160 likes | 306 Views
Finishing the Welfare Revolution. Progressive Policy Institute March 10, 2002. The Bad Old Days—Kaiser Family Foundation Poll, 1995 47% of respondents said “most welfare recipients do not really want to work”
E N D
Finishing the Welfare Revolution Progressive Policy Institute March 10, 2002
The Bad Old Days—Kaiser Family Foundation Poll, 1995 47% of respondents said “most welfare recipients do not really want to work” 46% said “most people who receive money from welfare could get along without it if they tried” 56% thought welfare “does more harm than good” 64% said the gov’t “spends too much” on welfare Today—Kaiser Family Foundation Poll, 2000 94% of Americans want expanded job-training 80% would increase tax credits for low-wage workers 85% would spend more on child care 75% would spend more on subsidized housing 56% would pay more taxes for worker supports 61% like welfare reform Perceptions of Welfare:Then and Now
Preserving the success of welfare reform requires resources AND results Require work Support work Make work pay
Work first works • National work participation rate for recipients: • 2000: 34% • 1992: 7% • States with work rates higher than 40%: 19 • Percentage of recipients without work experience in preceding three years: • 1999: 27% • 1997: 42%
Work first works • Earnings: wages for the bottom 25% of single moms have grown 17% since 1996 • For single moms with incomes between $13K and $21K: • Earnings rose from $4,900 in 1993 to $11,700 in 2000. • Total incomes for this group rose by $4,000.
TANF reauthorization: Work should still be first • Increase work participation rates to 70% by 2007 • Eliminate the caseload reduction credit • Create an “employment credit” and a credit for improvements in child support enforcement • Maintain current time limits and exemptions
After welfare: goals of reauthorization • Ensure that no family with a full-time worker lives in poverty • Create a seamless and comprehensive system of work supports
Finishing the job of reform: Increase resources • Maintain the basic block grant and MOE requirements • Increase money for child care • Fund “transitional jobs” and other services for hard-to-serve clients • Fund training and education for working recipients and leavers
Finishing the job of reform: Increase resources • Fund job services for non-custodial dads • Promote effective teen pregnancy prevention and “responsible fatherhood” programs • Expand the EITC • Put more money into housing, transportation and health insurance for the working poor • Restore benefits to legal immigrants
Finishing the job of reform: Put dads to work • Offer TANF-funded job services to poor dads • Include NCPs participating in TANF job programs in work participation rates • Eliminate separate work requirements for two-parent families
Finishing the job of reform: Put dads to work • Fund child support pass-through • Encourage efforts to coordinate child support enforcement and employment programs • Fund effective “responsible fatherhood” programs
Finishing the job of reform: Prevent teen pregnancy • Forget about marriage promotion • Fund second-chance homes and effective teen pregnancy prevention programs • Encourage efforts to change cultural attitudes toward unwed childbearing
Finishing the job of reform: Break down bureaucratic barriers • Give states flexibility to combine funding streams, coordinate related programs and escape the regulatory jungle • Create interagency performance measures that focus on results • Modernize food stamps
Problems with Bush’s proposal • It’s stingy. • It’s unfair to legal immigrants. • It encourages workfare. • It ignores men. • It wastes time and money on marriage promotion.
Welfare reform’s greatest success: Renewed public support for the working poor
For more information: • “Finishing the Welfare Revolution,” by Will Marshall and Anne Kim, Progressive Policy Institute, February 2002 • “After Dependence,” by Will Marshall, Blueprint, January/February 2002 • “Finish the Job,” by Anne Kim, Blueprint, January/February 2002 • “Marriage as Public Policy,” by Daniel T. Lichter, Progressive Policy Institute, September 2001 Go to: www.ppionline.org