Copyright 2002 Journal Sentinel Inc.  
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Wisconsin)
May 1, 2002 Wednesday FINAL EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 12A

LENGTH: 534 words

HEADLINE: Reforming welfare reform

BYLINE: STANFORD

BODY:
More needy moms are working now -- an aim, if not the result, of the 1996 federal overhaul of welfare. The research has consistently noted, however, that by and large, these working mothers stay poor. Critics and backers of the overhaul seemed to have developed a consensus that "welfare reform" itself needed reform to make work more remunerative.

To the surprise of many experts, President Bush hardly addressed that issue in his proposal for renewing the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, which had replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Instead, he focused on toughening work requirements. In the process, he diluted one of TANF's virtues: the flexibility it gives states.

Today, the House Ways and Means Committee is scheduled to consider a bill that mostly parallels the Bush proposal. It would raise the percentage of people in a state's caseload who must hold jobs from 50% to 70%, and the amount of time a typical client must work or participate in work-related activities from 30 hours a week to 40 hours. Ways and Means does soften the Bush proposal in one respect: A client could report to work 48 weeks a year, compared with all 52 weeks under the Bush plan.

Either way, the new work rules lessen the flexibility states now enjoy in attempting to move families from dependency to self-sufficiency. The presence of Tommy Thompson at the helm of the Department of Health and Human Services, which administers TANF, adds to the surprise: As Wisconsin's governor, he was the leading advocate for state flexibility in running welfare.

The new rules may mean some states would have to curtail or abandon successful approaches so they could comply. States trying programs to overcome physical, mental or learning disabilities would have less leeway to do so. Intensive training programs to raise earning power could be problematic under the new law. Critics rightly fear that the rules would lead states to embark, against their better judgment, on public jobs programs that wouldn't lead to real work.

The tougher work requirement means more costs for the states. For instance, the original TANF recognized that single moms of young children usually cannot work without some sort of baby-sitting arrangement. Well, the longer they work, the longer they must use day care or baby sitters, and the costlier those services become to the clients and the states, which subsidize the fees to help make low-wage jobs affordable.

Yet both the Bush and Ways and Means proposals keep funding for TANF and a separate day care program at current, inadequate levels. And costs would rise in other areas, too. A big step-up in workfare, or public service jobs, would mean a huge jump in state expenditures.

A better bill would mostly keep the present work requirements, giving the states room to shape their own approaches for increasing self-sufficiency. A better bill would include new initiatives to make work pay by placing greater emphasis on training and education -- key roads out of poverty. A better bill would shore up subsidies for day care and transportation, without which low-wage work may not be practical. The House should pass a better bill.



LOAD-DATE: May 2, 2002