|
|
The NewsHour's Margaret Warner explains the Wisconsin Works program.
Learn how a pilot version of W-2 worked in Fond du Lac County.
Follow the debate over the W-2 program with two Wisconsin legislators and two national experts.
The State of Wisconsin Web site outlining W-2.
Click here for a menu of past forums.
Wisconsin is ready to launch a welfare program that will challenge the current philosophy of welfare. The Wisconsin Works (W-2) plan, championed by Governor Tommy G. Thompson (R), provides more benefits than current welfare programs, including job training, health care, food stipends and day care. But W-2 also require 53,200 of the state's 65,000 welfare recipients to work for benefits. The plan also has a time limit. Recipients can only receive benefits for five years; after that, they're on their own.
Is the Wisconsin approach a model for national welfare reform? Governor Thompson says it's the right way to end welfare's "cycle of dependency." Some critics argue that ending the guarantee of benefits hurt children. Others say the work requirement will force people into sub-minium wage jobs.
Our forum asked: Does the state have a responsibility to protect its poorest citizens, and, if so, how far does that responsiblity go?
Your questions were answered by two Wisconsin local officials who are charged with implementing Wisconsin Works: Rick Phelps, executive of Dane County, president of the National Council of Elected County Executives and outspoken critic of Wisconsin Works; and Edward Schilling, a Fond du Lac County official who supports W-2 and runs a pilot version of the welfare reform program.
From Kevin Kraft, Foster City, Calif.I appreciate the idea of people being required to work in order to receive government benefits, but how do you justify cutting of a family that may have to support young children?
Edward Schilling, Fond du Lac County, responds:
People may be "cut off" from welfare benefits if they fail to comply with program requirements. The program requirements specify that recipients must either work or put in time at other approved activities to earn their welfare benefit. Their benefits are reduced proportionately (at the rate of $4.25 per hour) to the amount of "work" they misss. This reduction in welfare benefits is no different than the reduction in pay a person would experience in a job.
Parents, whether or not they are receiving public welfare benefits or earned income, are responsible to do what is necessary to receive income to support their family. When a parent who is employed misses work, their paycheck is reduced proportional to the amount of work that they missed. There is absolutely no expectation that the employer pay the parent for the work that they have missed because that parent has children. Work, Not Welfare attempts to imitate the world of work as much as possible. Work, Not Welfare assumes that parents are responsible for the care and feeding of their children and will do what is necessary to secure the income necessary to provide for their children.
Any parent, regardless of their source of income, is responsible for the care of their children. Parents who neglect their children or are otherwise unable or unwilling to care for them because of parental irresponsibility should be held accountable under the law. It shouldn't make any difference whether or not that parent is a welfare recipient or an employed parent. It is not the obligation of the welfare system, just as it is not the obligation of the private employer to insure that there is sufficient income in a family even if the parent doesn't show up for work or activities required of the welfare system. It is the job of the child welfare system to insure that children do not unduly suffer as a result of the irresponsibility of their parents regardless of their public assistance recipient status.
Rick Phelps, Dane County County, responds:
You have hit one of the fundamental issues of welfare reform head on. Everyone supports work and training requirements for welfare recipients. But beyond the rhetoric any reform must work in the real world and must not harm vulnerable children. At the local level, we are very concerned that children retain the essentials -- shelter, nutrition, medical care and adult care and guidance. If these are not provided, the longer term consequences will be both costly and frightening. Children home alone or without economic resources become victims of abuse and neglect and are relegated to the streets and shelters. The results are foster care, juvenile crime, costly institutionalization and increased property taxes. Taxpayers pay five times more per child to place them out of home than to provide welfare.
We must be careful to distinguish between those who refuse to work and those who cannot work. W-2 does allow for "sheltered work" and training for persons whose limitations prevent them from getting and holding a job independently.
But it makes no allowances for parents who must meet the needs of their children. Everyone must work full time as soon as a baby is 12 weeks old. The program should include exceptions for the parents of children with disabilities who require special care. It should guarantee not only potential reimbursement but the actual existence of a safe and affordable child care opening before insisting that parents leave young children to work.
______________________________
From Ron Hand, Beaverton, Oregon
With the reduced case will there be a need for less government employees distributing benefits?
Rick Phelps, Dane County County, responds:
W-2 mandates a tax increase of $66 to $200 million per year. It is bigger, not smaller, than the current welfare apparatus. Prior to W-2, our local reforms have generated caseload reductions and have already brought about staffing reductions. Our caseload is lower than it was a decade ago. I am concerned about the new mandated costs in W-2.
Even without federal legislation, well operated reform and employment programs change the work public employees do. Rather than directing their efforts to the minutiae of complying with literally thousands of pages of regulations, they put their efforts into working with a family to find employment and the services needed (such as child care and health cars) which will enable the family to succeed in the labor market.
