Www.oocities.org



Workfare:

Ineffective Relief for the Poor

Joshua Clark, Joan Cromwell, Rebecca Dylla,

Johanna Eckler, Johanna Preston, and Brian Spears

May 12, 1999

SS 301

Dr. Laura Lein

Introduction

Workfare programs attempt to alleviate poverty by moving the poor from the welfare roles to the labor force by requiring work in return for benefits. However, these programs do not help alleviate poverty. First, serious Federal policy problems prevent workfare from being effective. Second, small-scale problems arise when workfare programs are implemented within a particular state. Finally, workfare proves ineffective because it cannot overcome large-scale economic and discriminatory structures that are present in America. As a result, workfare is not the answer to American poverty

Policy

For too long, Americans have held the false notion that, through hard work, people can pull themselves out of poverty. The historic lack of welfare legislation for able-bodied adults provides evidence of this. Welfare programs have consistently targeted the retired, the disabled, single-mothers, and their children; but those capable of work, especially men, have traditionally been excluded.

Recently, the United States government has taken further measures to punish welfare recipients deemed capable of working by forcing them to work for their benefits. In August 1996, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, reforming the nation’s welfare laws and placing still more emphasis on an individual’s ability to work himself out of poverty. This act established Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which replaces Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) (1). TANF allows states to determine the eligibility of needy families and the benefits and services that they should receive. But in an effort to reduce welfare dependency, the states must include work requirements and a five-year lifetime time limit. (2) For the purposes of moving people off welfare, states receive a share of $3 billion in the form of Formula Grants to States and Competitive Grants to local communities. These funds may be used to help move eligible people into jobs through such means as wage subsidies, on-the-job training, job creation, or community service. (1)

On the surface, workfare may seem an attractive means of reducing poverty in America, but consider some of the problems with the policy itself. First, welfare benefits vary from state to state; however, the work requirement is the same nationwide. Is it fair to force a mother to work for thirty hours per week in Texas, when the maximum compensation she may receive for her family of three is $188 per month plus $340 in food stamps (8)? This works out to a maximum of $4.40 per hour, which is less than the minimum wage. Patrick Bresette of the Center for Public Policy Priorities feels that it does not make sense to require workfare programs in states such as Texas where the benefits are so low (8). Additionally, regardless of changes in the economy, the amount of federal dollars allocated to TANF grants will not increase (3). This means that those on welfare will be even harder hit as the cost of living rises. TANF also limits families to a five-year lifetime term of welfare assistance. By what means will impoverished families survive when they exceed this limit and are cut from welfare rolls? In addition, for each state to obtain full federal funding, half of its adults receiving assistance must work at least thirty hours per week by 2002 (3). Thus, states will be in a rush to place welfare recipients in jobs and will be less concerned with providing them with the training and skills that help people move out of poverty.

Furthermore, this effort to force able-bodied adults to earn their keep or be denied assistance will punish those whom welfare was designed to protect--children. For example, under the previous program AFDC, a family who received welfare was automatically enrolled in the Medicaid program, so that these families would have some medical coverage. However, under the 1996 welfare reform legislation, welfare and Medicaid are less closely associated. (3) It is now more difficult for a single mother to apply for Medicaid, since she must find extra time between working thirty hours per week under workfare and taking care of her children. Because of this, impoverished children will surely suffer from lack of medical benefits. Inadequate medical attention and poor health will affect the children’s education and harm their chances of moving out of poverty as adults. In addition, children may be affected by a large reduction in parental care (3). Under TANF, a mother receiving welfare must work at least thirty hours per week. But this figure excludes preparation and travel time, and it does not account for the fact that she may be exhausted and have less time to devote to her children when she returns home. Children will receive less familial attention and may be more inclined to delinquent behaviors which will maintain their poverty.

TANF benefits do not increase with the cost of living, and families can only receive them for up to five years. Furthermore, in their rush to avoid penalty, states will push people into jobs, giving them no skills. Finally, TANF overlooks some of the needs of children. Therefore, the policy itself will prevent welfare recipients from rising out of poverty.

