It's the kind of statistic that makes radio talk show hosts drool:
California is home to about 12 percent of all Americans – and more than 30 percent of all Americans on welfare.
Critics of the state's welfare program, called CalWORKs, say it's clear proof that the system is flabby and overly beneficent, particularly as compared to other states.
"We are more lenient here; we are more generous in the state of California," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said last week, "and also we are giving greater benefits for longer periods of time, and there are really no consequences if someone doesn't fulfill the work requirements."
But program officials and advocates for welfare recipients say the statistic masks the fact that California's welfare system is one of those government rarities: a program that actually works.
"That (statistic) is an apples-and-oranges thing," said Frank Mecca, executive director of the County Welfare Directors of California. CalWORKs has been "one of the most successful programs the state has had in the past decade."
There's little argument over the numbers themselves. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, about 1.2 million Californians (950,000 of them children) participated during the 2008 fiscal year in the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program.
In California, TANF is called CalWORKs and is fueled by about $5.5 billion in federal and state funds.
The 1.2 million Californians receiving cash assistance represent 31.3 percent of all TANF recipients – or more welfare patrons than the next nine most populous states combined.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, California's $694-a-month grant for a single-parent family of three was surpassed only by those in Alaska and New York.
But a commonly held theory that California's relatively high benefit level attracts large numbers of welfare recipients from other states is disputed by system officials and program analysts.
"We've never seen any evidence of that," said Mecca, whose experience dates back over two decades. "The fact is, low-income people just can't pack up and move that easily."
Instead, officials and analysts point to a covey of other factors that have helped swell the ranks of welfare recipients in California, including:
The Safety Net. The federal TANF program, a product of compromise in the mid-1990s between Democratic President Bill Clinton and a Republican-controlled Congress, required that recipients be weaned off the program within five years.
California, however, is one of 11 states that have a "safety net" under its welfare program. The net allows children under the age of 18 to continue to receive cash assistance even after the five-year clock has run out on their parents.
Lack of "Full Family" Sanctions. Under the TANF program, adult recipients who fail to comply with rules on working, seeking work or undergoing job training (130 hours a month is required in California) can be sanctioned by a state, and their benefits withheld.
But California is one of six states that penalize only the adult portion of the benefit – which is currently $139.
Moreover, the five-year clock is suspended while a sanction is in place. That means children can continue to receive benefits until they turn 18, even if their parent or parents have been sanctioned for years.
"Technically, you could be on (welfare) aid for 18 years," said John Wagner, director of the state's Department of Social Services. "With our current system, an adult could either work 130 hours or face $139 in sanctions. That's very little incentive to participate in activities, including work, that lead to a family's self-sufficiency."
Undocumented Immigrants. About 48,000 of the state's 526,000 CalWORKs households are headed by illegal immigrants.
While the adults are not eligible for welfare, any of their children born on U.S. soil – about 95,000 – are American citizens, and thus entitled to all government services.
"We're trying to get numbers of similar cases in other states, but my sense is this is higher in California than in other states," Wagner said, increasing the state's welfare workload.
"Umbrella Benefits." California includes some programs under its welfare system, such as some foster care services, that other states do not, thus increasing the overall TANF-related numbers.
Eligibility Rules. Because of its higher cost of living, California allows CalWORKs participants to hold more resources than other states' welfare programs. That broadens the eligibility pool here.
But while most of those involved agree the state's large number of welfare recipients is due to a multiplicity of factors, there is sharp disagreement as to what kind of a problem it poses – and how to fix it.
The governor, has proposed a sheaf of changes to CalWORKs, including:
• Reducing total eligibility from five years to two.
• Limiting support services such as job training and child care to the 22 percent of CalWORKs families that currently meet strict federal work guidelines.
• Imposing "full family" sanctions that would end aid to children as well as adults for repeated violations of program rules.
• Requiring recipients to meet with caseworkers every six months.
"We will give you the bootstrap," Schwarzenegger said, "but you have to pull yourself up."
The administration has estimated the proposed changes could save the state $753 million in the current fiscal year and $1.5 billion by 2012.
But critics of the governor's proposals contend they are based on false assumptions and faulty logic – and would demolish a program that directly aids those who need it most.
They point out that 65 percent of CalWORKs adults who can work already participate in work or education activities; that about 500,000 people have moved from the program to jobs since 1998; that the governor's cost-cutting estimates are wildly speculative; and that slicing services such as child care during tough economic times will only exacerbate the program's problems, not solve them.
"We want to look at sensible policies," said Mecca, "but the governor hasn't increased funding for (the program) since he's been in office, and now he wants to make $800 million in cuts ... and expects that to result in a more efficient system?
"That's not sensible; it's nonsensical."
Call Steve Wiegand, Bee Capitol Bureau, (916) 321-1076.
No comments:
Post a Comment