Local workers now provide information on the labor market, job requirements and employer expectations. They provide help with resumes and interview skills. They make referrals to rehabilitation or treatment programs which prepare people to work. Most applicants express more appreciation for this kind of help than for the old system. We hope W-2 will continue these efficiencies.
Edward Schilling, Fond du Lac County, responds:
Ultimately, there will be a need for fewer and fewer government employees to distribute welfare benefits as case loads decline. One of the reasons Wisconsin, specifically Fond du Lac County has been able to reduce the number of people on welfare is that we have been in a position to provide intensive case management and job seeking support services. This required an initial increase in the total number of employees in our department. As case loads have declined, the number of employees administering welfare benefits has declined through attritions. Ultimately, it is our expectation that the total number of employees involved in the administration of welfare programs will decline to a level lower than that which we had prior to piloting the Work, Not Welfare Program.
As our caseload has declined, percentage of welfare recipients with substantial barriers to employment has increased. it would be my expectation that although overall caseload and total number of staff members will continue to decline; I believe that the ratio of staff persons to clients will probably be somewhat higher than it was previous to the Work, Not Welfare Program.
______________________________
Irwin Collier, Berlin, Germany
What are the forecasts for the percentage of participants who will actually hit the five year limit for benefits? It is certainly better to subsidize work than leisure, but I'll remain skeptical for the next five years.
Sounds like tough luck rather than tough love.
Edward Schilling, Fond du Lac County, responds:
Work, Not Welfare has a limit of 24 months of benefits within a 48 month period of times Work, Not Welfare has been operational in Fond du Lac County for 16 months as of April, 1996. As of April, no Work, Not Welfare family has utilized all 16 months of benefits. This would indicate to us that every Work, Not Welfare family receiving benefits in January of 1995, was no longer receiving benefits as of April of 1996. There were ten Work, Not Welfare families who had used 14 months of their 24 month allotment as of April 1996. The trend that we have observed in Fond du Lac is that only a small percentage of welfare cases remain on the program for extended periods of time. It would be my opinion that any family receiving benefits continuously for five years will either: a) be a family where the case had has substantial disability and would be a possible SSI referral or b) have a case head who was extremely irresponsible.
Rick Phelps, Dane County County, responds:
At the local level, caseworkers have estimated that approximately 15% - 20% of current caseload would lack the ability to manage independent private employment. Significant employment support for some people might reduce that number. An economic downturn would dramatically increase it.
Wisconsin has rapidly implemented a series of welfare reform initiatives (including some time-limited efforts in 2 counties) but as yet no definitive analyses have been completed. That is why the President should consider "sunset" provisions for the waivers, with their continuation contingent upon the results of impartial evaluations. Prior "learnfare" experiments cost over $70 million and failed to produce results.
Welfare reform is a major social experiment with laudable goals. Any massive change, especially one affecting the lives of children, should be subject to continuing scrutiny and modification to strengthen what works and change what doesn't. ______________________________
From Richard Holden, Sacramento, Calif.
Do welfare recipients change their job seeking behavior when they are confronted with limited term benefits?
Rick Phelps, Dane County County, responds:
Some definitely do. Everyone who ever procrastinated on a project or a paper probably knows that deadlines do concentrate efforts.
Time limits during periods of full employment do make sense. However, the possibility for occasional exceptions must exist. Time limits should be extended when unemployment rates rise or in circumstances where there are significant problems to overcome. For example, extra time might be permitted for treatment or to get a GED. One size does not fit all.
Any reform program should leave sufficient flexibility at the local level so that judgements may be made on the basis of individual circumstances. Any welfare reform that works will need to make local program operators accountable for results and leave them the freedom to work out the best solutions in individual cases. Any other approach risks either giving people more than they really need and increasing dependence or failing to meet the real needs of children. The states are lobbying Congress for much needed flexibility. They also need to provide it to local programs.
Edward Schilling, Fond du Lac County, responds:
There is absolutely no question whatsoever that the vast majority of welfare recipients significantly change their job seeking behavior when confronted with limited term benefits combined with the requirement that they must work for their welfare benefits. With time limited benefits, there is a clear "line in the sand" that people can see. Time limited benefits state that after a certain period of time, with very few exceptions, welfare assistance ends. That is a clear message regarding a maximum amount of benefits a person can receive. Requiring individuals to work for their welfare benefits however, has an immediate impact on their job seeking behavior. Because they must work for their welfare benefits at a rate equal to the federal minimum wage, it becomes apparent to people very quickly that they can do a lot better by seeking employment in the private sector. Very few Work, Not Welfare recipients who have gotten jobs in Fond du Lac County have had to do so at minimum wage.
______________________________
From Brady Steinbach, Washington, D.C.
"Work not Welfare" has been running in Fond du Lac for a year. What parts of "workfare" do you find promising, and what parts do you find troubling?
Edward Schilling, Fond du Lac County, responds: The provisions of Work, Not Welfare that we have found to be most beneficial in promoting an exit from welfare into the world of work are:
1) A requirement that welfare recipients must work for their benefits.
