THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, February 13, 1995 TAG: 9502130037
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY MARGARET EDDS, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: STAUNTON LENGTH: Long : 208 lines
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,'' said Clark. ``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 transitioning 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', 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. MEMO: [On Page A4]
WELFARE-TO-WORK PLANS
HOW ONE FAMILY MIGHT BE AFFECTED
It takes you 15 to 20 minutes to get on welfare; it takes you a long
time to get off it,'' said Cynthia Clark.
Seated last week in the living room of her mobile home on a country
road outside Staunton, Clark recalled the saga of teenage 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 over 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.
- Margaret Edds
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'd come from across the
state and would be selected because they already have 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 plans exempt roughly 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 would
probably 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.
Both plans would allow a client to 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 non-paternalistic system.
The difference is a major reason the Democrats' plan costs more than
the Republicans'. State budget analysts project an eight-year savings of
$465 million for welfare under the GOP plan, vs. $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 G.E.D. 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 and
problems with old cars drive women such as Clark out of the work force.
Democrats say those services must be guaranteed for awhile if the poor
are to permanently get off welfare. Republicans say the poor will be
more motivated without guarantees. They also are putting money into the
budget to cover such costs.
THE 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 over 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 improves 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.''
ILLUSTRATION: [Color Photo]
CINDY PINKSTON/Landmark News Service
Cynthia Clark with her four children clockwise from the top right:
Ashley Ryder, 8; Cierra Clark, 4, with family dog, Bear; Stephen
Clark, 4; and Nicholas Ryder, 8.
KEYWORDS: WELFARE REFORM by CNB