FIRST:  There are many people who are--by virtue of physical, medical and mental conditions --truly unable to care for themselves. We, as a society, cannot ignore the needs of these citizens.

SECOND:  Poverty-driven public assistance programs began as a response to the fact that children were in need and that assistance to families was based on the need to provide for the health and safety of their children.  However desirable it may be to reduce the adult welfare roles, we cannot lose sight of the need to provide for children.  A system that incorporates punitive sanctions against families—as does our present cash-assistance programs [TANF --Temporary Assistance to Needy Families]--penalizes children.

THIRD: Poverty cannot be eliminated by reform actions directed to only families having children.  The problem of poverty extends far beyond families with children, and our national response to the problem must address the needs of that broader population.
 

Poverty per se is not a social problem.  Poverty is an economic problem with social consequences.

We will never overcome the problems of poverty with public assistance alone.

We cannot effectively reform our system of Public Assistance until we start thinking of poverty elimination in the context Economic Policy.

FIRST:  Preparing people for jobs is meaningless if there are no jobs available.  Poverty is not exclusively an individual problem; it is a community-wide or region-wide problem. Addressing the problems of poverty requires integration and co-ordination of welfare programs with national economic policy and local and regional economic development programs.

SECOND:  The premise underlying TANF is that having a job, any job, is the most efficient and effective way to move people off the welfare roles.   However, the labor market is not hospitable to low-skilled workers, and a lack of broad job skills limits a welfare recipient’s ability to advance from low-skilled jobs.  Moreover, because there is less training and education available to TANF recipients than with the earlier JOBS programs, these "last hired, first fired" recipients have been returning to welfare and the caseloads have been increasing.

THIRD:  Basic education and basic job skills training are not enough.  In addition, a successful system for transiting people from welfare to work requires career counseling, interview skills training, job search and placement assistance and even relocation assistance.

FIFTH:  Getting a job and keeping a job are two different things.  This is especially true of the recipients of public assistance who frequently possess an “attitude” that may interfere with their job success.   To keep their jobs, these people often need on-going assistance in the form of counseling and advocacy (or intervention) in the employer/employee relationship.

None of this is intended to suggest that we should expand welfare.  Rather, it is intended to suggest that we need to change our thinking about the place of public assistance in the larger scheme of human resource development by establishing  cohesive, integrated policy that merges public assistance with a broader approach to maximize the contribution of all citizens to the welfare of the nation as a whole.

While the most obvious manifestation of the problem is found at the local level, the problem is not uniquely one of coordinating programs at the local level.  Each of the many state and local agencies whose activities need to best serve the needs of "welfare" clients also have other missions and other functions.  These other responsibilities are often defined by federal legislation that makes money available from programs administered by many different federal agencies outside the TANF system.

In some instances, the requirements of one program actually compromise the attainment of the goals of another program.  For example, some housing subsidy programs require their recipients to work at least 20 hours per week to remain eligible for subsidies.  Similar requirements apply as requirements for child care programs.  However, it may de difficult, of not impossible, for someone who is pursuing a program of education or training to also satisfy the work requirement for eligibility for housing subsidies or child care.  Although TANF has provisions to accommodate such circumstances, people in need who are not in the TANF system—whether they never entered it or have been "timed out" of it—do not have the benefit of the accommodating features of TANF and must choose between improving their skills and retaining their housing.

But the problem begins even before that.  Within Congress, responsibilities for legislation concerning our public assistance programs is scattered over many different committees and subcommittees.   There are many valid reasons for this division/allocation of responsibilities, but it can also get in the way of developing a cohesive and broad-based response to the problems of poverty.

Most of the problems we have attempted to address with our many public assistance programs are real.   But the mere fact that people are in need does not equate to an obligation to respond to that need with a federal program.  In fact, the mere existence of a problem, without more, does not even justify federal action.  But once a decision has been made to address a problem, all related programs should be coordinated and targeted on solving that problem

This does not mean that all programs need to be administered by Washington.  To the contrary, local administration is clearly preferable to administration by Washington.  But it does mean that the rules and regulations under which programs operate—such as program eligibility requirements and other requirement needed to coordinate individual programs with related programs administered by other agencies of the federal government—must be coordinated at the national level. 

Such a requirement is not intended to diminish the “autonomy” of local agencies in crafting program components to address local conditions.  To the contrary, local innovation should be encouraged—but only in the context of a focused national policy.

Some Things We Need To Consider:

The TANF model for integrating public assistance reform with job placement—e.g. “workfare” in its broadest sense—represents a useful starting model.  However that model needs to be (a) revised to eliminate provisions that are not themselves focused on the elimination of poverty and (b) expanded to include people who suffer from poverty do not qualify for assistance through the TANF program.  While a TANF-type system can be retained to administer the public assistance component of an expanded system, it should operate in the context of a broad system that addresses the totality of the problem of those in poverty.  SOME of the features that should be represented in such a system are discussed below.

FIRST:  Financial assistance to those who seek to raise themselves—or need to be raised—out of poverty should not be subject to termination based solely on the passage of time.  Rather, it should continue as long as the recipient is demonstrating continuing commitment and making progress toward self-improvement.  That is, benefits should not cease when a participant has become merely employable.  If the participant is willing and able to develop advanced skills, he should be afforded that opportunity. 

SECOND:  No single program can solve all of the problems associated with poverty.  We do not need a  “mega-agency” to coordinate all of the components of an effective system, but we do need a system that provides for a continuum of services to those who can benefit from it. 

One of the core components of the TANF program is the “Individual Responsibility Plan”—personalized plan for each program beneficiary.  It is an appropriate tool, as far as it goes.  But it needs to go further.  That plan should include, as a objective (but not as a guarantee) a provision “for what comes next.” 

Participants in any program, whether starting in TANF or otherwise, need to see something other than a low-paying dead end job at the end.  They need an incentive to do everything they can.  Therefore, that “plan” for each individual should include an assurance that if they are successful in their initial endeavors they will be able to advance into other programs—such as the Jobs Corps or Upward Bound. 

To make such programs readily accessible to “graduates” of welfare programs, eligibility requirements need to be made consistent—something that cannot happen as long as each state established its own welfare program eligibility criteria—and case workers who represent the primary contact for basic program participants must have the authority to assure them a slot in programs at the next level.

Even military service should be included as an option for continuing training, and even as a career.  However, recruitment guidelines represent a significant hurdle for individuals having a history of substance abuse or minor criminal conduct.  These requirements need to be reviewed, and provisions made for exceptions where military service is an appropriate option.

THIRD:  The system that prepares people for work needs to be coordinated with the system that produces the jobs needed by its clients. In the context of improving locally administered workfare programs, this means integrating welfare based training programs with efforts to revitalize the economies of local communities.  Such actions can take many forms ranging from expansion of the Community Services Block Grant and Community Economic Development Block Grant programs to develop small businesses within the community to enhanced coordination of workfare training programs with local and regional economic development programs. 

SEVENTH: Today, program planning continues to be “top-down” with policies set in Washington translated into a State plan defining the activities to be preformed at the local level.  Program planning should be from the bottom up.  Congress should not be prescribing what local agencies can and cannot do.   Congress should be responding to what local agencies need—not acting based solely in furtherance of political agendas or in response to what national interest groups claim is needed. State plans should be based on a compilation on locally developed plans designed to respond to local needs and be based on the resources available in the communities.

To comment on this issue in the Issues Forum, click here

No Very

Do you have feedback? (Optional)

Enter Word Verification in box below