Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 197

Research Bulletin No.

82

September 2004

Impact of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act on Welfare Recipients

By: Willie Legette, Ph.D.


Professor Political Science

In cooperation with the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, United States Department of Agriculture, under Project No. SCX-121-01-98 Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Published as a technical contribution from South Carolina State University 1890 Research & Extension Orangeburg, South Carolina

Research Bulletin No. 82

September 2004

Impact of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act on Welfare Recipients
By:

Willie Legette, Ph.D. Professor Political Science

In cooperation with the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Under Project No. SCX-121-01-98. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Published as a technical contribution from South Carolina State University 1890 Research & Extension Orangeburg, South Carolina

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The 1890 Evans-Allen Research Program through the 1890 Research and Extension Program at South Carolina State University provided the funding for this study. The author wishes to acknowledge and thank Dr. James Walker and Mr. Robert L. Phillips, Jr., Vice President for Research and Executive Director, and Assistant Administrator for Research, respectively, 1890 Research and Extension Program, for their encouragement and support. Thanks are also extended to all the staff at 1890 Research and Extension for their assistance and support in the administration of this project. The author thanks Dr. Rickey Hill, Dr. Barbara Woods, and Dr. Learie B. Luke, who each served as Chairperson of the Department of Political Science and History, for their support and encouragement. The author extends appreciation to all of the people, too many to name, who worked on this project: research assistants, students, interviewers, and transcribers. Atenie Beyene, a research assistant, deserves a special thanks and acknowledgment for her invaluable contribution to the completion of this project. Special thanks go to case managers, local Department of Social Services directors and Family Independence managers and to all front-line workers who helped through interviews to understand the implementation of welfare reform in South Carolina. The author wants to express deep and profound gratitude to the 285 women who told of their experiences on and off welfare.

ii

iii

Table of Contents
Chapter Title Page 1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................1 1.1 Objectives . 5 1.2 Approach............................................................................................................6 2. Literature Review...........................................................................................................10 2.1 Welfare-to-Work..............................................................................................12 2.2 Employment, Training and Wages ..................................................................13 2.3 Barriers to Employment...................................................................................16 2.4 How Are Welfare Leavers Doing? ..................................................................17 2.5 Families Remaining on Welfare ......................................................................18 3. A State Profile of Welfare Recipients and Study Participants.......................................20 3.1 A State Profile of Welfare Recipients.............................................................20 3.2 The Participants in this Study .........................................................................27 4. Encouraging Work at the Front Line .............................................................................31 4.1 New Role for the Front Line............................................................................31 4.2 Job Training Programs.....................................................................................34 4.3 Job Placement ..................................................................................................42 4.4 Lack of Jobs .....................................................................................................45 4.5 Addressing Barriers to Employment................................................................46 4.6 DSS Relations with Employers........................................................................49 5. Providing Support Services............................................................................................54 5.1 Generous Approach to Support Services .........................................................54 5.2 Stingy Approach to Support Services .............................................................56 5.3 Providing Child Care .......................................................................................58 5.4 Providing Transportation .................................................................................59 5.5 Paying Late Bills..............................................................................................62 6. Imposing Sanctions and Time Limits ............................................................................65 6.1 Reluctance to Impose Sanctions ......................................................................67 6.2 Sanctions to Enforce Compliance....................................................................69 6.3 Time Limits......................................................................................................70 7. A Survey of County Directors .......................................................................................74 8. Getting on Welfare and Living with Stigma..................................................................82 8.1 Why Welfare ...................................................................................................82 8.2 The Application Process ..................................................................................91 8.3 Living with Stigma ..........................................................................................94

iv

9. Living with Family Independence.. .....................................................................................96 9.1 Family Life Classes ........................................................................................... 96 9.2 Job Club Classes ................................................................................................ 98 9.3 Support Services ................................................................................................101 9.4 Work Experience as Training ............................................................................106 9.5 Getting off Welfare ............................................................................................109 10. Employment Experience..................................................................................................114 10.1 Unemployment ..................................................................................................114 10.2 Job Satisfaction .................................................................................................116 10.3 Overworked........................................................................................................117 10.4 No Advancement ...............................................................................................118 10.5 Not Enough Pay .................................................................................................120 11. Life after Welfare.............................................................................................................123 11.1 Making Ends Meet.............................................................................................123 11.2 Health Care Issues ............................................................................................125 11.3 Charity................................................................................................................133 11.4 View of Life after Welfare.................................................................................134 12. Conclusion and Recommendations..................................................................................140 References Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C ...............................................................................................................146 ...............................................................................................................153 ...............................................................................................................162 ...............................................................................................................166

vi

vii

List of Tables
1.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Characteristics of Counties under Study..................................................................... 7

Number of Children Recipients Have......................................................................... 25 Educational Attainment of Recipients ........................................................................ 26 Spells on Welfare 1996-1999...................................................................................... 26 Spells on Welfare by County 1999 ............................................................................ 27 Descriptive Characteristics of Welfare Leavers Interviewed ..................................... 29

9.1 Reason for Leaving Welfare, by Race ............................................................................111 10.1 Unemployed Respondents - Reasons Not Working by Reason Left Welfare .... 115 10.2 Monthly Income and Hours Worked Weekly by County ...........................................121

11.1 Adverse Events that Happened to Respondents .........................................................130 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 Adverse Events that Had Happened in the Past Year ........................................................... 131 Adverse Events by Race.......................................................................................................... 132 View of Life after Welfare, by Reason for Leaving Welfare .....................................136 View of Life after Welfare, by Employment Status ...................................................137

11.6 View of Life after Welfare, by Race ...............................................................................138

viii

ix

List of Figures
3.1 Welfare Recipients by Race 1992-2001 ....................................................................20 3.2 Percent of Welfare Recipients by Race 1992-2001 ....................................................21 3.3 Adult Welfare Recipients by Race and Gender 1992-2001........................................22 3.4 Percent Adult Recipients by Race and Gender 1992-2001.........................................23 3.5 Welfare Recipients Adults Compared to Children 1992-2001 ...................................24 3.6 Percent Welfare Recipients Adults Compared to Children 1992-2001 ......................24 3.7 Marital Status of Respondents ....................................................................................30 7.1 Two Years Sufficient to Make the Transition to Work ..............................................76 7.2 Private Sector Recruits, Trains, and Hires Recipients ................................................77 7.3 Success in Developing A Partnership with Technical Schools/Colleges ..................78 7.4 County Directors Reporting FIs Objectives as Successful or Very Successful .......79 7.5 Factors That Impede the Employment of TANF Recipients ......................................80 7.6 Departments of Social Services that Use a Caseworker as Child Care Specialist......81 9.1 Participated in Family Life Classes ...........................................................................97 9.2 Interviewees who Attended Job Club Class by Employment Status .........................99 9.3 Not Aware of Services Available after Leaving Welfare ........................................102 9.4 Affordability of Child Care......................................................................................103 9.5 9.6 Interviewees Spell on Welfare...............................................................................109 Interviewees Length of Time off Welfare .............................................................110

9.7 Interviewees Sanctioned by Employment Status.....................................................112 10.1 Unemployment of Interviewees by County .............................................................114

xi

10.2 Run Out of Money between Paychecks ..................................................................120 11.1 Interviewees With Health Insurance or Medicaid ..................................................125 11.2 Interviewees with Health Insurance by Employment Status ..................................126 11.3 Interviewees Practices Regarding Doctor Visits when Sick ................................128

xii

xiii

Executive Summary
After Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996, South Carolina incorporated its version of TANF into the Family Independence Program (FI) in October of 1996. The South Carolina General Assembly passed the Family Independence Act in 1995. The Family Independence Act requires the Department of Social Services (DSS) to emphasize employment and training with a minor welfare component and to coordinate its activities with other state agencies. The monthly stipend provided to a family unit is contingent upon satisfactory participation in employment and training activities. Four key features of FI are: 1. Mandatory participation in a two-week job search as a condition of eligibility; 2. A two-year time limit within a ten-year time period and a lifetime limit of five years; 3. Work requirement: Work is defined as employment or any activity that will lead to employment or improved employability; and 4. Full family sanction: Failure of an adult client to comply with FI requirements can result in both the adult recipient and the entire family losing benefits.

FI stands to fundamentally alter the material well-being of welfare recipients. If welfare recipients do not find employment with wages and benefits equal to their public assistance, their material well-being may decrease. Welfare recipients may suffer hardship as they try to cope with the termination of public assistance.

xiv

Objective
This study evaluated the implementation of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act in South Carolina. Because South Carolina incorporated PRWORA into FI, the study evaluated FI and its impact on the quality of life of welfare recipients. Assessing the implementation of FI in South Carolina included front-line workers, managers, and directors on the county level and the views and experiences of welfare recipients with the new welfare system. The specific objectives were the following: 1. Examine the views and practices of front-line workers responsible for implementing FI (PRWORA) in South Carolina; 2. Examine the impact of FI on the material well-being of welfare recipients; 3. Examine how welfare recipients cope with the termination of public assistance; 4. Document the experiences of welfare recipients with FI; 5. Examine welfare leavers work experience; and 6. Examine the views and practices of directors of County Departments of Social Services This study is based on several approaches to data collection. In depth interviews with welfare leavers and front-line workers served as the primary source of information. Additionally, the Department of Social Services administrative and survey data were used. The study used a survey of county directors of Departments of Social Services to provide both a quantitative and a state-wide approach. The study employed in-depth interviews as the primary data collection for several reasons. First, this method strengthens the depth of one-on-one interaction with the subjects; thus it broadens and enhances the findings regarding the experiences of front-line workers and welfare leavers. Second, the open-ended approach affords welfare leavers and front-line workers

xv

the opportunity to emphasize the aspects of their experiences they perceive as most essential. More importantly, it allows them to describe those experiences in their own words and value systems. This guards against the bias the researcher brings to the project. Third, the flexibility of the interviews provided opportunities to probe answers and enhanced the possibility that the researchers and the subjects had a shared understanding of the questions being asked. The in-depth interviews with front-line workers and welfare recipients were conducted between June 2000 and August 2002. Approximately 285 interviews were conducted with welfare recipients. However, due to technical problems nine interviews were discarded. Therefore, 276 interviews with welfare leavers were used for this study. Fifty-three interviews were conducted with front-line workers. All interviews were transcribed and imported into Nvivo, a qualitative software program, for coding and analysis. A questionnaire was designed to be self-administered by the directors of county Departments of Social Services. Questions for the questionnaire were generated from a review of the literature and the South Carolina Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant Plan. The women interviewed manifested complex relationships with the labor market and the welfare bureaucracy. Some women interviewed did seem lazy in the sense that they had not looked for or found jobs in months or years. Some had been on welfare for five years or more. It is indeed questionable if these women were sufficiently motivated to look for work and whether they were making the necessary efforts to improve the financial circumstances of their families. But these women made up only a very small minority of women interviewed. Most had been on welfare for two years or less. A substantial number of women who were unemployed and looked for work had low levels of education and rudimentary skills and lacked the human

xvi

capital that employers find attractive. The question is to what extent lack of motivation and skill are responses and adaptations, however inappropriate, to poverty and limited opportunities. Despite the rise in service sector jobs, there are not enough for all welfare recipients who need and want them. This study found that a large number of these women found employment, but only a few got jobs with wages above the poverty level. Most of them were in low wage jobs in which they were unable to pay childcare. Most of these jobs were insecure and many consisted of less than 40 hours a week. A majority of the women interviewed reported making less than $600 a month. Many of the women admitted these are dead end jobs with little room for advancement. Moreover, most of these jobs did not provide important benefits such as sick leave and health care. Many have become discouraged and frustrated with work that demands so much and returns so little in terms of wages, benefits, advancement and most of all security. This study found that the solution to the welfare problem is fundamentally a solution to the problem of poverty, and it should involve changes in the way policy makers structure both employment and social welfare policies. In regards to work, the following recommendations are made: 1. South Carolina and the nation must invest in human capital among poor and low income groups. This includes remedial education for those who possess limited education and skills. South Carolina must adopt a targeted economic development strategy that creates jobs and locates industries in counties and communities with the highest rate of poverty. Economic development has to be driven by employment concerns and not economic growth per se, which is generally focused on the needs of capital. The state of South Carolina and the federal government must develop a secure and full employment policy for every person who wants a job. These jobs must pay a living wage and provide essential benefits such as health care, sick leave and paid vacation.

2.

3.

4.

xvii

The welfare system can be improved to better protect families. Policy recommendations for social welfare fall into two areas. The first area consists of broad social policies that require action on the part of the national government. In the second area there are narrow policy recommendations that can take place without the assistance of the national government and within the policy framework of FI. Social welfare policy should do the following: 1. Enhance the feasibility of work by providing child care and transportation to low income workers. 2. Provide public sector jobs for those who cannot find employment in the private sector. 3. Provide benefits and medical insurance for all families who do not have it and family leave policies that allow for care of the sick or of needy children. There are improvements South Carolina can make to its existing policy to better serve the needs of welfare recipients. In this regard, the state policy makers should do the following: 1. Make consistent and generous distribution of support services. Case managers and county directors should be disabused from the notion that these services conflict with the goal of independence and self-sufficiency. 2. Abolish the two-year time limit within ten years. This does not provide case managers sufficient time to address many of the employment barriers welfare recipients may have. More importantly, it does not allow recipients sufficient time for training for more highly skilled jobs. 3. Provide financial support training for associate degrees.