Small-Scale Problems

Workfare programs that are now in place have encountered several small-scale problems, all of which prevent people from escaping poverty. These include a lack of provision of training and job skills, an emphasis on immediate work over education, and a lack of consideration of transportation and childcare costs. Moreover, workfare jobs may easily be defined in an exploitative way that excludes the worker from minimum wage and occupational health and safety requirements.

Education, Transportation, and Childcare

Many workfare jobs are menial or low-skill jobs, such as janitorial work and street sweeping. Thus, people on workfare do not learn many useful skills, and they receive little or no training. Furthermore, these jobs lack stability and permanency. They tend to be entry-level positions, with no possibility of future advancement. The ROMC Social Services Department in Canada says "there is little evidence to support the assumption that workfare teaches new skills, offers training, and improves employability (9).” Very few workfare participants are given work that involves meaningful training, and only a small percentage of those who complete such programs find paying jobs (4).

In addition, the stringent thirty-hour workfare requirements inhibit welfare recipients’ attempts to better their qualifications through education. Higher education is not usually counted as work; therefore, to keep their benefits, some welfare recipients have been forced to quit college or vocational school to have time to complete their workfare requirements. In one court case, a girl was fired from a workfare job because she insisted that the employers accommodate the fact she was in nursing school. (7) In addition, the City University of New York (CUNY) reported that when the New York city workfare program expanded in 1995 “5,000 single adults on welfare were forced to drop out, and another 5,000 to 10,000 welfare mothers were expected to have quit CUNY by the end of 1996 (10).” This provides evidence that balancing school and a workfare job is very difficult. Forcing these people to work will prevent them from attaining the education that they need to pull themselves out of poverty.

Once people get into workfare programs, they encounter difficulties with added expenses, especially in the areas of transportation and childcare. Transportation is both time-consuming and costly. In an extreme case, one woman spent six hours a day commuting from her Chicago home to her workfare job at O'Hare Airport (5). Employers expect employees to be on time, but public transportation is unreliable and cars are expensive to obtain and maintain.

Most welfare recipients are single mothers; thus childcare is a major issue. If states do provide childcare, it may be of low quality, or it may end if the block grants given to the states are taken away. For example, in Wisconsin it was found that the daycare that was provided was only provisionally licensed. In one situation, a mother was to care for thirty-four children at once, and she was paid by the county for each of them (6). This is not quality childcare, and many mothers choose not to entrust their children to such a situation. Many would rather stay at home with their own children and lose their benefits than subject their children to low-quality care. Therefore, workfare forces many women to choose to remain in poverty.

Due to the hidden costs of work, people on workfare can find themselves in more difficult financial situations than when they were on welfare. For example, a woman in Massachusetts has a GED and works for a daycare. She earns $335 every two weeks, as opposed to the $417 she earned on welfare. She had to buy a car on credit and is now in debt, and she spends $86 a month on childcare. She is struggling to make ends meet by obtaining groceries from a church food bank (7). She was better off on welfare than she is working.

Women in low-wage jobs, such as those provided by workfare, are the least likely to be covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act. Thus, women may lose benefits or their job if they take time off to care for a sick child. One woman, Jenny Hobson, lost her workfare job for missing three days of work while her daughter was in the hospital (6). Even if a female welfare recipient is covered by this act, it is unlikely that she can afford to take the unpaid leave that it provides. Most welfare recipients are single mothers; therefore, demanding that they hold jobs under workfare will prevent them from caring for their sick children for fear of losing their benefits or their jobs.

In conclusion, workfare does not provide skills, is more concerned with putting people to work immediately rather than educating them, and any gains from workfare are counter-acted by transportation and childcare costs.

Minimum Wage

Examining workfare programs within the framework of federal labor and employment laws reveals additional injustices. As conservative workfare proponents often point out, workfare workers are subject to the same labor and wage laws as other American workers. Unfortunately, workfare program administrators can define the roles which workfare recipients perform in ways that exempt the workers from the federal laws. By exempting workfare workers from these laws, both public and private employers may avoid providing a minimum wage as well as worker safety protections. As a result, employers use workfare programs to save money at the expense of the economic well-being and health of impoverished workers. Programs such as these will not help alleviate poverty in America.

