• The cash assistance (AFDC–Aid to Families with Dependents and Children) caseload tripled between the mid-1960s and mid-1970s
• Despite enormous changes occurring during this period (reduction in poverty as a result of anti-poverty programs; globalization and ‘outsourcing’ of good-paying factory jobs; declines in marriage rates and increases in divorce rates as part of a broader social trend, with more children being born out of marriage), increase in welfare expenditures was seen not as a way to reduce poverty, but as a drain on ‘the system’ and the enabling of welfare-dependent
• Welfare philosophies unencumbered by statistical and scientific support gained sway as the Reagan Administration came to power in 1981 (sociologist/ideologue Charles Murray held influence over policy at this time).
• Reagan was fond of using a ‘welfare queen’ example to characterize the ‘abuses’ of the system–the ‘welfare queen’ turned out to be mostly myth, but useful rhetoric for changing policy and stigmatizing welfare recipients (background here)
• Calls to replace welfare with a more humane system that rewarded work
• A ‘Republican revolution’ in the Congress in 1994 (the House, specifically), that led to a campaign to reform welfare, and to increasing stigmatization of single parent households and the single mother
• In 1996, the Welfare Reform Act passes, which helped Bill Clinton win re-election to the White House. It also expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit (which gives back money to working poor households and pulls millions of families above the official poverty line), increased the minimum wage, and provided child care support. But it also turned the AFDC from an ‘entitlement’ program–meaning that if a family qualified, they received assistance–to TANF (temporary assistance for needy families), a ‘block grant’–meaning that there is a lump sum of money available, and if or when it runs out, so does the access to that assistance.
• Last, a transformation in the growth of the low-wage work sector, coming at the right time, because millions of people would be required to work if they were to receive TANF benefits.

Agreement of personal responsibility:

I understand that TANF is a temporary assistance program and that I am responsible for:

• Working to support my family and to become self-sufficient;
• Looking for and accepting employment;
• Participating in assignments from my case manager;
• Notifying my case manager immediately of any changes in my circumstances;
• Keeping appointments with my case manager in a timely manner, and;
• Arranging child day care and transportation that allows me to participate in the Employment Program.

I understand that it is my responsibility to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the program. By taking advantage of these opportunities, I will help my family in becoming self-sufficient.

If you choose not to sign this Agreement, your TANF benefits will end.

Signature

Sharon Hays’ book, Flat Broke with Children (2003), documents her research in two cities examining some of the effects of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. This material discusses her analysis of whether the law actually promotes self-sufficiency and a work ethic.

Welfare recipients must sign the above agreement if they want to proceed with the process of applying for and receiving welfare assistance through TANF. And it isn’t just a piece of paper–they are held to this agreement, and a substantial amount of state-funded resources are devoted to seeing that they do. Let no one say that receiving welfare doesn’t require motivation . . . but the suggestion that it promotes self-sufficiency and independence is a little more debatable, as Hays shows in her book. We’ll start with her chapter on work, and finish with the chapter on family.

Enforcing work

There are some assumptions that underlie this program:

1. most welfare recipients lack the motivation to work
2. welfare policies are the cause of this decline in the work ethic
3. welfare recipients will listen to and understand and follow all rules and regulations
4. some relevant statistics:
   1. ½ of welfare mothers were off rolls in less than 2 years
   2. 1/3 worked on or off the books while getting assistance
   3. 65% had been recently employed
   4. 40% who left rolls were back on
   5. most recipients will spend 3 timesas much time off as on welfare rolls

So, it doesn’t appear as if welfare recipients lack work experience, or are afraid of work. Could it be that they’re afraid of certain kinds of work (i.e., low-wage, low-security)? What are their options?

Background of recipients:

• 47% lack high school diplomas
• 19% have had some college
• average of two children

What sorts of obstacles to many of them face in finding and keeping jobs?

• childcare
• physical/mental health (them or their children)–this isn’t to suggest welfare mothers have more health problems than others (although their health care options are more limited), but that if they do have any problems, they’re going to have less resources, less time, and more stress in dealing with them because of other constraints;
• obligations to other family members (how many times have you had to miss work to attend to family matters?)
• unforeseen expenses–someone gets sick, car breaks down, rent increase . . .
• low-wage low-security employment
• changing work schedules (goes with the above)
• transportation problems

Incentives and disincentives

It’s clear that caseworkers have a set of carrots (incentives) and sticks (disincentives) to offer clients. This essentially amounts to a behaviorist approach to instilling a work ethic, through positive and negative reinforcements. Some of the incentives include

• childcare subsidies
• transportation (but tokens or gas vouchers)
• clothing and supplies for work
• rent and utility payments
• income disregards (provides supplemental income up to poverty line without counting against welfare check)
• supportive services
  • car repair money
  • prescription eyeglasses
  • deposit on new apartment
  • reconstructive dental surgery
  • this is ALL at the DISCRETION OF CASEWORKERS