4. Enhance childcare and transportation services.

xviii

xix

Chapter 1 Introduction
Throughout American history, single mothers and their children have been disproportionately represented among the poor. The federal government has only reluctantly provided income support to poor single mothers (Handler and Hasenfeld 1991; Zinn and Sarri 1984). Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), popularly known as welfare, is the program that provides public assistance to poor families. More than 90 percent of the families eligible for welfare are comprised of children and their mothers. AFDC grew out of Aid to Dependent Children (ADC), which was part of the Social Security Act of 1935. This program was established for children deprived of parental support as a result of death or desertion (Katz 1986). In 1967, the federal government changed ADC to AFDC. AFDC gained only marginal legitimacy in the American political system and was mired in negative images and controversy. Thus, the safety net of the United States welfare system has never been strong compared with those in Europe and is constantly under political attack (Mandell 1995). Who is excused from work and entitled to public support is at the heart of the welfare policy dilemma (Handler and Hasenfeld 1991). When the current United States welfare system began, it was not expected that single mothers would work. However, as women, including many with young children, entered the labor force in the 1960s, a consensus emerged that welfare mothers should enter the labor market and become self-supporting. Policy makers began to devise strategies to increase the work efforts of welfare recipients. Two strategies have been used: regulatory requirements and incentives. The regulatory strategy involves requiring welfare recipients to work or engage in work-related

activity as a condition for receiving public assistance. The incentive strategy encourages recipients to work by allowing them to retain a part of their earnings without a dollarfordollar reduction in benefits, thus making it economically advantageous for welfare recipients to combine work and welfare rather than to rely only on welfare (Kerlin 1993; Zinn and Sarri 1984; Handler 1995). Both strategies view poverty as a personal flaw rather than a structural and societal problem. Beginning with Ronald Reagan's Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (OBRA), the federal government shifted its emphasis toward regulatory strategy. The most significant reform, toward the regulatory strategy, is the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). It was signed into law on August 22, 1996, by President Clinton. PRWORA represented the most radical welfare reform legislation since the beginning of the American welfare state with the Social Security Act of 1935. The ideological underpinnings of PRWORA are explicit. The objectives of PRWORA are to: (a) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (b) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (c) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (d) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. PRWORA has far-reaching implications in a number of programs. PRWORA fundamentally reforms the Food Stamp program, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for children, the Child Support Enforcement Program, and benefits for legal immigrants. The act modifies the child nutrition programs and provides cuts in the Social Service Block Grants (SSBG) (Sawhill 1995). PRWORA features deep cuts in programs for low-income children and families and requires structural changes in the AFDC program. The Act converts

AFDC and Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) into the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant. States are allowed to deny aid to poor families. The Act limits family assistance to five years, while granting states the option to limit assistance to a shorter time period. As a block grant, TANF provides states flexibility to design programs more responsive to the political, ideological, economical, and administrative context in which redistributive policies are implemented. The new welfare system requires TANF recipients to work after two years on assistance. An individual may participate in one of the following activities which can be classified as work participation: (a) unsubsidized or subsidized public or private employment, (b) on-the-jobtraining, (c) job search and job readiness assistance for up to six weeks, (d) community service programs, (e) vocational training, (f) job skills training directly related to employment, (g) education directly related to employment for individuals who have not completed high school, (h) attendance at secondary schools or course of study to obtain the GED, and (i) provision of child care services to an individual who is participating in a community service program. TANF locks in work requirements in four ways. First, it provides a broad definition of who is available for work. It includes nearly all adults except those with children under the age of one and those cases in sanction status. It increases the number of hours required from twenty hours in 1997 to thirty hours in 2000. Second, it defines what counts as work, rather than leaving the definition to the states. Third, it requires substantial participation rates. Participation rates began with 25 percent of the caseload in 1997, increasing to 50 percent by 2002. Fourth, it requires the states to impose sanctions against recipients who do not comply with the program (Turner and Main 2001). A state may reduce assistance to a family pro rata (or more at state option) for any period

in which an adult member of the family refuses to engage in work. States have the option to terminate Medicaid for recipients whose cash assistance is terminated for failure to work. PRWORA limits the number of TANF recipients who can pursue education and training. It stipulates that no more than 20 percent of a states caseload may count toward the work requirement by participating in vocational training or education directly related to employment. PRWORA specifically tries to strengthen the traditional family and modify individual behavior. This Act mandates that an unmarried minor parent must live with an adult or in an adult-supervised setting to receive assistance. Further, it stipulates a family's cash assistance may be reduced by 25 percent or terminated if a parent fails to cooperate in establishing or enforcing a child support order. States are allowed to deny assistance to additional children born or conceived while the parent is receiving assistance and to unmarried teen parents and their children. Persons convicted of drug related felonies will be prohibited for life from receiving TANF assistance. Pregnant women and individuals participating satisfactorily in drug treatment programs are exempted. PRWORA allows partial and full family sanctions. After Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, South Carolina incorporated its version of TANF into the Family Independence Program (FI) in October of 1996. The South Carolina General Assembly passed the Family Independence Act in 1995. The Family Independence Act requires the Department of Social Services (DSS) to emphasize employment and training with a minor welfare component. The Act required DSS to coordinate its activities with other state agencies. The monthly stipend provided to a family unit is contingent upon satisfactory participation in employment and training activities. Four key features of FI are: 1. Mandatory participation in a two-week job search as a condition of eligibility;

2. A two-year time limit within a ten-year time period and a lifetime limit of five years; 3. Work requirement: Work is defined as employment or any activity that will lead to employment or improved employability; and 4. Full family sanction: Failure of an adult client to comply with FI requirements can result in both the adult recipient and the entire family losing benefits. FI stands to fundamentally alter the material well-being of welfare recipients. If welfare recipients do not find employment with wages and benefits equal to their public assistance, their material well-being may decrease. Welfare recipients may suffer

hardship as they try to cope with the termination of public assistance. Objectives This study evaluated the implementation of PRWORA in South Carolina. Because South Carolina incorporated PRWORA into FI, the study evaluated FI and its impact on the quality of life of welfare recipients. Assessing the implementation of FI in South Carolina included frontline workers, managers and directors on the county level and the views and experiences of welfare recipients with the new welfare system. The specific objectives were the following: 1. Examine the views and practices of front-line workers responsible for implementing FI (PRWORA) in South Carolina; 2. Examine the impact of FI on the material well-being of welfare recipients; 3. Examine how welfare recipients cope with the termination of public assistance; 4. Document the experiences of welfare recipients with FI; 5. Examine welfare leavers work experience; and 6. Examine the views and practices of county directors of Department of Social Services.

Approach The counties chosen for this study were Allendale, Charleston, Lee, Marion, Marlboro, Orangeburg, and Richland. These counties were selected because of the moderate to high percentage of their populations who participated in AFDC. They were also selected because of the differences in their unemployment rates. The study intended to look at counties with high and low unemployment rates. In 1995 Allendale County ranked first and Lee County ranked second among counties in South Carolinas AFDC participation rates, with 11 and 9 percent of the population participating in AFDC, respectively. These counties had a high unemployment rate of 11 percent each. Orangeburg County was chosen because it meets the basic criterion of ranking sixth in AFDC participation rate. Seven percent of the population in Orangeburg participated in AFDC. In 1995 the unemployment rate for Orangeburg was 9 percent. In 1995 Charleston County ranked 24th and Richland County ranked 27th in AFDC participation rates with 4 and 3.4 percent of the population participating in AFDC, respectively. Table 1.1 shows the demographic characteristics of the counties selected for this study.

Table 1.1 Characteristics of Counties under Study County Black Allendale 7960 71 106918 34.5 12787 63.6 19984 56.3 14249 48.5 49251 58.1 144809 45.2
1,185,216 29.5

Population White 3068 27.4 191928 61.9 7048 35 14787 41.7 14308 48.7 34949 41.2 161276 50.3
2,406,974 67.2

Unemployment Black 349 6 4656 6.2 655 7.1 1231 8.6 539 5 2708 6.5 6632 6.2
54,361 6.4

Education High School Graduate College Graduate Black 197 4.2 4829 7.9 325 4.4 465 4.1 287 3.3 2563 8.2 10266 12.5
45,894 6.7

Poverty White 326 13.9 33717 25.5 514 9.7 1059 10 551 6.1 3010 12.1 29223 26.1
296,500 16.1

White 31 1.2 3936 2.5 160 2.7 287 2.4 383 3.7 622 2.2 3629 2.7
54,874 2.5

Black 1291 27.7 18263 29.9 2730 36.9 4464 39.5 3018 34.9 9900 31.6 23179 28.3
225,509 33.1

White 897 38.2 26277 19.9 1806 34.1 3989 37.6 3220 35.5 7867 31.7 20793 19.1
536,947

Black 2951 41.2 30881 29.9 3527 30.7 6370 32.4 3936 29.4 15504 29.2 26637 20.2
298,418 26.4

White 400 14.9 16126 8.7 449 6.9 1521 10.4 1642 13.2 2980 8.9 11379 7.6
224,339 8.6

Charleston

Lee

Marion

Marlboro

Orangeburg

Richland

South Carolina

29.1

Source: South Carolina State and County Profiles, U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 http://www.sccommunityprofiles.org/overview.

May, 2004

This study is based on several approaches to data collection. In-depth interviews with welfare leavers and front-line workers served as the primary source of information. Additionally, the Department of Social Services administrative and survey data were used. The study administered a survey to county directors of Departments of Social Services to provide both a quantitative and a statewide approach. The study employed in-depth interviews as the primary data collection for several reasons. First, this method strengthens the depth of one-on-one interaction with the subjects; thus it broadens and enhances the findings regarding the experiences of front-line workers and welfare leavers. Second, the open-ended approach provides welfare leavers and front-line workers with the opportunity to emphasize the aspects of their experiences they consider most essential. More importantly, it allows them to describe those experiences in their own words and value systems. This guards against the bias the researcher brings to the research project. Third, the flexibility of the interviews provides opportunities to probe answers and enhances the possibility that the researchers and the subjects have a shared understanding of the questions being asked. The in-depth interviews with front-line workers and welfare recipients were conducted between June 2000 and August 2002. Approximately 285 interviews were conducted with welfare recipients. However, due to technical problems nine interviews were discarded. Therefore, 276 interviews with welfare recipients were used for this study. Fifty-three interviews were conducted with front-line workers. All interviews were transcribed and imported into Nvivo, a qualitative software program, for coding and analysis. To maintain confidentiality, the names of welfare recipients and front-line workers were changed, and names of counties and recognizable places and institutions were omitted when citing or discussing

particular quotes. A questionnaire was designed to be self-administered by the county Department of Social Services directors. Questions were generated from a review of the literature and the South Carolina Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant Plan. The South Carolina Department of Social Services provided a list of the 46 Department of Social Services county directors. The questionnaire was pre-tested using six directors from six counties in South Carolina. After revisions, all county directors were mailed the selfadministered questionnaires in June 1998 with a follow-up mailing to non-respondents a month or so later. From June 1998 through September 1998, 41 questionnaires (eighty-nine percent) were returned.

Chapter 2 Literature Review


Since the 1980s, a growing body of scholarly literature asserted that welfare dependence is the major problem confronting poor single mothers. The appropriate interventionist strategy to get welfare mothers from welfare to work became the challenge for policy makers. Generally, these scholars believed that employment, training, and educational opportunities are available. Accordingly, the psychological state of dependency prevents the poor from pursuing self-support (Mead 1992; Zinn 1989). According to this view, welfare recipients do not wish to work; and AFDC reinforces unproductive behavior and values. They argued that welfare is part of the problem and not the solution to poverty (Anderson 1978; Gallaway and Vedder 1986; Gilder 1981; Murray 1998). Thus, less welfare instead of more is the solution to poverty. Dependency is nevertheless a problematical concept in the welfare reform debate. The critics of this view pointed out that focusing on welfare dependence perpetuates the view of individual and family deficits and misses the major economic, cultural, and geographical factors that contribute to poverty and the need for welfare (Curtis 1998) . Racial politics played a significant role in the debate about welfare reform. The literature implicates race in the construction of the American welfare state from the New Deal to the reforms of the 1990s. Brown argued persuasively that the difference in racial politics in the North and South played a significant role in the political development of the American welfare state. Generally, black politicians and civil rights leaders advocated and defended social policies; white conservative politicians resisted such policy (Brown 1999; Cammisa 1998; Hamilton 1893; Mendelberg 2001; Neubeck 2001). Racial conflict became entwined with conflict over taxes and spending. In the early days of the welfare state white southerners and white workers

10

had no interest in supporting public policies that would erode racial privileges or benefit blacks. Conservative opponents of the welfare state have exploited this reality since the 1940s (Brown 1999: 8). Racial stratification in the labor market had an impact on the welfare state. In a competitive job market, whites are more likely to distribute a disproportionate share of jobs among themselves. This relegates blacks and other racial minorities to rely on welfare relief (Brown 1999). In fact, students of the American welfare state have shown how gender and racial conflicts have significantly shaped social policy (Quadagno 1990). Scholars have pointed out that women of color are victimized by the economy and the welfare state. Black women are less able to find work and stand to be penalized by welfare reform (Handler and Hasenfeld 1991). Many scholars think the reforms of the PRWORA will decrease the material well-being of welfare recipients. They feel the reforms of the PRWORA fails to address the social and economic context that accounts for poverty. According to these scholars current welfare reforms do not confront the issues of the changing structure of the labor market and the need for labor market policies to be tied directly with any policy directed at reducing the poverty and dependence of poor women (Bowen et al. 1995: 119). Zinn and Sarri asserted that these policies have not given consideration to environmental factors affecting AFDC recipients' wellbeing, such as economic recession, doubledigit unemployment, or sex discrimination in employment (Zinn and Sarri 1984: 357). Thus, the government must play a role in making existing jobs pay and must provide a fullemployment policy to ensure the availability of useful jobs to those able and willing to work (Sheak 1996). Noted scholars questioned the success of state governments in addressing poverty, inequalities, and the capacity to implement redistributive policies. They argued there is not a

11

shred of evidence that a block grant will either move people out of poverty or change their behavior and attitudes (Derthick 1989:89). Studies of American federalism point out that devolution is likely to encourage states to cut benefits and limit eligibility as they scramble to avoid attracting welfare recipients from other states (Peterson 1995). Welfare-To-Work One of the major concerns of scholars studying welfare reform is the extent to which welfare-to-work programs are successful in assisting welfare recipients to make the transition from welfare to work. One of the issues has been training versus immediate employment. Some research shows that it is possible to connect low-income workers to better jobs directly, without increasing their skill levels. Even though the problem of low basic skills among welfare recipients is pervasive, some researchers found that welfare-to-work programs that focused on education have not helped recipients find better jobs and have not been as successful as job search welfare-to-work programs in increasing employment and earnings (Pauly and Di Meo 1996). Joseph Pechman found that education and training have improved the wages of welfare recipients only modestly (1992). Other studies found that work-based employment programs have raised employment and earnings for welfare recipients (Gueron and Pauly 1991; Plimpton and Nightingale 2000). But other studies asserted that while welfare-to-work programs that focused on job search have helped low-income people find work, these programs have not changed the quality of jobs welfare leavers find (Strawn 1998). Many recipients who are not reinstated in welfare programs and find work usually find themselves in lowwage jobs with no medical, child care, or other benefits. Thus, they are still not independent or above poverty. Therefore it is argued that the success of these programs simply cannot be defined as the percentage of recipients that are