Specific injustices can be seen by looking at workfare exemptions from minimum wage requirements. That is, workfare recipients do not have to be paid the minimum wage if they are defined as trainees, as opposed to employees. In order to meet these requirements, city officials in New York and congressional Republicans distinguished workfare training from employment by defining it as either “preparation…to get work” or payback “in exchange for…benefits.” (11) Such distinctions have allowed sates across the country to pay workfare recipients extremely low wages. For example, the average workfare compensation rate is less than three dollars per hour, with Mississippi paying only eighty-nine cents per hour.

Even when states do claim to meet the minimum compensation rate, the numbers can be deceiving. This is because non-cash benefits provided by the state may be counted towards the minimum wage requirements. (1) This includes the value of food stamps, childcare, and transportation services. Thus, a single mother who is required to work in a workfare program may be said to receive five dollars and fifteen cents per hour. However, if she requires state-subsidized childcare in order to be able to perform her workfare task, she will actually receive less than the minimum wage in cash benefits.

Wage practices such as these show workfare programs to be unfair and unacceptable. They allow employers to exempt workers from federal minimum wage requirements, or they allow employers to count non-cash benefits as compensation. Either way, workfare programs allow workers to receive less than the minimum wage. Therefore, these programs do not help alleviate poverty, but instead perpetuate it.

Worker Health and Safety

Similar problems arise when considering the safety protections guaranteed to workers by the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). This is because workfare recipients deemed to be public employees are exempt from health and safety regulations in a majority of states. These exemptions allow public sector employers to cut cost because they do not have to provide safety equipment, safety training, or a hygienic work environment. Exemptions from OSHA requirements can lead to work conditions which are both humiliating and grotesque. For example, Anastacio Serrano writes:

I keep a log of my daily activities in WEP. On June 18, while riding in the van, we came across two dead cats and two dead dogs. They had been dumped by the side of the road. Because I have no gloves, I had to pick them up with my bare hands. The animals had been run over by automobiles and were oozing blood and entrails. When I picked up the animals with my bare hands to throw them into the garbage truck, the guts splattered on my shoes and pants. My co-worker vomited. My supervisor, sitting in the van, said nothing. I have seen other people who were terminated by my supervisor for refusing to pick up things, and I was afraid that if I refused to leave the van or left the carcasses in the gutter I would be terminated also. (12)

Omar Torres’ account of his workfare experience provides another example of the dangerous exploitation that is possible in the absence of OSHA regulations. He writes:

Not once on the job have I been advised what type of clothing to wear. Once I was assigned to clean graffiti off of a fleet of fifty garbage trucks. I was never provided with goggles, though I used heavy equipment to spray graffiti cleaner onto the garbage trucks. I have scars on my legs where I was burned by splashing graffiti-cleaning fluid…My supervisor refuses to listen to my problems. When I verbally challenge him about working conditions, he threatens to terminate me. (12)

Unregulated jobs such as these will not alleviate poverty. Instead, they help sustain poverty by teaching workfare recipients that working is degrading and dangerous.

Leaving Workfare

Examining what actually happened to people who have left welfare recently sheds light on the harmful effects of workfare implementation. Since workfare was introduced, there has been a sharp decline in the number of people receiving welfare. On July 5, 1997, President Clinton reported that “more than one million people had left the welfare rolls” since he signed welfare reform legislation in August 1996 (13). At the same time that the number of welfare recipients was dropping, though, emergency food and shelter requests rose in 1997 by averages of seventeen and twelve percent, respectively, in a survey of 34 cities. Seventy-one percent of those cities reported that local providers might have to turn away people in need (7). Proponents of workfare who say the welfare rolls have dropped because people were able to find jobs lifting them above their welfare incomes are not able to explain the high rise in requested emergency aid. The statistics strongly suggest that many poor people choose to leave welfare due to its workfare conditions even though they cannot support themselves. For reasons which have already been mentioned, workfare is not an acceptable option for them and they fear its consequences. Commonly, a person on workfare will take a part-time job and leave welfare, even though her income is significantly reduced. Thus, a trend in decreasing welfare rolls parallels an increase in the number of people seeking food and shelter since workfare regulations were imposed because poor people choose to risk extreme poverty to avoid workfare conditions.