2) The "welfare cap." There is little doubt that except for extremely rare cases, child bearing is an elective process. People who work do not receive wages when they have more children, nor should welfare recipients.
3) The business partnership. Work, Not Welfare mandates a partnership with private business and industry. This partnership insures that welfare recipients are prepared for jobs that actually exist in the local area. This partnership insures that the local welfare agency is kept apprised on a regular basis of the types of jobs that are currently available. Any reform of the welfare system needs to have a provision that insures a public/private partnership in job development for welfare recipients.
4) Guaranteed child care. It is absolutely essential that child care assistance be made available to welfare recipients entering the world of work. Work, Not Welfare guarantees one year of child care assistance after exiting the program due to work.
5) Transitional health care benefits. Work, Not Welfare guarantees that if other employer sponsored health plans are not available, the former Work, Not Welfare recipient may receive transitional Medical Assistance benefits for one year following exit from the program.
There are no particular aspects of the Work, Not Welfare Program that we find particularly troubling at this time. Potential problems in Work, Not Welfare, as in any program that one has to be alert for might be; 1) Inadequate funding of child care, 2) Insufficient case management services to insure proper placement in the job market. 3) Insufficient case management services to insure that those people who are truly disabled are referred to the proper program, i.e., SSI, 4) Any welfare reform program needs to be able to be changed to meet local conditions. If there would be a severe downturn in the economy resulting in some sort of recession, the state would need the ability to review all program aspects including time limits.
Rick Phelps, Dane County County, responds:
We placed 1,100 recipients in jobs last year. Dane County has operated programs which subsidize the extra training costs of private employers who hire recipients and more traditional "workfare" programs in which the recipient works off the benefit in a public or non-profit work experience position. We have not conducted the Work, Not Welfare experiment to the extent that Fond du Lac County has.
We are encouraged that the experience gained in these programs leads quickly to regular jobs for most participants. They acquire the skills and habits needed to get and keep a job. These programs work very well in conjunction with part-time training. This combination works more effectively on the whole than classroom training alone. Work experience brings recipients into the mainstream of adult life. In addition to gaining skills, they gain the confidence they need to meet the challenges of the workplace. We have had good placement rates and secured higher than average starting wages ($7.47/hr. on average) using these approaches.
We have been careful in developing all of our work sites to protect the rights of current employees. Subsidized training slots result in permanent employment in new jobs. Public and non-profit work experience workers make significant contributions to community life and gain real skills. But they are doing jobs that would otherwise not be done because there is no money to pay for them. No paid worker is displaced.
I was concerned to read in the W-2 waiver request that people with jobs could be displaced by W-2 participants. The waiver seeks to open the door to reducing hours, wages, and benefits of current employees as a method of getting new jobs for welfare recipients.
W-2 should develop real jobs paying real wages which do not create additional burdens for those already working hard and barely scraping by.
______________________________
From Nancy Heling, Bonduel, Wis. W-2 may work in Fond du Lac, but that's not a major urban area. Do you think the plan will work in the state's major urban areas?
Rick Phelps, Dane County County, responds:
Certainly welfare reform in an urban area is far more complex and challenging. The key to success is the availability of real jobs and the needed supportive services. Dane County has the lowest unemployment rate in the U.S. and a high quality of life which includes many educational institutions and service agencies. The opportunities for success in this county (2nd largest and fastest growing in Wisconsin) are good if our concerns are met. The story is very different in Milwaukee, which has almost 1/2 of the state's recipients and higher unemployment especially in the inner city.
W-2 should be phased in to avoid putting families in a lose-lose situation. If there is no child care available for infants, parents must leave their children to go to work. The county will seize the children for lack of care and costs to the taxpayer will increase at least five times over - a lose-lose for the whole community.
Edward Schilling, Fond du Lac County, responds: To the best of my knowledge, the overall unemployment rate in Wisconsin is as low as it has ever been in recent years. Although the unemployment rate is lower in Fond du Lac than it is in Milwaukee or some other areas of the state, high employment does not seem to be a particular problem in Milwaukee. I believe that certain services and support of welfare recipients may have to be increased in urban areas. Some of these services might well include second and third shift child care and transportation. Work, Not Welfare, W-2, or any other welfare reform measure needs to be flexible enough to adapt to the environment in which it is operating.
Additional Comments
From Michael Melillo, Hampton, New JerseyWould it not be more effective if the issue of welfare was dealt with by the states? Are not the needs of a New Jerseyan unique to that of a New Yorker? I think W-2 is a great plan but if it is sent to Washington, it will get ruined.
From Frederick H. Bartlett, Mercerville, New Jersey
Having worked in a shelter for the homeless in NYC and having read or watched an indeterminate number of interminable stories about welfare, I am led to a simple conclusion: Everyone wants welfare to be available, but only for those to whom they would choose to give it.
So long as the social welfare industry (both state and federal) remains highly bureacratized and centralized, many Americans will remain deeply suspicious of its policies.
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