12

removed from the welfare rolls (Zinn and Sarri 1984; Sheak and Dabelko 1991). Studies have found that many welfare recipients do not have adequate education or training to meet the requirements of the job market (Marcenko and Fagan 1996). Employment, Training and Wages Other research found that postsecondary education can increase the hourly wages of lowincome workers. Workers participation in programs at community colleges and four-year institutions increased hourly earnings substantially. These studies found women who received an associates degree earned hourly wages 19 to 23 percent higher than similar women without such a degree. Women who obtained a bachelors degree earned 28 to 33 percent more than their peers (Kane and Rouse 1995). Mills and Hazarika found several key points related to this issue: (a) hourly earnings increase with education, (b) returns on education are lower for nonmetropolitan workers than metropolitan workers, and (c) the cost of workforce participation decreases dramatically with higher levels of education attainment in both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas (Mills and Hazarika 2003). Strawn identified the components necessary for a policy to help welfare leavers enter better jobs: (1) placement of low-income parents in the best possible jobs and helping them advance after they start working; (2) targeted skill upgrading based on demands in the local labor market for low-income parents while they are working; and (3) investments in skill upgrading for low-income parents during periods of unemployment (Strawn et al. 2001). Haveman added to this list, arguing that a successful work program requires a reduction in the exemptions from work, support for employment services, regular contacts with employers, and an administrator with enthusiasm and firmness regarding the program. He predicted that women applying for assistance in the future will not be able to earn nearly enough to support

13

their families. He concluded if these women work full time and pay child care, they will have to pay about half of their wages for child care. Haveman also found that the success of programs to remove women from welfare to work is directly tied to the labor market, the state of the economy, economic development, and the role of the business community in solving the problems of poverty (Haveman 1996). The U.S. General Accounting Office (1991) found that many single mothers with full time jobs still remain below the poverty line. Low wages, lack of fringe benefits, and high expenses for child care contribute to the anomaly of more women working and more women living in poverty, Moreover, these jobs offer few opportunities for promotion. They offer little promise of either welfare independence or economic selfsufficiency (Bowen et al. 1995). Concurring with this assessment of low-wage work for welfare leavers, Rickman et al. concluded from their study that sustained employment may be the result of wages that fall below the poverty level. Therefore, families leaving welfare join the working poor (Rickman et al. 2001). More recent studies show higher wage growth. However, given the low wages of women leaving welfare, these higher wages are unlikely to make a substantial difference in the number of these families escaping poverty (Corcoran and Loeb 1999). Job loss is high among welfare leavers. Studies have found that a sizable minority of recipients is unable to keep jobs and cycles between work and welfare (Harris 1996; SpalterRoth and Hartmann 1993). This is especially the case in the first four to six months after leaving welfare. The most significant problem identified in these studies is that most women do not work steadily over time. For example, one study found that only five percent of those who left welfare managed to work year-round and full-time in each of the five years after leaving. Sixty percent never worked year-round and full-time during that period (Cancian and Meyer 2000).

14

Some recipients are unable to get jobs, while others get jobs only to lose them because of inadequate job skills (Bane and Ellwood 1994; Harris 1996; Holzer 1998). Cancian and Meyers found that women who work more in the first year after leaving welfare were more likely to maintain employment (Cancian and Meyer 2000). Not surprisingly, studies have discovered that women who left welfare with higher wages were more likely to stay employed (Rangarjan et al. 1998; Freedman 2000). Studies have also discovered the occupation is important in predicting continued employment of welfare leavers. Seventy three percent of women who began work in sales in the first year after leaving welfare were employed in the fourth and fifth years after leaving welfare. On the other hand, 83 to 95 percent of women who started in occupations such as private housekeeping, building cleaning or maintenance, clerical, and formal child care, worked in the fourth and fifth years after leaving welfare (Cancian and Meyer 2000). Studies have found welfare leavers who start out in jobs with employer-provided benefits are more likely to keep employment overtime. One study found that those who began jobs with paid vacation remained employed for an average of one year at a time, compared to 7 months for those without paid vacation time. Moreover, those who worked in jobs offering health insurance worked 77 percent of the following two years, compared with 56 percent of the time for those without health insurance (Rangarjan et al. 1998). Studies that looked at the relationship between womens personal characteristics, such as educational attainment and basic skills, and sustained employment overtime, found little relationship between the two. In addition, studies found little relationship between personal characteristics, such as the number and ages of children or housing status, and sustaining employment over time (Olson and Paveti 1996; Rangarjan et al. 1998).

15

Barriers to Employment Studies have identified barriers that discourage recipients from finding employment. Recipients face family and personal issues such as physical and mental health, health or behavior problems of children, substance abuse, domestic violence, low skill, learning disabilities, low self-esteem, and other factors (1992; East 1999; Peterson 1992; Taylor 2001). East pointed out what she identified as the hidden barriers to employment. They include: (a) past and present domestic violence; (b) family origin issues that include past physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, and current relationships with family members; (c) mental health barriers that include depression, high levels of stress, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), alcohol and drug use; and (d) issues of self-esteem (East 1999: 298). Mills and Hazarika conducted a study to explore the influence of the presence of young children in the family, labor market conditions, and cost of workforce participation within metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas on welfare leavers working. They found that children under six years old creates a major barrier to employment. In fact, the presence of an additional child under six increased the cost of workforce participation by 77.7 percent in metropolitan areas. In non-metropolitan areas the additional cost of workforce participation increased by 120.1 percent (Mills and Hazarika 2003). Kimmel also found that living in metropolitan areas decreases the chance of employment; poor maternal health is likely to be more important in the labor force participation decision (Kimmel 1997).

16

How Are Welfare Leavers Doing? Recent studies have looked at the impact of sanctions and time limits on welfare recipients well-being. Sanctions and time limits are designed to promote changes in the behavior of recipients and motivate them to find jobs or to participate in employment related activities. Under PRWORA, States must penalize recipients who do not participate in required work activities. Recipients can be penalized if they do not comply with efforts to establish paternity and collect child support. Sanctions are supposed to teach recipients respect for rules (Kaplan 1999). Studies have found that having limited education and being African American are good predictors for sanctioning (Lower-Basch 2000; Kalil et al. 2002). Being sanctioned is associated with an increase in encountering hardship in the near future (Kalil et al. 2002). Recipients who had been sanctioned were not as likely to be employed as were other leavers. Survey findings are mixed, but a pattern has emerged showing that a substantial percentage of recipients who left welfare because of time limits or sanctions are having difficulties. Studies reported that from one-third to one-half of the respondents were having trouble making ends meet. Between 15 percent and 25 percent reported that they sometimes did not have enough food to eat. While it is not clear if sanctioned leavers were having a more difficult time than other leavers, time limited and sanctioned leavers may not be eligible for future assistance. Sanctioned leavers were less likely to work than other leavers (Pavetti and Bloom 2001) . Pamela Loprest conducted a comprehensive leavers study and reported: A sizable group of former recipients, about 20 percent, are not working, do not have a spouse who is working, and are not relying on government disability benefits. In addition, from one third to one half of former recipients report serious economic struggles around providing food and almost 20 percent report problems paying rent. Former recipients are experiencing these struggles more than other low income mothers despite other similarities (Loprest 1999:24).

17

Scholars have pointed out that the drop in the number of people on welfare and the rise in employment does not indicate a substantial change in the lives of these families. Moreover, Beshavor suggested that all the social indicators that started to show improvement in the 1990s have stopped improving and some have started to retreat. (Douglas and Peter 2000). Bane observed that the overall well-being of poor families has improved in some respects and worsened in others (Bane 1999). Moreover, it was observed by many scholars that many families are not receiving the benefits in health care and food to which they are entitled. Many who would benefit are discouraged from doing so. Bane attributed this decline to the new welfare system, the increased stigma now associated with any kind of welfare benefits, and the general attitudes and expectations about welfare (Bane 1999; Zedlewski and Brauner 1999). Work is associated with reduction in material hardship, but not its elimination (Holcomb et al. 1993). Therefore, many leavers continue to rely on government programs after leaving public assistance (Blank and Schmidt 2001; Isaacs 2001; Dunton et al. 2001). One of the most common forms of government support is Medicaid (Isaacs 2001). Welfare leavers who accumulate the most work experience, not surprisingly, have higher levels of economic well-being and experience fewer material hardships. Families Remaining on Welfare Some studies began to focus on the families that remain on welfare. One compared the characteristics of the families on TANF with families off TANF. Generally, these studies showed that those families on TANF are more disadvantaged than those who left TANF. They seem to have less education and work experience. They also suffer from greater health problems and have less access to child care and transportation. However, there is evidence to show that 18

employed welfare leavers have higher incomes and lower poverty rates than unemployed leavers. This implies that TANF assistance is needed for families to maintain their economic well-being (Moffitt and Cherlin 2002; Rickman et al. 2001). According to Loprest, of all families who left welfare between 1997 and 1999, about 22 percent had returned by 1999. They left welfare for the following reasons: The majority (51 percent) left because of employment or increased earnings. Twenty two percent left because they did not want or need TANF benefits, 13 percent left because of sanctions and 14 percent left as result of moving, time limits, or for other reasons; a fifth of families who leave welfare return to welfare (Loprest 2002).

19

Chapter 3 A State Profile of Welfare Recipients and Study Participants


A State Profile of Welfare Recipients This chapter provides statewide data describing welfare recipients in South Carolina. It also focuses on the specific counties under study and provides a demographic profile of the welfare leavers who participated in this study. Figure 3.1, which shows the number of welfare recipients in South Carolina by race, reveals that the overwhelming majority are black. It also shows a decrease of 47 percent in the number of blacks on welfare, from 108,577 in 1992 to 57,575 in 2001.

Figure 3.1 Welfare Recipients by Race 1992-2001


120000

100000

80000

60000

Blacks Whites Hispancs Other

40000

20000

0 Blacks Whites Hispancs Other

1992 108577 26655 429 318

1993 109508 28208 492 342

1994 104308 26955 545 325

1995 93685 23944 550 347

1996 88961 21993 539 361

1997 60497 13688 438 230

1998 42475 10364 295 200

1999 25663 7264 252 141

2000 55052 20340 730 327

2001 57575 23047 813 415

20

As shown in Figure 3.2, the proportion of blacks on welfare decreased from over 79 percent of the total population of recipients in 1992 to 70 percent in 2001.

Figure 3.2 Percentage of Welfare Recipients by Race 1992-2001


90.00

80.00

70.00

60.00

50.00

40.00

Blacks Whites Hispancs Other

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00 Blacks Whites Hispancs Other

1992 79.85 19.60 0.32 0.23

1993 79.04 20.36 0.36 0.25

1994 78.94 20.40 0.41 0.25

1995 79.04 20.20 0.46 0.29

1996 79.53 19.66 0.48 0.32

1997 80.82 18.29 0.59 0.31

1998 79.64 19.43 0.55 0.37

1999 77.02 21.80 0.76 0.42

2000 72.01 26.61 0.95 0.43

2001 70.34 28.16 0.99 0.51

Figure 3.3 reveals that the number of black women on welfare has decreased from over 29,000 in 1992 to slightly over 15,000 in 2001, a decline of 48 percent. Moreover, as Figure 3.3 shows, the number of black women on welfare declined to under 6,000 in 1999, four years after the reforms and during economic growth. But the trend reversed and the number began to increase again in 2000. Figure 3.4 shows black women, from 1999 to 2001, left welfare at a higher percentage rate than any other group. For example, black women decreased from about 74 percent of adult welfare recipients in 1992 to about 61 percent in 2001.

21

Among adults, the next largest group of welfare recipients is white women. However, white women did not experience the absolute or relative decline as did black women. In fact, the decrease in the number of white women on welfare was smaller than that of black women between 1992 and 2001, thus increasing their percentage of the total number of welfare recipients. The number of white women on welfare declined from 8,420 in 1992 to 6,701 in 2001, a decrease of 20.41 percent.

Figure 3.3 Adult Welfare Recipients by Race and Gender 1992-2001


35000

30000

25000

20000

15000

White Males Black Males White Females Black Females

10000

5000

0 White Males Black Males White Females Black Females

1992 974 980 8420 29347

1993 1001 886 8714 28523

1994 878 848 8264 26317

1995 681 734 7258 22759

1996 578 600 6517 21607

1997 486 541 4064 15297

1998 539 620 2921 10188

1999 365 410 1957 5638

2000 1118 1445 5876 14120

2001 1465 1555 6701 15269

22

The proportion of white women actually increased from 21.21 percent of the adult welfare population in 1992 to 26.08 percent in 2001.

Figure 3.4 Percent Adult Welfare Recipients by Race and Gender 1992-2001
80.00

70.00

60.00

50.00 White Males Black Males White Females Black Females

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00 White Males Black Males White Females Black Females

1992 2.45 2.47 21.20 73.88

1993 2.56 2.26 22.27 72.90

1994 2.42 2.34 22.76 72.48

1995 2.17 2.34 23.09 72.41

1996 1.97 2.05 22.24 73.74

1997 2.38 2.65 19.93 75.03

1998 3.78 4.35 20.47 71.40

1999 4.36 4.90 23.38 67.36

2000 4.96 6.41 26.05 62.59

2001 5.86 6.22 26.81 61.10

Figure 3.5 shows the overwhelming majority of welfare recipients in South Carolina are children. In 1992, 96,024 children were on welfare. By 2001, their number declined to 56,545, a decrease of 44.17 percent. Figure 3.6 indicates that each year 70 percent or a little above of welfare recipients in the state were children. Overall the number of welfare recipients decreased from 135, 979 in 1992 to 81,847 in 2001, a decrease of 40 percent. However, in 2001 the percentage of welfare recipients that were children had declined to 69 percent.