Large-Scale Problems

Workfare programs also encounter large-scale problems that prevent them from reducing poverty. The programs must operate within economic and social systems that benefit from and discriminate against the poor, rendering the programs ineffective.

Economics and Structure

American capitalism requires poverty. In fact, the Federal Reserve pursues a monetary policy that keeps a certain percentage (usually 5-6%, but recently as low as 4.2%) of job-seekers unemployed. This is done in order to maintain a large and available labor pool whose competition will keep wages low. This, in turn, will keep down inflation. Workfare cannot overcome an economic and structural barrier such as this one that purposely perpetuates poverty. (14)

Another argument states that recent economic growth has increased the demand for workers. Trends in several states, including Michigan, Iowa, and Louisiana, have shown that welfare rolls have dropped more than 20% without workfare programs. However, a drop in growth will mean fewer available jobs and will push workfare workers, and probably many others, into unemployment. Without aid, they will starve. (11)

Furthermore, workfare is counterproductive. Offering employers free or subsidized labor shrinks the paid labor market by decreasing the number of jobs in the public sector. Thus, the paid worker is displaced by the unpaid worker. Moreover, workfare decreases wages because the competition caused by an increase in the labor market bids down wages. One study shows that in order to receive a million former welfare clients into the job market the wages of low-wage workers would have to decrease by 11.9% nationally. In New York State, because of its large welfare population, wages would have to decrease 17.1%. (10)

The last argument is the classic one constructed by Marx. The capitalist means of production, i.e. private or bourgeois property, result in unequal distribution of wealth. In exchange for labor, capitalists pay the worker a mere subsistence wage, which he consumes immediately. The employer ignores that the worker has added value to the capital. Therefore, the capitalists make a profit by stealing the laborer’s human capital. The worker is shackled to the system; he must continue to sell his labor power to the capitalist in order to survive. Thus, worker survival is dependent upon increasing capital, for which he is not compensated. In addition, Marx argues that wages will continue to fall and that the working class will grow because of capitalism. Workfare does not overthrow capitalist production. Thus, it could not possibly eliminate poverty. (15,16)

Discrimination

The ultimate goal of workfare programs is to move households off public assistance and to move them into the job market where their labor will be exchanged for an income that will lessen the assistance they require from the government. Therefore, it is of critical importance to examine whether the job market can adequately absorb the heads of those households. Discrimination, both in the job market and in society-at-large, will mean that households headed by a woman or a minority will face discrimination that impedes their successful transition “off the dole” and into the workforce.

It is important to determine exactly whom welfare reform targets. According to Levenson, Reardon, and Schmidt, “AFDC funding supports families with at least one parent present; the vast majority (91%) are headed by single women (18).” The introduction of race into the picture adds an additional level of understanding to the problem. According to Stephen J. Rose in Social Stratification in The United States, only 12 percent of white households are female-headed, whereas 40 percent of black families are female-headed. What these statistics mean is that discrimination against women, who are the overwhelming majority of persons targeted by workfare, will impede their transition from the welfare to work, and will concentrate them in low-income, no benefit jobs. Discrimination against persons of color, especially blacks, who are twice as likely to be unemployed according to Rose, will also severely limit the effectiveness of welfare reform. (19)

Discrimination can best be discussed by analyzing the issues of Title VII suits as a disincentive for employers to hire a member of a protected group and the vicious triangle as an impediment to employment of persons of color. We focus on issues that affect women, both white and of color, because these groups are the ones who are affected most.

In a Winter 1995 issue of the Alabama Law Review, Professor of Law Ronald Turner explains that the use of Title VII by workers and not by applicants has lead to a disincentive on the part of employers to hire members of protected classes. He writes that the way workers are currently using Title VII has left “systemic and widespread discrimination” effectively uncombatted. Because Title VII is used principally by employees to “challenge allegedly discriminatory discharges” but not to challenge “allegedly discriminatory failures to hire”, employers simply do not hire minorities. First, this precludes the possibility of a firing suit. Second, given the difficulty of proving a hiring suit, minorities are not likely to file a Title VII claim. An employer is thus prompted by economic interest not to hire members of protected classes. What does this have to do with workfare? Simply this: a mother (the group most affected by welfare reform), either white or of color, applies for a job. Being a member of a protected group[1], she is denied that job because if hired, she is more likely to sue. This means that mothers will have difficulty gaining employment, especially employment that would pay a living wage and provide benefits to compensate for the loss of government assistance. Workfare throws women and people of color into a labor market that is motivated not to hire them.

