Hurt the Working Poor
Written By: Dick Koubek and Peter Barnett
Carol is a single mother who came to our agency, which houses the homeless, receiving
welfare and with no high school diploma. We placed her in a program through which she
got her graduate equivalency diploma and learned computer skills at the same time. In
less than six months, Carol got a job earning $10 an hour. She then enrolled part time at
Suffolk Community College. But, because her monthly income was then $1,600- above the
limit for county welfare recipients- the Suffolk County Department of Social Services
stopped sending her rent checks. The stress of raising her family and paying the rent and
tuition on less than $20,000 a year led Carol to become seriously ill. She lost her job,
dropped out of college, and today is back on welfare.
This outcome was not the expected one when Work First welfare reform was enacted by
Congress 10 years ago and signed by President Bill Clinton. Above everything, the goal
was to move welfare clients into a job and close their cases. But, with even stricter work
participation rules that took effect this month, agencies like ours expect to be seeing
many more cases like Carol's. Department of Social Services staff, with generally higher
caseloads per worker than before welfare reform, will be under more pressure to move
clients into work or face serious reductions in state funding. Welfare clients, for example,
now will be allowed only six weeks per year for full-time mental illness or chemical
dependence treatment- then it's off to work at least part-time, while they continue
treatment, even if they are still sick. How many are likely to keep their jobs under those
circumstances?
Yet government leaders and policy analysts of all ideological stripes have hailed the
success of the welfare reform enacted a decade ago this past August. Clinton recently
wrote that " the last 10 years have shown that we did, in fact, end welfare as we knew it,
creating a new beginning for millions of Americans." On the right, Douglas Besharov of the
American Enterprise Institute observed that welfare reform resulted in a 60 percent
reduction in welfare cases. Besharov noted, however, that mothers who left welfare for
work are earning $8 an hour or $16,000 a year, which, he admits "is not a lot of money."
Not a lot of money? Actually, $16,000 a year is below the 2006 federal poverty level of
$20,000 for a family of four. On Long Island, former welfare recipients are earning about
$10 an hour, which is just at the poverty level. A Catholic Charities study of families served
by parish outreach centers and this year's Adelphi University Vital Signs study of trends on
Long Island each concluded that because of our high cost of living, $40,000 a year
(200 percent of the federal poverty line) is the true poverty level for Long Island. The
Catholic Charities study also concluded that the working poor were actually worse off than
those still on welfare, with many more of the working families finding it harder to buy food
and pay rent and bills. These people- many former welfare recipients- explain why a 2006
study by Long Island Cares and organization that provides food and supports
self-sufficiency programs for needy people, found 259,000 Long Islanders struggling to eat.
And, woe to former welfare recipients like our client Carol who begin to enjoy some
on-the-job success. When their incomes reach the federal poverty level, the Department
of Social Services is mandated to cut off their rent and utility assistance. When they reach
$25,164, they even lose food stamps.
On the other hand, by one Nassau County calculation, about 40 percent of employable
welfare clients lack a high school education, meaning that they are condemned to a
lifetime of low-wage work. The Social Services Departments in both counties do not have
the staff or funds to mentor or counsel them into a career-oriented training program. The
federal Work First priority is an especially poor fit for a Long Island marketplace, where a
concentration of high-tech businesses needs highly skilled workers.
From the start, as its name implied, the Personal Responsibility Act was intended to use
new work requirements to fix the character flaws that supposedly plague welfare
recipients: Irresponsibility and laziness. Yet, we know that many welfare clients were
already working- off the books- to pay their bills. The reform that is really needed should
be "Education First." On Long Island especially, requiring education for welfare recipients
would help people secure the workers they need.
Welfare reform has indeed closed many individual cases. But look behind the closed
cases and what we find are rigid rules that do little to move people out of poverty. Our
agency and the Carols we serve look at the anniversary of welfare reform and see little to
celebrate.
New Rules Hurt the Working Poor
Written By: Dick Koubek and Peter Barnett
Carol is a single mother who came to our agency, which houses the homeless, receiving
welfare and with no high school diploma. We placed her in a program through which she
got her graduate equivalency diploma and learned computer skills at the same time. In
less than six months, Carol got a job earning $10 an hour. She then enrolled part time at
Suffolk Community College. But, because her monthly income was then $1,600- above the
limit for county welfare recipients- the Suffolk County Department of Social Services
stopped sending her rent checks. The stress of raising her family and paying the rent and
tuition on less than $20,000 a year led Carol to become seriously ill. She lost her job,
dropped out of college, and today is back on welfare.
This outcome was not the expected one when Work First welfare reform was enacted by
Congress 10 years ago and signed by President Bill Clinton. Above everything, the goal
was to move welfare clients into a job and close their cases. But, with even stricter work
participation rules that took effect this month, agencies like ours expect to be seeing
many more cases like Carol's. Department of Social Services staff, with generally higher
caseloads per worker than before welfare reform, will be under more pressure to move
clients into work or face serious reductions in state funding. Welfare clients, for example,
now will be allowed only six weeks per year for full-time mental illness or chemical
dependence treatment- then it's off to work at least part-time, while they continue
treatment, even if they are still sick. How many are likely to keep their jobs under those
circumstances?
Yet government leaders and policy analysts of all ideological stripes have hailed the
success of the welfare reform enacted a decade ago this past August. Clinton recently
wrote that " the last 10 years have shown that we did, in fact, end welfare as we knew it,
creating a new beginning for millions of Americans." On the right, Douglas Besharov of the
American Enterprise Institute observed that welfare reform resulted in a 60 percent
reduction in welfare cases. Besharov noted, however, that mothers who left welfare for
work are earning $8 an hour or $16,000 a year, which, he admits "is not a lot of money."
