Public assistance to
the poor and disabled has been considered a general responsibility of the
federal government since the New Deal in the 1930s. It greatly expanded
after World War II (although much of the expansion was on the federal level
rather than the state and local levels of government.) Since the Civil Rights
Revolution of the 1960's, the states have taken a larger role in providing
public assistance to the poor and disabled. Public assistance is
called "welfare". One of the most important public assistance programs for
young children is the Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) jointly
sponsored by the states and the federal government. AFDC is designed to
help poor children and their parents or caregivers--usually a single
family---meet the child's basic need for clothing, shoes, soap, and other
essential non-food items. Food and nutritional needs for those who qualify
for AFDC are taken care of by the Food Stamp Division of the Department of Human
Services. The states pay thirty percent of the cost for AFDC and establish
the level of benefits, while the federal government is responsible for the
remaining seventy percent. here are two types of AFDC recipients--the
intergenerationals and the traditionals. The intergenerationals are those
who have been recipients of some form of public assistance from one generation
to the next. They are considered the permanent members of the AFDC rolls
and make up the largest number of recipients. They are usually called
"hardcore" recipients. The transitionals are usually temporary members of
the roll and make up the smallest number of public assistance recipients.
Their need for public assistance is often temporary and caused more by
circumstance. In general, they have knowledge and skills, and view their
situation as a temporary setback. As the recession continues, however, more
transitional recipients are facing the prospects of becoming permanent members
of the public assistance rolls. Between June and October, 1991, the number
of AFDC recipients in Tennessee increased by 12,000 rising from 225,000 to
267,000. The state's attempt to reduce the cost of the AFDC program by 15
% on January 15, 1992, was declared unconstitutional by the Attorney
General. It was also an illustration of what states and local governments
are doing throughout the nation to meet the increased budgetary pressure of a
fewer dollars and higher public assistance costs. In a series of proposals
formulated as a ballot proposition to amend the California Constitution,
Governor Pete Wilson has called for cutting all welfare benefits ten percent
across the board, and twenty-five percent for families on welfare longer than
six months. Called the "Tax Payer Protection Act," this proposition will
be on the ballot in 1992. The AFDC program in California is 6.6% of the
state's budget. In a press conference regarding this proposition the
Governor defended these reductions as the "only alternative to releasing
dangerous felons from California's correction system or denying access to middle
class college students to California's system of higher education." Since the
AFDC program makes up such a small percentage of the state's total budget, it is
difficult to understand how it could have such a dire impact on access to higher
education and the correction system. In Michigan, able-bodied men have been
removed from the General Assistance rolls. Many of these persons are also
Social Security Insurance recipients (SSI), meaning that they must be 65 years
old or sufficiently disabled that they cannot be employed for a consecutive
period of twelve months. Many have substance abuse problems, are disabled,
mentally ill, or have some type of chronic health problem that put them on
General Assistance in the first place. While these cuts and proposed cuts
will have a dramatic impact on the poor and disabled, they will also effect
those agencies that have to deal with the poor and unemployed. Over the
last several months almost all administrative levels of public assistance have
experienced severe cutbacks in personnel. This has resulted in increased
caseloads for those assigned to work with the poor, less training and
interviewing time for new administrative personnel and recipients, and opened
the system up to more fraud and abuse. Critics of public assistance often
complain that these programs are a drain on the state's budget. However,
these programs make up a very small percentage of any state's budget,
representing an average of three percent nationally. As indicated,
California's 6.6% of its state budget to public assistance places it among the
top five states in the nation in levels of benefits. This view is not
correct; and while California has a higher benefits than the average, it also
has a higher housing cost which is generally associated with higher AFDC grants
nationally. Even in California, however, AFDC grants are not
large enough to provide the recipients with housing on the fair market.
AFDC costs are approximately . 16 or 54.2 million dollars in Tennessee's
8.5 billion dollar budget. Those who advocate public assistance cuts for the
poor generally speak of "putting people to work," the idea of "workfare" instead
of "welfare." When the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Welfare and Job
Training in the House of Representatives investigated this question in December,
1991, it found that in those states where public assistance rolls were cut,
there were few opportunities for those eliminated from the welfare rolls to
become involved in the economy in any meaningful way. Many did not have
skills and only a few were competent enough for employment, too, most are among
the last hired in a good economy and could not successfully compete for the
available jobs in a recession economy. The states did nothing to increase
training and job opportunities for those eliminated from the rolls. In
fact,, cuts in public assistance must be balanced against increased correction
and mental health costs since many of those taken off public assistance
generally end up in the criminal justice system or in mental institutions.
While training and job opportunities offer a direction off welfare, critics
also charge that the "asset rule" of the Department of Human Services makes it
difficult for AFDC recipients to get off welfare. This rule has to do with
the amount of money an AFDC recipient can have and limits it to $1,000 if they
live in public housing and $2,000 if they are recipients of food stamps.
This is one of the nightmare areas of administrative costs associated with
public assistance. Duplication of efforts, different filing and reporting
procedures, are only two of the areas of waste encouraged by this rule.
The rule makes it difficult for a family to save and since AFDC payments are
designated as an "asset" the recipient is encouraged to spend it as fast
as they can so that they do not violate the $ 1,000 limit on assets. Such
policies are beneficial in forcing AFDC money back into the state's economy, and
play a significant role in keeping people dependent on public assistance.
Dr. James Haney, Writer
*As Seen in the "Taking Time to Comment "
Column of the Metropolitan Times, Nashville,
Tennessee