23

Figure 3.5 Welfare Recipients Adults Compared to Children 1992-2001


100000

90000

80000

70000

60000 Children 50000 Adults

40000

30000

20000

10000

0 Children Adults

1992 96024 39955

1993 99161 39389

1994 95559 36574

1995 86832 31694

1996 82288 29566

1997 54291 20562

1998 38937 14397

1999 24862 8458

2000 53610 22836

2001 56545 25302

Figure 3.6 Percent Welfare Recipients Adults Compared to Children 1992-2001


80.00 70.00

60.00

50.00
Children Adults

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00 Children Adults

1992 70.62 29.38

1993 71.57 28.43

1994 72.32 27.68

1995 73.26 26.74

1996 73.57 26.43

1997 72.53 27.47

1998 73.01 26.99

1999 74.62 25.38

2000 70.13 29.87

2001 69.09 30.91

24

As shown in Table 3.1, families on welfare are not large; in 1996, 42 percent had only one child and by 1999 almost 50 percent had only one child. In 1999 over three-quarters of recipients had no more than two children and fewer than 8 percent had four or more children.

Table 3.1 Number of Children Recipients Have Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 1 Child 42.25 42.46 43.83 48.68 2 Children 31.59 31.23 30.59 30.11 3 Children 16.46 16.45 15.71 13.66 4-5 Children 8.72 8.81 8.80 6.88 6 and More 0.99 1.05 1.07 0.67

Source: The South Carolina Department of Social Services, Survey of Former Family Independence Program Clients: Cases Closed During October Through December, 1996, The South Carolina Department of Social Services, Division of Program Quality Assurance. This table is based on these reports from November 1997 through December 1999.

The level of educational achievement stands to have an impact on the ability of welfare recipients to find employment and make good wages. Table 3.2 shows the level of education obtained by welfare recipients in the state and in the counties selected for this study. Close to 50 percent of welfare recipients in the state have high school degrees; 5 percent have postsecondary vocational training, and over 6 percent had some college experience. However, in three of the counties* under study, Lee, Marion, and Richland, over 50 percent of welfare recipients had high school diplomas. In two of the counties studied - Orangeburg and Richland - over 11 percent of welfare recipients acquired some college experience and one percent had completed college.

25

Table 3.2 Educational Attainment of Recipients


County 7 Years or Less Completed 8th Grade Some High School (9-11 Years) Completed H.S./GED Post Secondary Vocational Training Some College College Graduate

Allendale Charleston Lee Marion Marlboro Orangeburg Richland South Carolina

2.81 1.96 1.85 2.87 0.83 0.83 0.74 1.65

2.81 2.77 2.58 3.50 4.43 1.19 1.48 2.83

38.76 37.15 36.90 35.51 42.11 33.49 27.30 34.95

45.51 44.11 51.29 54.14 44.60 46.15 50.00 48.65

1.69 6.14 2.58 2.55 2.77 5.96 8.12 5.08

7.87 7.33 4.43 1.43 4.99 11.19 11.07 6.35

0.56 0.54 0.37 0.00 0.28 1.19 1.31 0.49

Data provided by the South Carolina Department of Social Services

Recipients intervals on welfare are not as long as often suggested by proponents of welfare reform. The length of time is, however, greater for black recipients than it is for white recipients. As shown in Table 3.3, in 1996 roughly 42 percent of white recipients were on welfare for periods of between 25 and 36 months, while 62 percent of black recipients were on welfare for that amount of time. By 1999 both groups were on welfare for shorter stays.

Table 3.3 Spells on Welfare 1996-1999


1-12 Months Black White 13-24 Months Black White 25-36 Months Black White 37-48 Months Black White 49-60 Months Black White 61-72 Months Black White

1996 1997 1998 1999

19.60 17.73 18.31 20.73

34.08 32.36 33.35 32.86

18.68 15.96 13.33 13.87

24.04 20.08 16.91 17.06

61.72 15.73 12.94 10.98

41.88 15.85 13.48 10.94

0.00 50.58 13.02 10.49

0.00 31.71 11.24 9.74

0.00 0.00 42.39 10.67

0.00 0.00 25.01 8.30

0.00 0.00 0.00 33.26

0.00 0.00 0.00 21.10

Source: The South Carolina Department of Social Services, Survey of Former Family Independence Program Clients: Cases Closed During October Through December, 1996, The South Carolina Department of Social Services, Division of Program Quality Assurance. This table is based on these reports from November 1997 through December 1999.

However, as shown in Table 3.4, the counties selected for this study had a much larger percentage of recipients on welfare for longer stays than the state as a whole. One of the poorest

26

counties in the state, Allendale, had over 42 percent of recipients receiving welfare for over 61 months.

Table 3.4 Spells on Welfare by Counties Selected for this Study 1999 County Allendale Charleston Lee Marion Marlboro Orangeburg Richland South Carolina
1-12 Months 13-24 Months 25-36 Months 37-48 Months 49-60 Months 61-72 Months

17.39 24.18 22.22 21.15 20.21 19.55 21.46 25.80

11.30 15.38 15.46 12.90 14.18 13.91 13.55 14.41

6.96 9.37 10.63 11.83 10.64 7.77 13.64 10.68

10.43 10.30 9.18 8.24 11.70 11.40 9.09 9.97

11.30 11.37 9.66 8.60 6.74 10.15 10.86 9.80

42.61 29.40 32.85 37.28 36.52 37.22 31.40 29.35

Data provided by the South Carolina Department of Social Services

The Participants in this Study The 285 women interviewed for this study lived in several small and medium-sized communities in seven counties in South Carolina. These counties were relatively typical of South Carolina counties. The demographic characteristics of the 276 women interviewed are reported in Table 3.5. They are reasonably representative of welfare recipients in the area in which they lived. All of the women were black. The respondents ranged in age from 17 to over 61. Most women were between the ages of 18 and 40. In terms of educational attainment, like their peers in the state at large, a little over forty-five percent had completed high school. A higher percentage of 3.26 percent when compared to the state at large. Most of the women interviewed had one or two children. A little over twenty-seven percent of the participants reported to have had less than a high school education. In Lee County, over sixty-two percent reported to have graduated from high school or received a GED. Almost twenty-four percent reported to have

27

taken some college courses. Over five percent of the respondents in Marlboro and Orangeburg Counties and ten percent in Allendale County reported to have graduated from college.

28

Table 3.5 Descriptive Characteristics of Welfare Leavers Interviewed


Allendale % N 20 7.24 30.00 50.00 10.00 10.00 6 10 2 2 Charleston % N 11.59 32 34.38 31.25 34.38 0.00 11 10 11 0 Lee % N 8.69 24 29.17 62.50 8.33 0.00 7 15 2 0 Marion % N 14.49 40 22.50 47.50 27.50 2.50 9 19 11 1 Marlboro % N 6.88 19 26.32 47.37 21.05 5.26 5 9 4 1 Orangeburg % N 19.20 53 18.87 50.94 24.53 5.66 10 27 13 3 Richland % N 31.88 88 30.68 40.91 26.14 2.27 27 36 23 2 All Counties % N 100.00 276 27.17 45.65 23.91 3.26 75 126 66 9

Participants Education Not High School Grad. High School Grad/GED Some College College Graduate Area City Rural Age 17 and Under 18-24 25-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61 and Over Number of Children 0 1 2 3 4 5 and over

35.00 65.00 5.00 35.00 40.00 15.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 15.00 35.00 0.00 10.00

7 13 1 7 8 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 7 0 2

93.75 6.25 0.00 37.50 21.88 18.75 9.38 6.25 3.13 3.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.88 53.12 12.50 9.37 3.13

30 2 0 12 7 6 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 7 17 4 3 1

62.50 37.50 0.00 33.33 33.33 12.50 8.33 12.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.16 41.67 20.83 8.33 0.00

15 9 0 8 8 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 10 5 2 0

0.00 100.00 0.00 5.00 22.50 22.50 20.00 12.50 2.50 5.00 7.50 2.50 5.12 30.79 33.33 7.69 17.94 5.16

0 40 0 2 9 9 8 5 1 2 3 1 2 12 13 3 7 2

47.37 52.63 0.00 10.53 15.79 36.84 31.58 0.00 0.00 5.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.84 21.05 10.53 10.53 5.26

9 10 0 2 3 7 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 4 2 2 1

77.36 22.64 0.00 28.30 22.64 15.09 15.09 9.43 7.55 1.89 0.00 0.00 5.77 34.61 30.77 21.15 3.84 3.84

41 12 0 15 12 8 8 5 4 1 0 0 3 18 16 11 2 2

96.59 3.41 1.14 17.05 29.55 9.09 18.18 12.50 4.55 4.55 1.14 2.27 0.00 27.27 30.68 29.54 4.55 7.95

85 3 1 15 26 8 16 11 4 4 1 2 0 24 27 26 4 7

67.75 32.25 0.72 22.10 26.45 15.94 15.94 9.42 3.62 3.26 1.45 1.09 1.81 30.07 32.97 21.38 7.97 5.78

187 89 2 61 73 44 44 26 10 9 4 3 2 83 91 59 22 16

29

As Figure 3.7 shows, over 65 percent of interviewees were single.

Figure 3.7 Marital Status of Respondents


65.28

70.00

60.00

50.00

40.00
Percent

30.00

20.00 9.03 7.99 10.00

9.38

0.00
Percent

Divorced 9.03

Married 7.99

Separated 9.38

Single 65.28

30

Chapter 4 Encouraging Work at the Front Line


Students of public administration point out that public policies involve not only decisions of legislators, but the actions of implementing agencies (Schiller 2000). FI has strict regulations and procedures designed to limit the autonomy of case managers. Nevertheless, the incentives, regulatory requirements and support services at their disposal to influence the behavior of clients provide them with some discretion in the policy implementation process. Therefore, their importance in the outcome of welfare policies has increased. They now serve as welfare recipients major link to the world of work (Johnston and Lindaman 1998). For many clients, the interaction with front-line workers is their only contact with the welfare state. Therefore, the nature of this relationship and the organizational culture of human service agencies are crucial to the success of welfare reform. TANF places new demands and responsibilities on front-line workers and local managers. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct research that focuses on the experiences and perspectives of front-line workers and local managers who have the responsibility of implementing TANF. Understanding the perspectives and views of local managers is critical in understanding welfare reform (Danziger and Seefeldt 2002). New Role for the Front Line This chapter explores the views and practices of front-line workers and local managers of FI. The front-line workers interviewed were case managers, job consultants, job developers, job coaches, teachers of the Family Life Skills and Job Club classes, and FI Supervisors and Coordinators. Focusing on front-line workers provides the opportunity to learn from individuals who

31

are directly involved with welfare recipients and are knowledgeable about the program and about problems the recipients confront as they make the transition from welfare to work. The state director of the Department of Social Services significantly influences the implementation of FI. The state director determines, through policy directives, the discretion of front-line workers and the extent to which county welfare agencies emphasize its new employment role over its traditional welfare role. The director also influences the extent to which incentives or regulatory strategies are employed to influence the behavior of clients. The first and second directors of the Department of Social Services to implement FI, Joe Clark and Elizabeth Patterson, respectively, had different approaches to FI. The differences in their approaches can be characterized by the degree of emphasis placed, within the confinement of the policy, on the needs and circumstances of recipients that may serve as barriers to employment, compared with the degree to which the focus is on the goal of FI to radically reduce the size of the welfare population. Another way to characterize the differences is the degree to which emphasis is placed on DSS as an employment agency and the degree to which emphasis is placed on DSS as a welfare agency. Comparatively, Clark stressed the former and Patterson stressed the latter. Emily, an FI Supervisor, summarized the difference between the two directors: Its just as different as day and night between Dr. Patterson and Dr. Clark; you know the change in administration. With the change in administration, it was even difficult for the workers to change, because four years under Dr. Clark made us rigid. Because under him the primary goal was lets get them in the jobs; lets get them off the program. Under Dr. Patterson, its still lets get them in jobs. Lets get them off the program, but lets make sure that we have them able, work with them to get them ready for the job, so that we can have more successes with the client. Because I think under the Clarks administration, yes, we got a lot of them off the program, into jobs, but how many stayed off the program, in the job? But now its the opportunity to work with the client and our primary goal isnt to get them employed and off the program today. Its getting them prepared.

32

To what extent has the Department of Social Services changed from a welfare agency to one that emphasizes employment and training with a minor welfare component? Front-line workers and local managers addressed this question. Olivia, another FI Supervisor, discussed the new role of her agency: It was a total 180-degree turn. We were in the mode of simply determining eligibility for an AFDC check. And that was simply all we did. As of 1995, we had to become more service-orientated, in that we are working with our customers, not just in giving a check. We became the employment agency of the state. So we had to work very hard in trying to ensure that our customers found a job and were self-sufficient within the twenty-four month time frame. Case managers now see themselves preparing and encouraging welfare recipients to find employment and take responsibility for their lives. Jacob explained the new role of his agency: We have always been a helping agency, but in the past we were an agency that provided assistance, but we didnt give a lot of alternatives for getting off the program, or helping them to create new avenues where they can become selfreliant. After the welfare reform, our role changed from providing or issuing AFDC checks and food stamps to . . . assist, encourage, help, and motivate our clients. We use all avenues possible to help motivate them to become self-reliant. We try to provide the resources that are necessary to help them overcome whatever obstacles that are preventing them from becoming self-sufficient. Although front-line workers and local managers participated in workshops to prepare for their new tasks in implementing FI, based on interviews, they basically learned their new skills on the job. So the training was provided, but in actuality, the real training didnt occur until we got back and got out there and started working with the client and using some of the suggestions and tools that they gave us, but also pulling from a lot of our own experience, remarked an FI coordinator. For some case managers, working with the hard to serve clients or the ones at the bottom of the barrel seemed an overwhelming task. Abigail, when asked what needed to be done to make her agency more effective, responded:

33

I don't know if anybody could do this, but you really need to change the way our clients think. I know you can't . . . You probably can't do that, but you have to change the mind-set in order for them to understand what we're trying to do for them. It just seems like we would need . . . maybe some kind of psychiatric counseling, or something like that. I don't know. I don't know-maybe they need to be counseled. I don't know. Counseling has to be involved in this thing . . . in order for you really to know what is involved with the daily lives of a lot of our clients. A lot of times, we . . . dont really understand what is involved in their daily lives, what really goes on. They want us to counsel clients, but I dont have the skills to do that. I have not been trained to do that. And I just think we got to really get them here, in the brain, to find out what . . . whats going on. You know, why . . . why they cant . . you know, break the cycle, the welfare cycle. Job Training Programs The two-year time limit, limited employment opportunities, and limited job training and educational opportunities severely constrict options available to case managers to facilitate a materially rewarding transition from welfare to work for their clients. Specialized job training is not provided by DSS. Each county DSS has to find other agencies, private or public, to train welfare recipients. Therefore, depending on the various training institutions available, some counties are more successful than others in establishing educational and training programs. In some counties, technical schools, vocational schools, and/or colleges or universities, along with DSS, provide training for recipients. Sometimes the technical schools are not cooperative. As a job developer remarked: DSS does not provide the training . . . One of the problems is trying to get things set up through Tech, and I think were basically talking about money. . . . So, its harder now to access the money to really set up training programs . . . to react quickly to employers needs. In one of the poorest counties in the state, the Family Independence coordinator admitted the limited training opportunities for clients. She spoke of a recent meeting with a business leader to discuss a curriculum for meat cutters. Her agency was also working with the technical 34

school in a nearby county to develop a training program. She reported the program as a multitalented skills program in plumbing and electricity. Its a short course. Weve got two initiatives going on. Were looking at different ways, nontraditional employment for our customers. This local DSS had five clients enrolled in the air-conditioning/refrigeration program in another county. However, the agencies are selective in choosing clients for this program. They want clients who are going to be committed, because the agency pays . . . and, once they enroll, whether they stay or not, we still have to pay. The need for clients to find employment within two years suggests that clients are not encouraged to pursue training that would take longer than two years to complete. FI does not encourage higher education for welfare recipients. Therefore, with few exceptions, front-line workers have to make sure the clients vocational objective is realistic and based on what she is able to do, as well as what can be achieved within two years. In many ways, case managers find themselves discouraging welfare recipients from working toward prosperous careers. As one case manager put it, We have people who come up with ideas that are very unrealistic. Thus, case managers have to diminish the aspirations of a lot of people who have very unrealistic goals that come for help. Front-line workers channel clients toward the bottom level and encourage them to climb up. One front-line worker recanted: We dont assist them with paying for school or if theyre in school, then they cant receive transitional services. We dont provide transportation to and from school. We dont help them with the tuition. We do have a correctional officer training that they can go through and DSS pays for that. We have those types of programs. Daniel, a case manager, explained how his agency handled clients who were enrolled in college:

35

Some customers are in school, or just started college. And clearly their goals going to be longer than a two-year time frame so we have to try to work out a short-term goal. We encourage them to go to college. But at the same time they have to eat. And thats where the short-term goal comes in. We try to arrange something in the job area in line with their long-term goal for college. The interviewer asked Lauren about the possibility of giving time extensions to such clients during their first year in college. She responded, No, thats not an option. Another case worker from the same county as Lauren reported his experience with recipients enrolled in college: I have a lot of people thats in college, and I dont want them to quit school. But, then we have to keep in mind the two years. So if youre in a 4-year school, we cant do it (provide support). Sadly to say we have to tell them, go ahead on and continue to go to school, but were going to have to work with you to help you to become employed full-time. I had a young lady just like that this morning. She has about two years left (in college) and she has less than two years to receive FI. She has three children. She wants to know how she is going to go to school, work, and take care of her children. And I get that a lot. But then we still have to look at the policy. When queried about giving extensions to such clients, the case manager replied: The most that we may be able to get them is like a twelve-month extension. So thats going to put them in a really, really bind. Thats why I say if we do the five years upfront, I think that would really work a lot for a lot of people. . . . You know, if we have the time to really, really work with them, let them go to school, get them trained and stuff like that, get them into better jobs, I think with that wed do a whole lot better. Case managers reconcile the conflict between the policy which dictates that clients find employment within two years, which is likely to lead to low-wage jobs, and the need to enhance clients marketability through training by advising clients to seek the former as a stepping stone to the latter. Alexis told the interviewer how she handles the problem. I had a few, not that many, that come in and want to become a nurse and dont have any education beyond high school, and we have to curb that, maybe to a nursing assistant or some other type of health

36

profession that they can achieve within that 24 months. Julia, a case manager, told the interviewer her approach to this problem. What we have to do is let them know they have to get into something like, maybe, the bottom level and climb up to become an RN. So the bottom level for a RN is certified nursing assistant, then a LPN, then a RN. So a four-year degree is too much in advance for our clients because of that two-year limit. So they have to basically settle for something right now that will help them get off the system. I try to explain that and perhaps maybe get them to pursue that goal while they are employed. And thats basically the only way that they can really reach it is to get something at the lower level. Certified nursing assistant does take them beyond the minimum wage. Sarah, a program director, explained the difficulties of clients pursuing a degree while working: A single parent going to work and then still having enough time for her children and enough time to upgrade her skills is difficult. What we're working on right now is trying to do some short-term training like six to eight weeks, two nights a week to upgrade some skills. . . . We keep working on the advancement and retention. And I'm more concerned about advancement. Jobs will be retained simply because there's no place else to go. . . . So people will stay in jobs they hate. But teaching some of our clients the ability to get short-term training and move to another job until they can support their families is something that we haven't done a real good job . . . You know, my best example of that is to take someone who could be a nurse's aide, start them off there. They can go to a certified nurse's assistant, they can go to a licensed practical nurse, and they can eventually become an RN. And that's the continuum of training and job improvement that we need to do with our clients. They want to go from not having even graduated from high school to being an RN and getting that money. Certified Nursing Assistance (CNA) is the occupation advocated most often by front-line workers and local managers. There is a high demand for health care workers in South Carolina. The pay is a little above minimum wage and requires minimum training that DSS pays for. DSS does not support clients as they pursue training beyond the CNA, as one case manager remarked: Now we do have programs. We offer the nursing assistant program that they can go through and DSS pays for that. But, as one front-line worker asserted, the agency is not going to pay for the LPN. They dont pay for tuition and books for it. Megan explained

37

why channeling clients into the CNA program is a good strategy for DSS in her county: They have basically three good nursing homes here. Ryan, a case worker in the same county, further explained the benefits of CNA as one program that I feel like most clients can succeed in.. . . nursing homes will work with them, as far as being their sponsor and you know, letting them work four months before they pass the test, and if they pass the test, theyll hire them. Jessica, an FI Supervisor, told the interviewer: We have a contract with ______ Nursing Home, if anybody wants to enter that program, which is $380 plus the supplies. The county director has authorized three people to go through that program, and well pay for the supplies and transport them. Victoria explained: A lot of what we encourage the customers to pursue is what we can help with the training for; like the LPN program, we dont pay for it. CNA, we can pay for them to go through itwell pay for books and tuition and uniforms and all. One county paid for a five to six month heavy equipment class. Other training programs included personal care aide training, computer training, and mechanical training. Case managers observed that many clients want to enroll in educational programs that lead to meaningful employment. Not only does the state not support such educational objectives, but many of the recipients do not have the prerequisite skills to pursue specialized learning. Victoria explained that the skills of many of her clients are so low she does not encourage them to pursue the GED. She told the interviewer the following: We are limited here in ________ County with what we have that we can do. A lot of times the main difference is they want to jump right out into tech, without us having an assessment, without the Family Life Skills portion. And we do try to pretty much enforce the assessment, because we need to know where theyre at before we go, Okay, you can go to accelerated GED, but then you get the assessment back and theyre on a second grade level. But they want to go on because they say they went through the eleventh grade. And its just one of those things we cant encourage. Yes, the GED is good, but in a two-year period, at this point we cant do it.

38

Victorias experience revealed the profound problem in South Carolina of a number of clients with low skill levels. According to the Legislative Audit Council report, many FI clients academic skill levels were below the requirements of technical school training; many do not meet the minimum reading requirement for technical college non-diploma or non-degree courses (South Carolina Legislative Audit Council 1996). According to the 1998 Audit Council Report, one county DSS office reported that 60 percent to 70 percent of its clients functioned below the 3rd-grade level (South Carolina Legislative Audit Council 1998). Over a two year period only 14 percent of the clients enrolled completed education and training programs (South Carolina Legislative Audit Council 2000). In fiscal year 1995-1996, the Bright Futures Program placed 48 TANF recipients in jobs with the Department of Corrections (DOC) and the Department of Juvenile Justice. This program costs $4,909 per client. Bright Futures got a good return on its investment in that graduates have a better job retention rate than other correctional personnel (South Carolina Legislative Audit Council 2000). Although this is one of the few programs that provided welfare recipients with training for a living wage, it only served a small number and lasted for a short period of time. DOC terminated the program in 2000. The Workforce Readiness Program provides rudimentary training to recipients which includes basic math and communication skills, and a vocational skill training unit designed to meet local labor market needs. This program had 22 clients in its first class, all of whom completed the program. Within 30 days 14 (64 percent) had found jobs in industry with wages ranging from $7.00 to $9.52 an hour, with an average of $8.16 an hour. In some of the small rural counties, the only training available is the training provided through the Family Life Skills class and Job Club. Nevertheless, as a case manager of one of

39

these counties remarked, a lot of these people are not really educated enough to find jobs that will help them become self-sufficient. Only some counties have established various training programs with local vocation schools or technical schools. Thus, one case manager, Sam, complained: Here, instead of coordinating with the tech centers and getting the programs set up so that we can count their participation in tech as, you know, as hours of participation. Theyve limited us to two components we aint got no choice. Either they go do self-directed job search or either they go to Family Life classes. If we had the Tech or even on-the-job training with local industries, they could learn those skills. In one of the largest counties in the state, Shelly, a case manager, made the following assessment: I don't think we do enough training. . . .The GED program is good, and that's provided by other agencies. DSS doesn't even provide that. We provide very limited training. We send them to a class called Family Life Skills, which is two weeks. Its got some parenting things in there. And the second thing would be Job Club. And that's two weeks of resume writing, how to interview, telephone skills, dressing, and that kind of thing. And then they send them on their own for six weeks of job search. They pretty much have to go out on their own and find it, through local colleges or those kinds of programs. One supervisor explained her agencys emphasis on training. If we can get them into jobs at $6.50 and over, then the retention rate goes up much higher; about 75 percent of the people keep those jobs. So the higher paying jobs we can find them, the more likely those people are to keep those jobs . . . We do put a lot of emphasis on education and trying to get those GEDs. Case managers understand the positive correlation between graduating from high school, higher paying jobs, and job retention. However, they find it difficult to persuade clients to delay employment for the purpose of gaining high school diplomas or GEDs. A case manager who worked with clients twenty-five years old and younger reflected on this problem:

40

It is so hard for me to get them to go into the GED or high school program to get their education. . . . They say they want to work and bring some money in the home for the children. I understand that, I understand. But, I try to get them to understand the type job that they are going to always get is limited. But, I have a hard time getting them through that. Based on interviews with front-line workers and welfare leavers, the barriers to education are determined to be features of the FI program, which limits training to a two-year period. The Legislative Audit Council Report identified the lack of motivation on the part of the client, lack of transportation and not enough classes teaching needed skills as other barriers that prevented clients from receiving needed education and training (South Carolina Legislative Audit Council 1998). The work experience component is the major on-the-job training program offered by FI. The work experience participants are paid minimum wage or higher and have the dollar value of their food stamps and FI benefits deducted from their pay. The FI program limits participation in this component to ninety days (South Carolina Legislative Audit Council 1996). Designed to offer work experience to FI clients with little or no prior experience, this training program has become a major work-participation component in some counties for clients regardless of the clients work history. Because of resistance from clients, one county temporarily stopped using it. Pattersons administration relaxed the pressure for immediate employment and strict adherence to the two-year time limit. The relaxed rules allowed clients to pursue training beyond the two-year time limit by getting extensions. But, they have to be fully cooperating. Every six months we have to reevaluate it to see if they are cooperating or whatever. The extensions, however, count against the five-year lifetime limit. The Legislative Audit Council concluded that

41

job skill training is a prerequisite for welfare leavers to remain off welfare dependency permanently (South Carolina Legislative Audit Council 1996). Job Placement The major task for case managers is to get their clients off welfare and employed. To this end, case managers have developed several strategies; they may refer clients to different agencies, job developers, Job Services offices, the Sunday paper, any other thing that comes across their desks, making it up on the way and playing it by ear. Intervention strategies are used to change recipients views regarding work, particularly low wage jobs. Front-line workers try to encourage employers to hire welfare recipients. They also have at their disposal various support services to help recipients make the transition from welfare to work. Successfully counseling clients to seek employment over welfare is problematic because employment for many recipients does not improve their material well-being. Olivia remarked, It is difficult. . . . Its very difficult to show a person theres a need for you to go out and work when you could do better sitting at home. Most of her clients were employed in low wage jobs with few benefits. She specifically noted how employment increases the cost of public housing: They said that they were going to get in contact with the housing authorities so that the rent of the customers was not going to increase, so that it wouldnt hurt them by going to work and being kicked out of [public housing] because of income and they couldnt afford it. But that never did pan out, and we never did get that. So our customers that went to work, you know, had to move out of housing and find their own places to stay, because they couldnt afford to live in public housing. Thats the weak areas. Those are the things that I wish we could have gotten taken care of on the front end, and I think it would have made our job a lot easier, because we could have put them to work, and the customers wouldnt have been hurt because of them going to work. While the priority of the FI program continues to be job placement for recipients, the pressure on case managers to place clients in employment lessened under Patterson. Nathan, a job consultant, reported that under Joe Clark, the strategy to get them a job, get them a job 42

steered the work of front-line workers. A significant number of case managers interviewed criticized job placement because it did not allow them to deal with the welfare recipients employment barriers. Megan offered the following criticism and implicitly compared Clarks administration with Pattersons: The weakness of the program at first was get them a job, get them a job. You know, you werent dealing with the family; you werent dealing with all the problems. But now thats the strength. We are in the household. We are there for them. We are more understanding now. You cant just say, get a job and kick them off the rolls. When these people, a way of life is for them to sit around. So that is our strength. We are helping them and encouraging them. When it first started, you know, We just want you to get a job. We dont care what kind of problems you have. With the strong emphasis on job placement case managers believed that the number of recipients whom they helped to get jobs determined their job performance evaluations. Megan remarked: Theyd give different people raises because they found employment for 26 and some only got 25. One FI coordinator, however, remarked that the responsibility of the case manager entailed more than finding employment and ensuring participation rates. I know we look at the participation, because participation is required, but thats not the key thing. We look at where they place their clients. We look at the relationship that they have with their clients. Their relationship, how they go out there and work with that client and help that client. Youll have some of our case managers tell you that we probably think we should be their babysitter and everything, but . . . the case manager has to be there. Weve got to help and assist. And so they are evaluated on their relationship, their placement, their follow-ups, their meeting the requirements . . . set by the agency. The job placement requirements of FI meant that recipients ready for technical college academic work were considered job ready and placed in employment whenever possible (South Carolina Legislative Audit Council 1998). Many clients were placed in low wage jobs instead of specialized training programs to prepare them for more secure and higher paying jobs.