Some of the disincentives include

• Various bureaucratic hoops to be jumped through:
  • An initial interview-two hours minimum, to establish eligibility for benefits
  • Documentation needed: children’s social security numbers, birth certificates, immunization records, rent receipts or a copy of a lease from landlord, verification of the number of people living in household, statements from banks/insurance companies; childcare contracts; utility receipts; school enrollment records
  • Why would welfare reform require all of this documentation (you can think of both good rational reasons, as well as more political ones)?
  • Employment caseworker-another screening and interview session, which includes a literacy test, work history, and job skills assessment
• Keeping women busy–rules:
  • Work participation-looking for work–here are some of the requirements (picture yourself here …):
    • 40 job contacts in 30 days. Sounds simple, right? But apps only at places with open positions. Throw out weekends and this amounts to two contacts and applications completed per day, on average.
    • if a person is offered a job and refuses it, s/he’s ‘sanctioned’
    • You also must be available for ‘job readiness/life skills classes. These can be 3 to 5-day workshops, which include restating of the many rules, plus motivational talks, therapeutic sessions on how to deal with the stress of being poor and optionless, as well as job management ‘lessons’–how to get that job, and how to cope with it
    • After that, you sit back, collect your checks and wait for job offers to roll in, right? Well, not exactly. If you’ve had no job after 30 days, it’s time for a training program
      • How are training programs chosen? By career wishes? Personality inventories? Skills? Nope (close, though)–It’s WORK FIRST–getting people into jobs as soon as possible. Is this rule-driven approach likely to lead to self-sufficiency?
      • Areas in which you can be trained include clerical, nurse assistant, data entry, food service, childcare, ‘guest room attendants’ (hotel maids);
      • In some cases it amounts to free training for employers, who take the best prospects and leave the rest for another training program, and likely few marketable skills to show for their troubles.
    • Still no job?? It’s time for workfare-community work experience-this is unpaid work for state, county, city, etc. This is ‘work experience,’ and EVEN IF YOU’RE OFFERED A JOB ELSEWHERE, YOU MUST COMPLETE THE CONTRACTUAL PERIOD. Who benefits from this? Governments, one would suppose, get free labor out of it. Local businesses don’t benefit particularly, because unlike workfare under Roosevelt, the people have no money to spend from their troubles–but do receive some cash or in-kind assistance through their participation in TANF.
  • Reporting-there is a fairly constant monitoring of recipients’ cases. You must:
    • Meet with your caseworker every 30 days
    • Contact your caseworker if you miss a day or even an hour of training program or workfare placement
    • If you change childcare, open bank account, take out life insurance, change address, buy a used care, or let a friend stay at your home, you must report this to your caseworker–if you get caught not reporting it, you’ll be ‘sanctioned.’
    • If you get a job you have a choice of continuing with benefits or closing your case. If you keep the benefits, the ‘Big Clock’ keeps ticking–TANF recipients are limited to 60 months of support over their lifetimes, no more than two years consecutivly, and some states put higher restrictions on this. Assistance is temporary, and people are moved from welfare to work.
    • A raise of ten cent raise or more must be reported, also if you have to take a sick child to doctor’s, or change shifts at work, you must report this as well. If the caseworker finds out, contacts the employer perhaps, and you have not complied with the rules, you will likely be sanctioned.
• Sanctions: What is sanctionable? The short list:
  • Failure to make job contacts, attend scheduled meeting with caseworker, go to all job readiness classes, being late for a workfare placement, not cooperating with childcare enforcement, quitting your job without good cause or getting fired because of a mistake.
  • Some caseworkers deal ONLY with sanctioned cases–this uses up a good deal of welfare agencies’ resources
  • What is sanction? Essentially, a recipient’s welfare benefits can get cut if he/she doesn’t ‘behave appropriately’
    • The first sanction costs one month of benefits, the second 3 months, 3rd 6 months, sometimes permanently ineligible (this can depend on the states, but we’re definitely into the heavy sticks here)
    • According to Hays, most follow the rules, fearing sanctions, at least as well as they understand them, although many women don’t understand why they’ve been sanctioned
    • When sanctioned, your clock keeps ticking, even though you’re receiving no benefits. Think of it like a penalty box in hockey, only without the uniforms and salaries
    • ¼ of clients at any given time are under sanction
    • As mentioned, many don’t understand the systems of sanctions
    • strategies to avoid sanctions:
      • sit it out and wait for benefits to resume (we’re talking about people on the economic margins here, so this constitutes major hardship)
      • drift away–the case gets closed, the person may be relying on relatives, friends, or other private or non-profit services, or be in a dire situation of homelessness and destitution
      • remove themselves from rolls. This is a bad move, however. The clock keeps ticking, and women can’t reapply until sanction is over, and then they must start from the beginning with all the screening and interviews they’ve already completed (a major time investment, among everything else

The big picture:

• Is this aimed at self-sufficiency, or enforced work? Are the two compatible?
• Compliance, deference to employer, the work ethic–this is what recipients are learning
• Following Byzantine system of rules, sanctions. There is a tension between heavy-handed social control and people’s ability to become more independent
• Low-wage employment, work-first is the model being used in most cases. It’s more about getting people off welfare. Is the self-sufficiency stuff just packaging to sell the product? With what philosophy is this consistent?
• How is success measured?
  • Size of welfare rolls–reductions are viewed as a success–are they necessarily?
  • Employment of TANF recipients–states lose federal funds if their job placement statistics go down.
• Let’s look at some other statistics from Hays:
  • Those off welfare experienced more material hardships than those on welfare
  • Feminization of poverty–single mothers incomes were declining in the 1990s
  • Lots of ‘churning’, people moving in and out of poverty–maybe 20% achieve relatively permanent stability–can you predict what these 20% might look like?
• Are we just shifting dependency–onto men, low-wage employers, extended family members, friends, private or non-profits, etc.?
• The ‘ticking clock’ (til the end of lifetime TANF benefits, five years max) instills the fear factor–in a sense it’s the bank account for the poor. And many states have their own clocks with different timelines. Imagine TWO giant ticking clocks.
• Administrative jargon, terms such as ‘enhanced disregards,’ supportive services, transitional, and differences between federal and state requirements, complicate recipients’ abilities to be knowledgeable and avoid sanctions.
• What’s wrong with this picture?

Sharon Hays. 2003. Flat Broke with Children. NY: Oxford University Press.