Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, February 12, 1995 TAG: 9502140064
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: MARGARET EDDS STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: STAUNTON LENGTH: Long
\ Cynthia Clark is a 25-year-old, twice-divorced mother of four who says she doesn't intend to stay on welfare forever.
In a few years, after her youngest son starts school, ``I'll be off of welfare. I have made my mind up,'' Clark said. ``I will be.''
She may not have a choice.
As welfare-reform fever grips the nation, the Virginia legislature is moving to put a time limit on benefits from Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the basic welfare program, and to require work for cash benefits.
Both the state Senate and House of Delegates last week adopted welfare-to-work plans with a two-year cap on AFDC payments over a four-year period. But the tone and scope of the House plan, favored by Democrats, is substantially different from that of the Senate plan, backed by Republicans.
The Democrats' proposal is more cautious. It begins with a pilot program and is built on the idea that individuals must be equipped to earn at least $7.50 an hour to survive on their own. Over time, the plan costs more than the GOP alternative, largely because it guarantees more help in the transition to work. If the test results aren't good, that welfare-to-work plan may never go statewide.
The Republican plan would be in effect statewide within five years. There's less hand-holding while individuals move toward the two-year cutoff for most benefits. The plan costs less than the Democrats' plan, although critics say the human costs will make it more expensive if it fails.
Undergirding the plans are differences on at least two philosophical disputes: whether to trust the economy to absorb the estimated 49,000 state AFDC recipients eligible for the plans, and whether to build a safety net around good-faith promises or government guarantees.
\ ``It takes you 15 to 20 minutes to get on welfare; it takes you a long time to get off it,'' Clark said.
Seated last week in the living room of her mobile home on a country road outside Staunton, Clark recalled the saga of teen-age rebellion, marriage breakups, illnesses and lost jobs that have brought her to her current status.
As she spoke, her four children - ages 4 to 8 - tumbled around her, climbing on and off counters for snacks, tussling and interrupting their mother for kisses.
Since her oldest daughter was born in 1986, Clark has been on AFDC twice. The current period has lasted more than three years. Clark is typical of AFDC recipients in some respects, atypical in others. But her case illustrates how the two welfare-to-work plans differ at key points in the process.
Starting out
The Democrats' plan: Three thousand people per year would enter the welfare-to-work program in each of the next three years. They would come from across the state and would be selected because they already had some job skills. The decision to go statewide would depend on the results of the first three years.
The Republicans' plan: Within five years, any AFDC recipient who was not exempt would be part of the welfare-to-work plan. Recipients in localities with the lowest unemployment rate would come on line first; those with the highest, last.
Both parties' plans exempt about one-third of the 74,000 AFDC recipients for such hardships as physical disability or having a child under 18 months of age.
Clark's case: Because her youngest son has severe medical problems, Clark probably would be exempt from either plan until he starts school. After that, she might move immediately into welfare-to-work under the GOP plan, because the Staunton-Augusta County area has a low unemployment rate. Since she has few job skills, Clark would probably not be affected by the Democrats' plan until later.
Charting a strategy
The Democrats' plan: Once in the program, client and caseworker devise a plan aimed at moving the client into a $7.50-an-hour job within two years. They set up a ``contract,'' spelling out the state's and client's mutual obligations. The client's include working and/or getting job training, and using birth control. The state's include having no more than 45 clients for each caseworker.
The Republicans' plan: The client signs an ``agreement of personal responsibility,'' including a commitment to work. The emphasis is on the client's personal duty to get off welfare. The state helps in devising an employment game plan, but its prime obligation is supplying a welfare check. The GOP plan doesn't restrict the size of caseloads.
In both plans, a client would get no extra money for a child conceived after the program began.
Clark's case: Democrats argue that intensive supervision and support is essential if women such as Clark are to find and keep jobs that would make them self-sufficient. The Republicans say she's better off developing self-motivation through a nonpaternalistic system.
The difference is a major reason the Democrats' plan costs more than the Republicans' plan. State budget analysts project an eight-year savings of $465 million for welfare under the GOP plan, versus $126 million under the Democrats.
Training or work?
The Democrats' plan: During the first year in the program, welfare recipients will get education or training aimed at the specific job they're pursuing. During the second year, they'll be expected to work in a private or public sector job. They can substitute a second year of training if their course isn't completed.
The Republicans' plan: Within 30 days of going on AFDC, participants will have to begin working 32 hours per week at a private or public sector job, or in community service. After six months, the Department of Social Services can authorize job training, but at no time will the recipient be allowed to stop work altogether.
Both plans exempt minors who earn their benefits by going to school.
Clark's case: Having dropped out of school in the 10th grade, Clark would probably concentrate on getting a General Equivalency Diploma or other training under the Democrats' plan. She might also work, but education would be paramount. Under the Republican plan, work experience would be the priority, although Clark might also study for her G.E.D.
Support systems
The Democrats' plan: Child care, transportation and medical benefits ``shall'' be provided during the two-year period. They may be available longer, if needed for employment.
The Republicans' plan: Child care, transportation and medical benefits ``may'' be provided during the two-year period. They ``shall'' be available for up to 12 months after the AFDC cutoff, if needed for work.
Both plans allow the AFDC recipient to have a car worth up to $7,500. The Democrats' plan would let them keep more of their earnings without reducing AFDC benefits.
Clark's case: With four children, adequate child care is a major concern for Clark. The average AFDC recipient has two or fewer children.
Both parties acknowledge that lack of good child care and medical benefits as well as problems with old cars drive women such as Clark out of the work force. Democrats say those services must be guaranteed for a while if the poor are to get off welfare for good. Republicans say the poor will be more motivated without guarantees. They also are putting money into the budget to cover such costs.
Two-year mark
The Democrats' plan: AFDC benefits terminate at two years. Payments can be reinstated two years later, again with a two-year limit. The plan spells out ``hardship'' exemptions to the cutoff, including failure to find ``suitable employment'' after a good-faith effort and quitting work for good cause.
The Republicans' plan: The same two-year break in benefits applies. It begins after three years if the person has opted to get extended transportation and child care help.
If a person hasn't been able to get a job, the local social services director ``may'' petition for a 12-month extension on benefits. Also, exemptions can be granted in areas where the unemployment rate is 2 percent or more higher than the state average.
Clark's case: Republicans say the Democratic exemptions are so broad as to make the sanctions meaningless. Democrats say Republicans risk making hordes of people homeless. Clark sees both sides of the debate.
``I know people say, `Cindy's sitting up there on welfare and living high on the hog,''' said Clark. ``Not really. You have to be there to understand.''
Without a medical disability check for one son, it would be impossible for her family to subsist on her $347-a-month AFDC check, she says.
If her son's health improved and AFDC payments were also eliminated, she is optimistic - but far from certain - that she could support five people. She has never held a job for more than a few months. All but one paid minimum wage.
Clark shares the disgruntlement of some welfare critics when she speaks of a neighbor with a large number of children. ``The only reason she had them was to get benefits,'' she complained.
But then she added, with a laugh, ``I guess a lot of people think the same about me.''
by CNB