Not a lot of money? Actually, $16,000 a year is below the 2006 federal poverty level of
$20,000 for a family of four. On Long Island, former welfare recipients are earning about
$10 an hour, which is just at the poverty level. A Catholic Charities study of families served
by parish outreach centers and this year's Adelphi University Vital Signs study of trends on
Long Island each concluded that because of our high cost of living, $40,000 a year
(200 percent of the federal poverty line) is the true poverty level for Long Island. The
Catholic Charities study also concluded that the working poor were actually worse off than
those still on welfare, with many more of the working families finding it harder to buy food
and pay rent and bills. These people- many former welfare recipients- explain why a 2006
study by Long Island Cares and organization that provides food and supports
self-sufficiency programs for needy people, found 259,000 Long Islanders struggling to eat.
And, woe to former welfare recipients like our client Carol who begin to enjoy some
on-the-job success. When their incomes reach the federal poverty level, the Department
of Social Services is mandated to cut off their rent and utility assistance. When they reach
$25,164, they even lose food stamps.
On the other hand, by one Nassau County calculation, about 40 percent of employable
welfare clients lack a high school education, meaning that they are condemned to a
lifetime of low-wage work. The Social Services Departments in both counties do not have
the staff or funds to mentor or counsel them into a career-oriented training program. The
federal Work First priority is an especially poor fit for a Long Island marketplace, where a
concentration of high-tech businesses needs highly skilled workers.
From the start, as its name implied, the Personal Responsibility Act was intended to use
new work requirements to fix the character flaws that supposedly plague welfare
recipients: Irresponsibility and laziness. Yet, we know that many welfare clients were
already working- off the books- to pay their bills. The reform that is really needed should
be "Education First." On Long Island especially, requiring education for welfare recipients
would help people secure the workers they need.
Welfare reform has indeed closed many individual cases. But look behind the closed
cases and what we find are rigid rules that do little to move people out of poverty. Our
agency and the Carols we serve look at the anniversary of welfare reform and see little to
celebrate.
WHPDC NEWS
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Judy Panullo, Steve Levy, and
Peter Barnett at The Vigil.
Steve Levy announced that he is
preparing a ten year plan to end
homelessness in Suffolk County.
Peter Barnett at The Vigil.
Steve Levy announced that he is
preparing a ten year plan to end
homelessness in Suffolk County.
WHPDC COMMENTS
Written by Peter and Judith Barnett
Does it pay to get off welfare? An examination of a budget when a mom and her
children move off of welfare compared to a budget while on welfare will answer that
question.
Did you know that 1.3 million children will be homeless sometime during this year and 9
million children are without health insurance? Additionally, since 1999, food insecurity
has increased by 3 millions households, including 1.4 million households that include
children. Why is this occurring?
We suggest that it is because people who have successfully moved out of the
"poverty" level are not making enough money to feed, house or care for their children.
The welfare rules cut a family off from their housing and grant benefits once the family
has reached the poverty level. For a family of three that amount is $16,000 a year. in our
program we have a woman who is earning $700 a month which is below the poverty
level. She also receives housing assistance, food stamps and a grant for a total of
$1,225 in benefits. In order to house, feed and care for her children the woman’s'
budget looks like this:
Food stamps 174
Grant 157
Housing Allowance 894
Sub Total 1225
Work Income 700
TOTAL 1925
Her annual income while on welfare is $23,100. Yet if she reaches the poverty threshold
for a family of three which is only $16, 600 and her case will be closed. Even the
department of social service seems to know that she needs more than $16,600 to live
but they cut her off. How is this mother going to be able to make up the $6500 she loses
when her case is closed?
If she does not have a college education, more than likely she will not be able to make
what she needs to care for herself and her children. Citing that there are 1.6 million
fewer children in poverty is nothing to brag about when those children are homeless,
hungry and without medical care.
People on welfare need an education and the financial support that truly provides a
safety net and a means to become economically self sufficient not just above the
poverty line. The welfare reform policies need to be changed. Our nation has done a
disservice to out families, to our children.
Written by Peter and Judith Barnett
Does it pay to get off welfare? An examination of a budget when a mom and her
children move off of welfare compared to a budget while on welfare will answer that
question.
Did you know that 1.3 million children will be homeless sometime during this year and 9
million children are without health insurance? Additionally, since 1999, food insecurity
has increased by 3 millions households, including 1.4 million households that include
children. Why is this occurring?
We suggest that it is because people who have successfully moved out of the
"poverty" level are not making enough money to feed, house or care for their children.
The welfare rules cut a family off from their housing and grant benefits once the family
has reached the poverty level. For a family of three that amount is $16,000 a year. in our
program we have a woman who is earning $700 a month which is below the poverty
level. She also receives housing assistance, food stamps and a grant for a total of
$1,225 in benefits. In order to house, feed and care for her children the woman’s'
budget looks like this:
Food stamps 174
Grant 157
Housing Allowance 894
Sub Total 1225
Work Income 700
TOTAL 1925
Her annual income while on welfare is $23,100. Yet if she reaches the poverty threshold
for a family of three which is only $16, 600 and her case will be closed. Even the
department of social service seems to know that she needs more than $16,600 to live
but they cut her off. How is this mother going to be able to make up the $6500 she loses
when her case is closed?
If she does not have a college education, more than likely she will not be able to make
what she needs to care for herself and her children. Citing that there are 1.6 million
fewer children in poverty is nothing to brag about when those children are homeless,
hungry and without medical care.
People on welfare need an education and the financial support that truly provides a
safety net and a means to become economically self sufficient not just above the
poverty line. The welfare reform policies need to be changed. Our nation has done a
disservice to out families, to our children.
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________