ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, March 21, 1996 TAG: 9603210002
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: MARTIN D. JEFFREY
HERE'S A RIDDLE: What do you call reform that doesn't reform? What do you call a policy intended to encourage work and self-sufficiency that creates unnecessary opportunities for public-assistance recipients to sit at home - away from their assigned work experience and detracting from the main reform objective?
You decide. Let's say you have a young mother with two children, ages 4 and 8, who is assigned to a local employer for work experience. After six months of stellar reviews every month from the agency citing exemplary attendance, dependability and conscientiousness, the young lady is late turning in her time sheet to the local Department of Social Services. Oops! A direct violation of newly revised (in January) policies on the work-experience program.
It should be added that this is her first violation of any of the program's guidelines. And it was, of course, an unintentional mistake for which she stood to lose: child care for a month; transportation to and from work for a month; the percentage of the Aid for Families with Dependent Children monthly subsidy allocated to her but not the children (which, in her case, amounted to roughly $118 cut from a monthly amount of $275); and an adjustment in her food-stamp allotment for one month.
Does this partially subsidized sabbatical help in the goal to move this young lady toward self-sufficiency?
I have these specific concerns:
If the purpose of the work-experience program, as part of the broader welfare-reform effort, is to secure on-the-job experience that will increase skills of the participant and increase employability, then what good does a month-long loss of that experience do for efforts to reform?
If, considering the losses of services and subsidy, the Department of Social Services retains $300 to $500 per sanctioned participant, and the department sanctions an average of 50 to 100 participants in any given month, then what happens to those funds that would have been spent on child care, transportation, food, etc.? Based on general estimates obtained recently from a Department of Social Services employee, roughly $50 per participant goes back to Richmond. What happens to that money?
If reform is what we're after, then we should probably consider that real and effective reform is best implemented with due consideration for individual situations and circumstances. Policies that determine penalties like the "sanctions" should at the very least take into consideration the monthly work-performance report on the participant in question, and most certainly should seek to maximize the job experience/training opportunities.
I suggest that current policies do little more than maintain the status quo - re-enforcing nonproductive habits and rerouting dollars for undisclosed uses. On top of that, it allows for the penalizing of conscientious, motivated participants (the majority of AFDC recipients). This serves only to stifle motivation, jeopardize training and delay opportunities for participants to find paying jobs.
Question: What's the inevitable outcome of such an obviously flawed policy? Answer: Continued welfare-reform failure, and increasing revenues - at the discretion of someone somewhere - perhaps not being used to further reform at all.
Hmmm. Cutting corners at the expense of participants and children. Maverick policies that jeopardize everyone. Rerouted monies for undisclosed use. Sounds familiar.
Martin D. Jeffrey of Roanoke is director of community development and outreach for Total Action Against Poverty.
LENGTH: Medium: 68 linesby CNB