Discriminatory problems are also highlighted by examining the vicious triangle and its pernicious effects. Discrimination in housing, education and employment constitute the legs of a vicious triangle that “imprisons the hopes of blacks and other minorities for full, equal participation in the life of the nation.” (17) Unequal education reduces one’s potential for productive employment, putting quality housing out of reach; this creates poor neighborhoods with poor schools. Housing discrimination affects the schools one’s children attend and one’s access to decent jobs. Employment discrimination thwarts one from obtaining better housing and the education needed to get a better job. Racial minorities who head households (in most cases, a woman) will be trapped within the vicious triangle; workfare is not equipped to overcome this.

Let us now examine each leg in more detail.

Racial segregation in housing was enforced up until 1950 by federal, state and local racially restrictive convenants; the affects, however, have not been remedied. The result is that a significant portion of black Americans lives in a social environment:

“…where poverty and joblessness are the norm, where a majority of children are born out of wedlock, where most families are on welfare, where educational failure prevails, and where social and physical deterioration abound.” Prolonged exposure to this environment erodes the chances for black economic and social success.”

Housing segregation has resulted in “spatial mismatch,” which has several negative effects on black employment. First, it prevents blacks from following jobs out of the inner-city and into the suburbs. Lack of adequate mass transit and the high cost of commuting are additional barriers. Second, it keeps them out of job networks. Even if a job opens in an industry near the inner-city community in which they live, workers who live outside the neighborhood may find out about the job sooner because they are tapped into the job network. This effectively prevents blacks from taking advantage of job opportunities, which is the goal of workfare. Housing discrimination hinders, if not eliminates, entry into the job market and pursuit of job opportunities.

Education discrimination, the result of and leading to housing discrimination, prevents blacks from obtaining one of the most important keys to escaping poverty: a college degree. Higher education is now crucial for economic success because of the greater integration of computers and technology in American workplaces. Because of the poor educational value of inner-city schools, black children do not have the skills necessary to make the transition to college. In addition, there are strong social pressures not to achieve, or just to give up and drop out. These cut off any hope of a college degree or economic success. In addition, schools draw their enrollment from the local community; their enrollment therefore mirrors racial demography. And, Americans seem content to provide predominantly black schools with poor educational opportunities, which denies them the skills for economic success. This is compounded by the fact that inner-city school districts draw less revenue from taxes on the local community because that community is mostly poor; this prevents school improvement programs. Education discrimination cuts off access to a good-paying job, or, as the labor market puts more stress on a college degree, any hopes for a job at all. Workfare does not overcome this bar to moving from welfare to work.

Finally, discrimination in housing and education affects one’s entrance into the job market. They have an “anti-competitive effect” on an individual’s ability to meet an employer’s legitimate job qualifications. Discrimination in the initial stages (i.e. housing and education) leading to employment, leaves blacks and others discriminated against limited job skills and job-related credentials, which result in limited job opportunities. This affects the educational opportunities one can provide one’s children, which transmits the pernicious vicious triangle to the next generation.

With black unemployment more than twice that of white, and 40 percent of all black households headed by a female, many of the households targeted by workfare will be headed by a black, single female. Because of the interaction of discrimination in housing, education, and employment, she will not have the ability to get a good job and lift her family out of poverty. What is even more appalling, her children will inherit this situation, more or unless unchanged. Workfare does little, or in some cases nothing, to overcome the forces that caused her unemployment in the first place. Requiring her to get a job and putting time restrictions on welfare will simply throw black mothers into the street with their starving children in tow.

Conclusion

With an objective to help lift people out of poverty, public welfare is supposed to address the needs of poor people. When regulations such as workfare laws are imposed to make access to welfare more strenuous, this makes it harder for poor people to receive the help they need. The craving of society to see poor people “earn” their aid is harmful when it prevents their well-being. In many ways, workfare cannot alleviate poverty in a capitalist framework. Thus, the American social and economic system must change. America must abolish private property and redistribute wealth among all the classes in order to raise up its impoverished underclass. In short, America must become a socialist nation if it is to eliminate poverty.