43

Those deemed not ready were placed in training programs that largely prepared them for low wage jobs. Sarah, the program director, pointed out the problem with the work-first model: The work-first model that Family Independence is under does not allow us to provide training until they fail in the marketplace, and thats a weakness because we can predict . . . whos going to fail in the marketplace when they dont have any skills. But the problem is that youve got such a good economy that they dont necessarily fail in getting a job. They go down the street, get a job at McDonalds or some other fast-food or a service industry for minimum wage. Theyre working twenty, thirty hours a week. But its not going to get them anywhere. The skills are still not there. You have a woman with three kids who works 25 to 30 hours a week. Our job becomes harder because we have to convince her that in addition to the 25 hours a week, she ought to go to school for 10 or 15 hours a week to upgrade her skills so she can get a better job. Addressing the issue of the working poor and the work-first model, Kevin, a work force consultant, argued: I had a problem with the work first, train second approach. I feel that if you train the people first, you have effective training programs . . . and then you get them into better jobs. I think we would have been able to avoid what we have now; meaning weve expanded the working poor. Thats what weve basically done, because most of our people are in low-wage, service-sector type jobs. So, yes, weve expanded the working poor. We havent really moved them up into better paying jobs, and hopefully thats what were trying to do now. Recognizing the low wage jobs available to welfare leavers and the lack of job training programs, front-line bureaucrats acknowledged the constraints of the FI program in helping clients achieve self-sufficiency. One program director made the following observation: But they will still be the working poor. If you define self-sufficiency as being more upper working class toward middle class and not depending on government subsidies, then thats going to be a little tougher. Im not sure we can. I think were going to have to continue to help families. The way I see the program going is that were going to end up helping a lot of working poor families.

44

Lack of Jobs The problem that front-line workers have to confront is not only the lack of sufficient job training components but the lack of employment opportunities, particularly good jobs, for their clients. Front-line workers and managers acknowledged the lack of jobs as a barrier to employment and self-sufficiency for welfare recipients. One case manager articulated the problem in the following way: The lack of resources, lack of good jobs . . . lack of training, locally, good training. A job support specialist identified the limitations of the Family Independence Program by disparaging support services and Family Life Skill classes: providing transportation, youre doing all these things, but youre really not providing jobs. I could do all the teaching in the world, but if I dont give any rewards, the reward being a job, then the program is not going to be as successful as it possibly can. Many unemployed workers come to DSS in search of employment opportunities and/or support services; thus case managers see the lack of employment opportunities as a major problem: I would like to see the job development area increased by two or three additional people. I would like it so if a person walks in the door and I refer them to a job developer, that person has slots in front of them. A lot of people come in here for food stamps and they want job training, and they end up applying for AFDC as a last resort. Nine times out of ten, most people dont come in wanting AFDC. They come in wanting food stamps and where they can find a job. And if theyre not working, theyre encouraged to apply for AFDC. Compounding the problem is the temporary nature of many of the jobs available to welfare recipients. A lot of my clients go through the temporary services, and it seems like . . . in two or three months, the job is ended. They have to sit around and wait for another one. So they come in and out of AFDC, in and out, in and out, in and out. And thats just how they live

45

their lives, and its rough. Approximately 27 percent of the Work Force Consultants indicated that there were not enough available local jobs for FI clients (South Carolina Legislative Audit Council 2000). It is a challenge for DSS to find jobs or job training for welfare recipients. Addressing Barriers to Employment Even though many front-line workers and managers acknowledged the lack of training and good employment opportunities, the majority of them placed the greatest barrier to employment within the human capital, attitudes, and/or culture of welfare recipients. Many case managers saw their role as motivating clients to find employment: we are trying to motivate people to go out and find employment and secure employment to the point where they will not have to reapply for benefits. I just think its truly hard to motivate someone. I think you have to have that within. I think the majority of the people will either have that engrained as a child, or they will not. Explicitly addressing employment barriers, another front-line worker stated that the problem is lack of motivation, because . . . there are jobs out here, and . . . when you have a cycle of receiving benefits for so long, its imbedded in you that its an entitlement, and you dont have to do anything for it . . . theyre not going to try to find employment on their own. Case managers have to encourage clients to retain jobs in which they feel they are mistreated, disrespected, and underpaid. They also point out that many clients do not have the discipline required of the work world. Kevin remarked: Remember were trying to change entire ways of thinking, being responsible, thinking about a career and even the basics. When youre not going to work, if your child is sick or youre sick, I think you and I would automatically know to call somebody. A lot of our folks never did that before. They do not understand the important expectations that the employer has: be there on time, five days a week, just about every week, you know and that type of thing. Most of our people have children and we try to encourage them to get other family members involved to take the children to the doctor or whatever.

46

Olivia reported: The majority of them . . . a lot of them leave work because they couldnt get along with the employer, or somebody told them something and they didnt like what was going on at the job. Just immaturity. You know, not knowing that youve got to go and do what the employer asks. A lot of them are just not ready. And a lot of them . . . really dont want to work, and they sabotage themselves. I mean, we get them a job, but we know that theyre not going to stay there, because theyre going in and sabotage. They just dont want to work. As pointed out by Olivia, many front-line workers believe that a major employment barrier is not knowing how to take orders and how to get along with supervisors and co-workers. One case manager suggested that if she could change the program, she would add an anger management component. If there was anything that I could inject in the program, it would probably be an anger management course for some customers, because a lot of customers have problems with employers because they dont know how to manage their anger. One case manager put the problem of welfare recipients retaining employment this way: Taking orders. Not like being told what to do especially if they havent worked before. If this is their first time going on a job, and then somebody else is telling them do this, do that. They respond I dont like that job. That lady makes me sick. Many front-line workers believe that welfare recipients lack the capacity to plan and organize their everyday lives and, consequently, are unable to retain employment. They suggested that recipients need to learn how to do advanced planning and develop backup plans. Weve got them that can find a job like mad. You know, theyll job hop. Do a lot of job-hopping. I think its keeping the job thats the problem. Really knowing that they need to call and just not lay out. They dont need to tell their best friend to call the supervisor. They need to call and they need to have backup plans. If Susie quits, they need to have another way to get to work. They still need to work. They need a backup.

47

According to these case managers many recipients do not know how to solve, any little problem that comes up with them . . .You know, they just dont know how to handle it. Similarly, a job developer suggested that welfare recipients fall short in developing contingency plans and making sure that those things come together. Largely because job placement and job retention are major objectives of FI, case managers counsel recipients to tolerate poor working conditions and to have the tolerance to work when they are not feeling well. One case manager asserted: A lot of clients know how they can find a job but they cant keep it. I dont know if its that they dont care. A lot of them will lose their jobs because, well I had to stay home because so and so. When you are on a job you just cant take off. Sometimes you got to go to work when your head hurts or your stomach hurts. But a lot of my clients think they can go on jobs, take a day off because they dont feel so good and expect to have a job when they go back. Many case managers encouraged clients to keep bad jobs by informing them: Jobs are not going to be peaches and cream. Clients were instructed to view low wage jobs and demeaning work as a stepping stone until something else comes along. Tempting them with the notion of social mobility, front-line workers argued, Everybody cant start from the top. However, the problem for these case managers was that some welfare recipients think they can just go out and start from the top. Everyone cant start from the top. . . . Some of them dont understand it. Daniel told his clients some money is better than no money. Finally, one case manager advised clients: I tell them, sometimes you just have to grit, grind and do the best you can and try to get along with people. Just realize that this not only benefits you, it also benefits your children. Keep the job and look for another job, but dont just quit your job. Lets see if we can find out what the problem is. If its not you, then see if there are other means of handling a bad situation than just walking off a job.

48

Case managers may use the threat of sanctions to ensure that welfare recipients accept undesirable jobs. As a case manager mentioned, In FI they are not allowed to turn down a job. If they turn down a job, it can close their FI case. So I need to make sure they understand that. Case managers are not necessarily oblivious to the harsh conditions some recipients may work under. Referring to such conditions, one front-line worker told the interviewer about conditions at a chicken plant. Its so cold, and a lot of them arent used to working in the cold, you, and cant get used to it. All you can do is just say hold onto it. No, we dont encourage them to quit; we encourage them to stay on employment until we can find them something else, another suitable employment. The efforts of front-line workers to encourage clients to accept undesirable jobs reveal the problem that critics of welfare reform have been concerned about. The work requirement reduces the options of poor people and forces them to work under harsh conditions. As an effort to deal with the behavior and attitudes of welfare recipients, at least one county Department of Social Services requested the cooperation of local churches and church leaders. In speaking of the role of the church, a work force consultant, reported: We really stress the fact that this is not a monetary program for them. We are not asking them to assist in financial stability of the family, but more to assist in the social aspect, and maybe even in the spirituality aspect of having them to understand the importance of their role, not only as a citizen but as a parent, as a citizen of the community, but also to feel good about themselves and their progress.

DSS Relations with Employers The success of welfare reform is contingent upon employers hiring welfare recipients. In this regard, counties hire front-line workers whose job it is to persuade employers to hire welfare recipients. These include workforce consultants, job developers and job consultants. The job

49

developer promotes the FI program to the community, especially the business community, and meets with potential employers to develop employment opportunities for recipients. The job developer also puts together tax incentive packages and works with technical schools and colleges to identify training needs and coordinate job skills training classes for welfare recipients. The job developer develops work experience, on-the-job training, and work supplementation slots for welfare recipients (South Carolina Legislative Audit Council 1996). A similar position is that of the workforce consultant, who also plays a role in developing opportunities for employment placements, and to build and strengthen the education and training components (South Carolina Legislative Audit Council 2000). The job developers try to remain abreast of the employers in the area, check job listings and see whos hiring, or check with the unemployment office and match clients with available jobs. They also work with the clients. One stated: I get up about 4:30 a.m., and this morning I was up at 4:00 a.m. By 6:00 a.m., I was picking up a client and by 7:00 a.m. I had taken him to work, and this evening Ill be picking him up at 6:00. Yesterday I picked him up, and yesterday was a holiday for DSS, but I worked. Rachel, a workforce consultant, described her job in the following way: My responsibility is to market the new DSS not as a handout agency anymore but a hand-up agency. One of the things that we are striving hard to do is to get the individuals off the roll. My job is to make sure that once these individuals are off the rolls, they can survive. So I go out to different businesses and try to market DSS. Sarah explained that some of the business community has responded quite well, but others had not. She reported the following: If they take a welfare recipient and they have a bad experience, well theyre not willing to take any more. If they take one and have a good experience, then theyll continue to do it. For the most part, theyve done what they could; but again, their motive is not social. Their motive is dollar signs and if they can make a profit, 50

they will. Most of the businesses that have worked with DSS have been fast food restaurants, retail stores, and the service industry. DSS has not been able to get factories to hire welfare recipients. Some of the public institutions havent worked well at all. We met over a year ago with the hospital. We could have paid half of the persons salary the first year. We never could get them to agree to take on anybody, even housekeeping, CNAs, whatever. Justin, a job developer who was being shared by two counties, reported the two questions employers have about welfare recipients are, will they work, and can they pass a drug test? The negative image of welfare recipients is a major obstacle job developers have to overcome. One suggested that his most difficult challenge is cutting through the negative images of welfare recipients and getting employers to understand that welfare consultants are going to screen the individual a lot better than we have in the past. Kevin reported: The biggest handicap that I see right now from the business side is the negative connotation of welfare recipients. And thats why we try to emphasize the fact that we do at least screen our people and have some idea of what their work history is and that type of thing before we send them out. And thats why we give them the tax incentives to encourage them, to create opportunities that may not have existed there before. So its the negative connotation thats the main obstacle. Job developers serve both as agents for DSS and agents for employers as they recruit low wage workers and screen the candidates for such jobs. A workforce consultant elaborated: Well, the employer has needs, too. He has certain individuals, a certain person, which hes thinking about. So thats another obstacle. Youve got to convince him youve got the right person for that. So what youve got to do is find out what his needs are, what he actually needs. What skills do they need . . . So I talk to the employers about that and find out what their needs are, and then I try and see if weve got anybody that can fit that need. Kevin explained his approach to recruiting workers for employers: We put them through some type of training so they will know what employers expect of them on the job and that type of thing. We basically try to match them up with the jobs. We try to let them interview two or three people and make their

51

own choice, so its not just a thing of where we just send them who we feel is best or who we have that day or whatever. We let them know about the tax credits. Rachel went to employers to find out how many people they needed and, after screening the potential employees, sent more. She explained her approach: Once a client comes to me, very rarely do I just immediately put them out in the workforce. It doesnt work like that. You know I have to get to know this client. Sometimes it could be as little as two weeks, or it could be as long as two months, before the client is ready to work. Workforce consultants try to ensure that clients do not create a negative impression on the job because that would affect the entire program. Rachel remarked on her experiences: Ive had it happen; once is too often. Thats why I work so closely with the clients before I put them out there, because once that door is closed, it is extremely difficult getting it opened again. They just didnt do what was required of them. That door was closed. Workforce consultants and job developers inform employers about FI. Kevin told the interviewer how he sold the program and explained his success as a work force consultant: If they hire some of our Family Independence recipients, we can offer them tax credits, everything from state to federal tax credits. We take referrals from the case managers and have the referrals fill out applications and try to match them up with employers who are actually looking to employ people. Of course this is very limited in the sense that most of these go to fast foods and the service industry. . . . Most success has been with entry-level, kind of service industries, to be honest with you, because most of our people have that experience in some kind of customer service. And this being a service industry state, thats where most of the growth is, thats where most of the opportunities are, so thats where weve placed most of our people so far. Kevin also described why it is in an employers interest to hire welfare recipients: One, I think what has changed is number one is the tight labor market; number two I think employers realize to a large degree our people are pretty much the same or maybe even a little bit better than the folks who they hire right off the street. And the third thing I think that they like is the fact that we do provide those support services. So child care and transportation issues are less of a problem for

52

our people than they are for, again, folks off the street who dont have those support services. James, a workforce consultant, outlined how he promoted the program to employers: I want to promote the fact that it is an incentive for them, because we can provide tax credits; we can provide training. We can provide support services to the client, including paying for uniforms, drug tests, any expenses that the employee is required to provide. We are with that customer after employment. So if they have problems with that individual, we can be a liaison with that client to keep them employed. Again, we can also provide the OJT which reimburses that customer fifty percent of their gross wages up to forty hours.

53

Chapter 5 Providing Support Services


Support Services are a major component of FI; they are designed to help welfare recipients make the transition from welfare to work. Support services include, but are not limited to: child care, transportation, work related expenses, job training, and overdue bills that could disrupt employment. Transitional support services are for individuals who are no longer eligible for FI benefits. These services are used to provide some transitional assistance to individuals in the 24 months of transition after successful FI case closure as they establish themselves in employment. However, recipients whose cases were closed because of full family sanctions are not eligible for transitional services. The South Carolina Department of Social Services Manual Memo notes that support services are not entitlements and discretion should be used when determining priority of needs, and applicants and recipients are expected to explore possible child care and transportation options which are at no cost to DSS. Recipients are informed about support services through a variety of means, but the case manager has the responsibility of informing recipients about support services. Ninety-seven percent of county directors indicated that case managers inform welfare recipients about support services. From interviews with case managers and program managers, two views emerged regarding support services - the generous view and the stingy view. Generous Approach to Support Services Case managers with the generous view encourage recipients to take advantage of all of the services provided by DSS. They see these services as essential for recipients to make ends meet with low-wage jobs. They also see these services as essential in helping recipients as they

54

seek employment and pursue training and education. Some case managers identified support services as the major strength of the program: I think the major strength of the program is that we have supportive services. We have services like child care that is paid for by the ABC voucher and transportation costs that can be reimbursed. We also offer supportive services when clients get behind on their expenses because they are working. Because if they are not working sometimes they have a light bill that they cant pay or a house bill that they cant pay. Sometimes DSS is able to pay. I think because of these resources, thats the strength of the program. Kayla represents the generous approach to distributing support services. She explained her approach to distributing support services: I am free flowing with bus tickets for public transportation. They need it and I can justify giving them, I give them. To me its a service. Further justifying her approach, she stated, I cant judge their family and their life situation by mine. Its not the same . . . And I havent walked in their shoes. And to me youre not sitting in a position to judge. Youre sitting in a position to give services theyre entitled to receive if they are cooperating and participating. She recognized that some case managers are not as generous, observing, I think that after working here a certain amount of time, depending on your personality, you get hard. Because you hear the stories, and a lot of times youre lied to . . . you just dont take it personally. Kaylas statement is important for two reasons. One, it indicates the discretion case managers have in the distribution of support services and, two, it notes her perception of the differences between her approach and her colleagues, as they have gotten hard. This means they are no longer prepared to help the clients as much as she does. Hailey viewed support services as tools to help clients get off welfare. She reported that she encouraged recipients to take advantage of these services: I encourage all my clients to take advantage of all the resources that DSS has at this time to help them get off the welfare roll. We can pay for all sorts of things. If

55

they dont have a drivers license we can send them to drivers education. We can purchase insurance for them. If they want to go into some private educational component thats not associated with DSS like . . . Tech, almost anyplace if they have a training program, we usually can pay for it. So I always impress on them to take advantage of the resources so they can get off the system. Case managers with the generous approach want to respond to the needs of their clients. Stephanie reported to the interviewer about the needs of her clients and the essential role support services play: I think its great. I think that if people didnt have support services I dont know how they could get by. I mean, they come in because they need help. A lot of people dont really want the check because its not really that much. They really need the supportive services, the bus tickets, fixing their car, their lights are turned out, us to pay for them to get their GED, their CDL license. If we didnt do it I dont know who would. So I think its a great job. Stingy Approach to Support Services Case managers know there are differences among them in terms of their distribution of support services. A significant number of front-line workers and local managers interviewed saw support services as indicative of the contradiction in the FI program. They considered support services to be in conflict with the goal of self-reliance. Case managers with the stingy outlook regarded support services as promoting dependence and conflicting with FIs goal of promoting self-sufficiency and independence among recipients. The case managers using the stingy approach viewed dependence as the problem with the old welfare system. They wanted recipients to become responsible for their own needs and livelihood. In this vein, Emma reported: Were saying we want them to be self-sufficient but sometimes we do a whole lot more for them than you know I would say a lot of people get on their regular jobs. If we are going to let them be self-sufficient there are some things that they just need to do themselves or try to figure out instead of calling us all the time to try and find out well can you take care of my light bill, can you take care of my car payment. A lot of people dont have that outlet. They have to learn how to budget

56

their money, juggle their bills, instead of running to try and find somebody to help them do that. We have everything laid out here for them. Case managers with the stingy approach resented clients exploiting FI for support services. Jessica, an FI manager, viewed support services as the major weakness in the program. She explained: The weakness is, in my personal opinion, is that we provide too many services. Because if a person cannot get to their job, we will provide transportation up to two years, and I think thats dependency. Asked if she discouraged case managers from distributing support services, she responded that they were obligated by policy to explain to our customers the services available to them and at the same time we encourage our customers to begin the process of providing their own child care and transportation. Therefore, while Jessica felt obliged to inform recipients of the services, she wanted her case managers to encourage them to be selfreliant. In fact, the criticism that emerged most often from case managers regarding the FI program centered on support services. Abigail offered the following critique: Theyre thinking that theyre helping the people, but theyre actually not. They have programs where we help pay bills. Its like putting a band-aid on this major wound. Its not doing anything for them. Its just making them more dependent. Because you have people that come in every so often because they need this bill paid . . . whatever. I dont see it working. . . To be honest, I really think that they should not have started this . . . Theyre not going to continue it. Its going to stop after the money runs out. Its going to stop. Stressing self-reliance, many case managers are hesitant to distribute support services. A representative statement of this view follows: I try to work with them so far as helping them without holding their hands. Sometimes you get with some of the customers that will come in and they will want you to do everything for them, but what I try to do, I try to give them the initiative to do things for themselves. . . . If they have a bill that needs to be paid or if they find a job and . . . dont have the transportation to get there, I try to get them to try and find resources on their own . . . versus DSS always being the one right there to hold their hands.

57

Providing Child care The lack of child care is a major barrier to employment for welfare recipients. One case manager reported that child care is the major reason poor women go on welfare. Speaking of the barriers to employment, Robert reported: The biggest problem, and some other workers have probably said the same thing, is child care help for people so they don't have to come through DSS. Most of the people I see are just coming through just because they want child care. According to the 2000 Audit Council Report, child care continues to be one of the biggest barriers to self-sufficiency. In fact, the problem seems to be getting worse. From January 1998 to December 1999, there was a 12 percent decline in the number of working poor children served and a 6 percent decline in the number of FI children served through the voucher system. Child care services have not been available to all FI children. The Audit Council Report concluded DSS had taken limited steps to ensure that potential clients know about child care services (South Carolina Legislative Audit Council 2000). Many low-wage workers apply for welfare to get assistance for child care. According to case mangers, some welfare leavers quit their jobs to meet welfare eligibility and apply for welfare to get child care assistance. Case managers reported that some clients ask that their cases be closed because they found jobs or just didnt want to cooperate with Family Independence. However, when they find jobs or have difficulties, they realize they need the transportation and child care in order to go to the job and . . . Theyll come back and reapply. According to case managers, many welfare recipients have no problem going to get a job and do well working, its just they cant afford the child care on what theyre making. . . . Theyll come back and apply so they can get supportive services. As one supervisor observed: Child care is a major issue . . . Many people come back in and reapply to get child care services. Many come in and qualify just to get the two years. They dont

58

really want to be on the welfare. So what were turning it into is a child care entitlement system. We might as well do universal child care and get it over with; because thats what were actually doing in a lot of ways. Kayla responded to the following question: Have you had clients apply for welfare to get child care assistance? Absolutely! Yes. Theyre like, I do not want the check. I dont want to do your program. All I need is child care. They have to be eligible for the check. Theyll take a six week leave from their job without pay just to become eligible . . . We know theyre taking a leave to get eligible. . . Theyll take the job back . . . and then get transitional services. Kayla also admitted to advising clients to use the system in this way. She justified this advice with the rhetorical question: How do you expect them to work if they have three little ones and none of them are even in school? She also revealed that her supervisor does not encourage case managers to make such recommendations. However, FI supervisors are aware that case managers make such recommendations. Sarah, a local manager, explained both how recipients are using the system for support services and how case mangers help them in manipulating the system to get assistance for child care: [The] child care issue causes a lot of them to come back for services. We did a little study on it and about 48 percent of our applications in one month were because someone needed child care. Some of them were reapplications because they had some months left so they come back in and get eligible for another month and get two more years of child care. They know how to work the system. On top of that, some of our workers tell them how to work the system. They come back in, get approved for one month, and go back out. Some people were smart enough to save months to do that. Providing Transportation Transportation is one of the most important support services provided by the local DSS. However, it is supplied in many ways and provided unequally among counties. DSS may pay for someone to take a client to work participation. DSS provides vouchers for public transportation and taxis. Some local DSS have helped with repairing clients cars, buying cars, and paying for 59

auto insurance. We have some that are about to lose vehicles because their payments are behind. We try to help them, if they let us know in time, keep the vehicle, so that they can find employment. We try to get them transportation money. One case manager stated her agency had done repair of windshields, tires, engine work, all kind of things on vehicles. Theres mileage reimbursement, too, and I dont think a lot of case workers share that information. Providing transportation to clients has proven to be difficult in many counties. In one county, DSS provided a bus to take clients to a resort area for employment. It was a two-hour drive one way. The riders started work at different times, 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. The bus departed at 5:00 a.m. and returned at 7:00 p.m. This meant that some riders had to board the bus at 5:00 a.m., ride two hours, arrive at 7:00 a.m. and wait two hours before starting work at 9:00 a.m. Day care centers were not open when the bus left in the mornings. They were closed when the bus returned in the evenings. Therefore, most of the riders children stayed with grandparents or other family members or friends while the parents worked. DSS compensated the child care providers. Due to this hardship, welfare recipients started dropping off and as a consequence were sanctioned by DSS. DSS got a lot of them back in the program after the agency realized that it was too far and recognized the hardship it placed on the clients. Before the bus route stopped, the bus was making the trip with three people. The welfare recipients who continued to work in the area rode another bus which charged $25.00 a week. Some counties provided vans and drivers with designated routes who are responsible for picking up certain people and taking them to work and taking them to school. And even if they have to drop off the kids to daycare, they can do that too. Case managers revealed that this transportation is not reliable. According to Megan, An appointment could be at 9:00 A.M. and

60

theyre going to pick them up at 7:00 A.M. You never know when theyre going to pick you up because theyve got to do it when theyre on the route for your area. In some counties, transportation is provided to one area, such as a major beach resort, but not to other areas where clients may have jobs or could find employment. One case manager reported her agency had transportation that goes to the beach, but does not provide transportation to jobs in the surrounding area. She pointed out that they had a lot of people that would go to work but they had no transportation to get there. In some instances case managers have volunteered to take clients to job interviews and jobs. Jocelyn volunteered to drive a bus to take a lot of people to search for jobs. One case manager explained that her agency can provide tokens but the clients do not have transportation to get to the pick-up. It is important to note that the transportation provided by FI is for a limited amount of time, and clients must find means to provide their own transportation to work. As Ella points out, transportation is . . . limited. The client can speak to someone else who may live in the same area . . . and see if they can coordinate transportation with them . . . so they can take care of that transportation on their own. The clients are encouraged to do this, according to Ella, so that whenever the time limits on the transportation that we are providing for them end . . . they will already have something in line. Something will be in place so . . . they will be able to retain their jobs and . . . Not stop working because of transportation. However, clients are able to get extensions on the transportation services provided. Ella explained the process:

It varies depending on the distance of the job. People that may find a job right here . . . may get it for . . . three months. If they havent set up anything or they havent gotten something in line . . . then we will extend it. I mean we dont just cut if off at three months . . . They just have to let the case manager know that

61

they have not been able to set anything up and they are going to need an extension. We go on that and give them the extension. The Audit Council reported that transportation continues to be one of the biggest barriers to self-sufficiency, and 61 percent of case managers reveal that public transportation services for FI clients were not adequate to very inadequate. Case managers cited transportation as the second most significant barrier preventing welfare recipients from participation in training and education programs (South Carolina Legislative Audit Council 2000). Paying Late Bills Case managers with the stingy approach seemed incensed about the way clients were using the system to pay overdue bills. Hannah remarked: when the word got out, it's like everybody calling, I need help with this, I need help with that. They don't try to get another means, as before, when it wasn't available, they were getting their bills paid. Ashley, like many case managers with the stingy approach, showed contempt for the way the services were used: Were making people more dependent on the system as opposed to making them independent. . . . Its getting ridiculous the way were doing things . . . Theyre sitting at home saying that we owe them. We owe them to pay the bills . . . Its just certain people. The group that Im getting in now is not complying with the referrals and stuff that were giving them to go to work. . . its like, Im entitled . . . you have to help me

According to front-line workers, the discretion in the system strengthens the power of recipients in relations to their case managers. When recipients are aware of services they demand those services for themselves. Therefore, the level of services clients receives, according to case managers, is largely determined by the demands they make. Ella delineated the politics of the matter:

62

We have some people that we may push a little harder than we do others and then we have some that may not be pushed at all . . .you know some people that we always do for and some people that we dont do for. I think its because they are constantly complaining and management doesnt want to hear them complaining, so they cater to them and its really unfair to the others. You do a little more for them than what you would normally do for the others like paying bills, not with transportation and child care services . . . Some customers we assist with an electric bill once a year. Then a customer may come every two or three months and ask for the bill to be paid. If they raise enough sand and push the right buttons and get to the right people, that bill will get paid. One case manager reported that a client came in and made a big stink and stuff like that and was able to get her benefits and got an extra ten days. So you know it burns the worker out because it's not putting any responsibility (on the clients). The only thing the clients are learning is that, if I go above your head, I get what I want because they're not going to want it to go any farther. Clients overdue bills are not paid without questions asked. Ava told the interviewer, if its an unusually high bill, Im going to have to do a lot of history on it, to find out how it got that way. Largely because these are monthly bills an effort is made to pay bills sparingly so as not to create a situation in which recipients expect the agency to pay the bills each month. Grace stated that she recommended utility bills to be paid no more than twice for any client. She explained: But now when it comes to utilities, I would say no more than twice, because whats the point in getting your bill paid one month and two or three months down the line youre still back behind again. Victoria explained her agencys approach: Were not going to recommend that we pay their light bill or their rent every month, because if we recommend we pay it this month, theyre supposed to know how theyre going to be able to continue to pay it, or we havent really helped them, because theyre still in the same fix. So, as far as light bill or rent, no, were not going to pay it every month. We do try to minimize those, because we know theyre coming up every month.