Group Participation

|Group Member |Research |Debate |Paper |

|Joshua Clark |Researched much of the economic |Presented and prepared the |Wrote the discrimination |

| |and discrimi-nation arguments. |discrimination argument and the |argument. |

| | |rebuttal. Helped prepare the | |

| | |economic argument. | |

|Joan Cromwell |Researched many alter-natives to|Presented and helped prepare the|Wrote the economic argument and |

| |workfare. |introduction. |helped to compile and edit the |

| | | |paper. |

|Rebecca Dylla |Researched much of the |Presented and helped prepare the|Wrote the policy section; helped|

| |background on the welfare |economic argument. |to compile, edit, and format; |

| |reform, some minimum wage /OSHA,| |wrote transitional passages. |

| |some effects on children. | | |

|Johanna (Jo) Eckler |Researched the child-care and |Presented and prepared the lack |Wrote the childcare, training, |

| |transportation issues. |of training, childcare, and |and education section. |

| | |transportation arguments. | |

|Johanna Preston |Researched fates of workfare |Discussed fates of workfare |Wrote the section on leaving |

| |workers. |workers. |workfare; helped edit and |

| | | |compile the paper; helped with |

| | | |the conclusion. |

|Brian Spears |Researched OSHA/minimum wage |Presented and prepared |Wrote the sections on minimum |

| |issues. |OSHA/minimum wage argument. |wage and OSHA problems; helped |

| | | |to edit and compile the paper; |

| | | |wrote introduction and helped |

| | | |with conclusion. |

References

1. U.S. Department of Labor/ETA. “Welfare-to-Work Grants Fact Sheet.”



2. The Administration for Children and Families, DHHS. “Work Not Welfare: Clinton Administration Issues New Proposed Welfare Regulations.” Nov. 17, 1997.



3. Larner, Mary, Donna Terman, and Richard Behrman. “Welfare to Work: Analysis and Recommendations.” The Future of Children: v.7, n.1, Spring 1997.

4. "An Administrative Nightmare: Workfare a Failure Everywhere It’s Been Tried." CCPA Monitor: July/August 1996.



5. Greenwald, John. "Off the Dole and on the Job.” Time: Aug. 18, 1997, v.150, n 7, p.42-43.

6. "From Welfare to Work". Online Newshour: June 11, 1996.



7. Street, Paul. "The Poverty of Workfare: Dubious Claims, Dark Clouds,

and a Silver Lining." Dissent. Fall 1998, v. 45, n. 4.



8. Bresette, Patrick. Center for Public Policy Priorities. Phone Interview. 5/10/99.

9. "The State of Workfare". Online Newshour: Sept. 2, 1997.



10. Krueger, Liz and John Seley. “Welfare-to-Work Programs Harm the Poor.” In Poverty: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1999.

11. Rector, Richard. “Wisconsin’s Welfare Miracle.” Policy Review: March-April 1997, n.82, p. 20.

12. “Welfare as They Know It”. Harper’s Magazine. November 1997. pp. 22-24

13. Hattiangadi, Anita U. “Fact & Fallacy: Contemporary Issues in Employment and Workfare Policy.” Employment Policy Foundation: November 1997, v.III, n.11, p.1.



14. Featheringill, Linda. “Capitalism Causes Poverty.” In Poverty: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1999.

15. Marx, Karl. The Communist Manifesto. New York: Monthly Review Press,1964.

16. Marx, Karl. Wage-Labor and Capital. 1902

17. Turner, Ronald, “Thirty Years of Title VII's Regulatory Regime: Rights, Theories, and Realities,” Alabama Law Review, Winter 1995.

18. Levenson, Alec R., Elaine Reardon and Stefanie R. Schmidt, “Welfare Reform and the Employment Prospects of AFDC Recipients,” Jobs and Capital, Summer 1997.

19. Rose, Stephen J, Social Stratification in the United States. New York: The New Press, 1992.

-----------------------

[1]Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. White women would obviously fall under the protected category of sex. Women of color fall under the categories of race and sex.

-----------------------

Group Participation

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download