63

Logan explained his agencys hesitation in paying clients rent. His agency tries to ensure that the client is more than likely to have the means to pay the bill the next month. He stated: If we help them out with rent, we want to make sure they have some kind of way of trying to pay it next month because we dont want to waste money just to pay somebodys rent, if they are going to be kicked out the next month anyway. Paying overdue bills sometimes creates an administrative problem. Low-wage workers and the unemployed sometimes apply for welfare with the intention of having overdue bills paid. According to front-line workers, after the bills are paid they feel no obligation to comply with the regulations and do not participate in the various components. An FI supervisor explained: Because you can get applicants who dont have to be on the program, but just appear to be eligible. So you have people coming in who have no interest in participating, have no intention of following through, but they just want that light bill and rent paid. So they come in, get benefits for that one month, two months, and then you have all sorts of difficulty trying to get them to participate. That wasnt what it was for. They just want that light bill, that rent paid, and then theyre gone.

64

Chapter 6 Imposing Sanctions and Time Limits


One of the most significant aspects of the FI is the use of sanctions. Sanctions and administrative case closings are bureaucratic means to enforce compliance with the new welfare system (Cherlin et al. 2002, 387-406). Sanctions are imposed because clients do not comply with the program. By 2000, six state studies revealed that noncompliance ranked second only to employment as a reason for TANF case closure each year (Anderson and Gryzlak 2002, 301). While the rules are clear that sanctions are imposed for noncompliance, case managers have the discretion of whether or not to recommend sanctions. They also decide if they want to advocate on behalf of their clients. Before imposing sanctions, the case manager sends a conciliation letter to the nonparticipating client. The letter gives the client an opportunity to explain why she is not complying with the program and an opportunity to conciliate before the imposition of sanctions. Jennifer told the interviewer the circumstances in which she recommends sanctions: If they do not keep the appointment to do an ISSP . . . Theyre sent a conciliation to come in and discuss what happened, why they didnt keep the appointment. If they dont keep that appointment, then yes, they are sanctioned. Samantha also told the interviewer she had discretion in the matter: It is up to me to determine if the person should be sanctioned, but we are supposed to forward the information on to the supervisor for her review. Bureaucratic discretion and the role of the county and state director are manifested in the imposition of sanctions. Clark, the first director under FI, encouraged case managers and supervisors to impose sanctions if clients were not participating. Patterson, on the other hand, wanted case managers to work with the clients and try to avoid imposing sanctions. Megan

65

recognized the differences: But Ill tell you what, we havent sanctioned many . . . I havent sanctioned any since a new director has come in. Because now when we sanction, we have to get together with the director, our supervisor, coordinator, job developer, and the client and talk. So I have not. The procedure for imposing sanctions under Patterson requires more documentation and justifications. Michael explained the new procedure: We have to work with the client in every way, in order for them not to be sanctioned. We dont want to sanction. So thats the new way. The old way was like, if they didnt participate, theyd be sanctioned. It has to be approved by the supervisor and the director. Sanctions and the threat of sanctions remain a powerful force to ensure compliance, but as a case manager stated, the sanction has got to be one that you really can justify. The new policy under Patterson, in the view of many front-line workers, creates a conflict between the need to ensure an acceptable level of client participation and ensuring that clients receive all the services necessary to maintain their family well-being and make the transition from welfare to work. Olivia, an FI manager, addressed this conflict. The federal law requires that forty percent of our caseload mandatory people be participating one hundred percent. So if my worker has ten customers, she has to have at least four of those people participating the thirty hours or twenty hours a week, every week in that month. If theyre not meeting forty percent, theyre not meeting state requirements. So were being put in a position where were trying to get participation, but theres nothing we can do to make customers participate. This is one of the things that we did have in 1995 when Clark was here. . . If they wont participate, we close the case and you sanction the case. Now, under Dr. Patterson, she doesnt want you to sanction these people, but these people are not participating. . . . When they know that we cant close, that just means theyve got time to sit home and do whatever. . . .

The manual tells you that if this person is not participating, then theyre not eligible for the check. Thats in black and white. What are you going to do if you dont sanction them? You dont have any other alternative but to let them continue on to get that check and theyre not meeting the requirements. So . . . youre rewarding bad behavior. We do everything we possibly can to keep from

66

sanctioning people. We do have people that are not participating like theyre supposed to and theyre still getting a check. But that decision is not left up to me. Its left up to the county director. They took that decision from us a year or so ago, because they said we were sanctioning too many people. We were trying to follow the manual. Thats what policy is. And I think thats one of the hardest things that I have to do in my job is, I have to try to satisfy our state directors plan, but also I have to go by policy, and those two things dont always match. Reluctance to Impose Sanctions Most case managers are reluctant to impose sanctions. Many resist sanctions and other regulations that limit their ability to serve as advocates for their clients. They want to preserve the trusting relationship that specialists assert needs to exist between the client and the case manager (Hasenfeld and Weaver 1996, 235-56). These case managers impose sanctions only after they have given the client sufficient opportunity to correct the problem and comply with the program. Noah told the interviewer the circumstances in which he imposed sanctions: When youve exhausted everything, and you have a client who just wont participate, I mean, theyve got to participate in some component, and, but Id say if they dont participate, the first time, you sign a conciliation; they still dont participate, then you go back and you talk to them again and, you know, try to refer them back and forth. And you got no choice, because its on our list. If they arent participating, then theyve got to be sanctioned, by policy . . . and its supposed to be after conciliation, but we dont do that, we try to . . . work with them, trying to get them to participate in something. Well only sanction as a last result, when we got no other choice.

Kayla, another case manager, explained the circumstances in which she imposed sanctions: Just absolute refusal to cooperate. I am extremely flexible. I give them opportunity after opportunity after opportunity. But if they just wont do the program, Im responsible for their participation, then thats when I recommend the sanction. The reluctance of case managers to impose sanctions shows their understanding of welfare recipients barriers to participation in various program components and work. Case managers creatively use FIs flexibility to clients benefit. Jasmine, an employee with DSS for 67

over 28 years in a small rural county, explained the circumstances of welfare recipients, her hesitation to impose sanctions and her use of discretion in the policy to avoid sanctions: If youre working on a job, and you have a child thats sick, you may be able to get somebody to take care of your child but, if you really care, you want to be there. . . We dont understand that when were talking about other people. If its us . . . we understand . . . Well, the options are . . . when it comes down to that, I usually go in and really talk with the supervisor, and I give them the benefit of the doubt, because, you know, if those are extenuating circumstances, then, like I said, theres a loophole. . . . They usually know that I work with them, you know. Ive been here for twenty-eight years now, and I basically can understand them, basically know them. And if somebodys really trying, you can tell. That last pull comes from the caseworker, if they want to find that loophole within the policies . . . like on transportation, like on child care . . . it depends upon the way you use it. You can determine good cause. . . We dont have too many people just say, Well, I quit, you know, without a reason. So am I going to put down a sanction? Is that really fair?

When sanctions are inevitable, case managers sympathetic towards their clients seek means to follow the rules while addressing the interests of their clients. Ava explained how she handled clients who refused to participate: After youve exhausted every measure available, and then youre doing home visits, youre providing transportation, youve talked, found out what they really wanted to do and they continue not to do it . . . I would first offer voluntary withdraw, so the parent can keep the Medicaid. Ill say its your choice, the case is going to have to close, but if you do voluntary withdrawal, you can keep your Medicaid. When case managers have clients with serious personal problems, they simply do not complete the sanctioning process. Lily explained how she avoided imposing sanctions: But if I know they are having problems at home or know something is going on, Ill just kind of let it ride for a while. Its at my discretion. I have a client right now and she is not participating but she is like a nervous wreck. She is going through a divorce; her husband is not helping her pay anything. Shes gotten an eviction notice. One of her children has decided she doesnt want to live there. She wants to go and live with her dad. I know she cannot get a job like that. I know she cannot be sitting up here in class worrying about whether theyre

68

pulling her mobile home off the lot. So Im just kind of letting that one visit the Family Life Skills teacher. I said you know you cant sanction her right now because shes got too much going on at home to really expect her to participate right now. Sanctions to Enforce Compliance There are case managers who are not reluctant to impose sanctions. They see themselves as following policy. They see sanctions, as intended by policy makers, as a means to enforce compliance. Trinity explained her experience with sanctions: Well, I havent really had them often, maybe two or three customers at the most. . . . If theyre supposed to go to a component like Job Club, Family Life Skills, and if they dont go Ill sanction them . . . No, I cant let them fly . . . if I let them fly; theyre going to tell their friends. Nicole viewed sanctions as a means to control clients. She explained her views regarding the imposition of sanctions: Thats what I have to work with and thats what I have to get them to see that this is serious business. That were not just handing out checks; you have to do something to get it. You have to follow through. When you are lenient with them they kind of pull you along. You do more and more and they do less and less; so you have to. Stephanie made a similar observation: Sometimes I think that, it sounds really bad to say, but sometimes I think we give people too many chances. . . . I know . . . we do it because people have so many problems and so many limitations and its not fair to just bring someone in and say . . . you had a chance, your case is closed, but on the other hand, every once in a while I think it gets taken too far. We give too many chances, and I think that as an agency, if we are going to set rules and guidelines . . . we need to stick by them to set an example; this is what you have to do. Julia revealed the same appreciation for the use of sanctions to enhance participation. She tied it directly to employment: Yes, it does happen and we basically have to follow policy because if were able to place someone into a job and they dont like it and they leave that job for whatever reason, see thats when policy comes in. It may not be what I want to do, but I have to follow policy. They have consequences that they have to suffer for leaving an undesirable job. And thats when theyre sanctioned? Yes, thats 69

when the sanction comes about. It is very important because without the sanction then we wont get any cooperation from the clients. They know that if they dont cooperate then they wont get a check so the sanction is an incentive to help them to come in, to cooperate, to try to do better. According to case managers, sanctions were imposed for a wide range of reasons. However, sanctions were imposed most often because clients refused to participate in the bureaucratic requirements to receive the benefits; they were used less often because the client refused to work. Time Limits Time limits as a component of FI represent a radical departure from earlier welfare efforts. To receive full block grant funding, states may not use Federal TANF funds to support a family for longer than five years. However, the impact of time limits depends on the exemptions and extensions states allow. States have used the flexibility in the federal law to impose different time limits and/or different approaches to time limits (McCallum 1999). South Carolina imposes a lifetime limit of five years and restricts recipients benefits to only two years out of any tenyear period. Time limits are also expected to motivate welfare recipients to seek employment and encourage case managers and staff to work aggressively on their caseloads to find employment for recipients (Pavetti 2000, 601-16). Time limits increase the importance of moving welfare recipients through training and work related programs (Handler 1995). Many case managers and local managers interviewed believed that South Carolinas approach to time limits works against the interests of welfare recipients in making the transition from welfare to work. They believed many recipients skill levels are such that two years of preparation can only consign clients to unemployment or low wage jobs. Sarah, a local manager, asserted that the two year time-limit reflects a failure on the part of policy makers to understand poverty. She stated, I feel like the bureaucrats . . . [have] never been here and do not really 70

understand that poverty is long-term and times you dont totally dig yourself out. There are going to be people who abuse the system, but there are also going to be people who need to be on the system. Sarah viewed time limits as punitive: I think because of the time frame . . . and because of some things with the federal . . . participation [requirements] it turned out to be a little punitive when you are talking about two years out of ten. She saw them as punitive because many of the jobs that were finding for many of our clients are low, minimum wage jobs. Thats not self-sufficiency. But in South Carolina, its enough to replace the check. Olivia made the following observation: Weve found out the more education, the more likely you will have a successful client. The majority of our customers are not that well educated. We have a lot . . . They might have a high school diploma, but when tested, theyre on third or fourth, fifth grade levels. . . . Theres no need for sending them to adult education for two years, and they still wont be any closer to meeting their diploma. So, if we had enough time, we might be able to do more in getting our people the GED or high school diploma. Many case managers felt they needed more time to address employment barriers of welfare recipients. Rose, who had worked with DSS for 24 years, remarked: I think we need a longer period of time to work with these clients. . . . Some have problems that will take longer than two years to overcome. Ashley suggested the five-year lifetime limit should be applied consecutively. I think they should give them the full five years up-front. I think that would give us a whole lot more time to address issues, needs, really provide services, if they need parenting classes, not just a two-week parenting class, but more intense parenting classes; job skills, not two weeks but more intense job skills. You know; whereas theyll be able to go out and get better jobs and are able to keep them. I think we need to have the full five years up-front. That would make a lot of sense. . . . I think we need to have more time to really be able to look at each and every one of our clients to make sure that were not seeing just employment, but were looking at what is going on around the person so they can keep that employment.

71

One workforce consultant, Rachel, argued strongly for the five consecutive years. I think that if you work with somebody five years and you really change them and you give them that hand up, I dont think many of them are going to come back on the roll. So I think that if you had more time to really work with a person, I mean college takes four years . . . . So you can give them four years to get a job. I mean how you are going to give someone, who doesnt even have a high school diploma, two years to get trained. You see what I am saying. So if you work with them for at least five years, I think those who get off the roll more than likely will not come back; unless something devastating happens. So thats why I say we need five years to work with them. Megan spoke of limited resources in her county: Living in this small county and as poor as we are and limited opportunities it is unrealistic to expect recipients to become self-sufficient in two years. Thus, she suggested that recipients go back and get a good education. There are a significant number of front-line workers and managers who think the time limits are necessary to force recipients to diligently seek employment. Julia expressed it this way: A lot of people are out looking for work versus the old policy, because now clients understand theres a limit on receiving assistance. So thats a lot of incentive to get everybody out to try to find jobs. Speaking from a political and policy perspective, Bryan asserted, the state doesnt have enough money to keep on and on, so . . . there should be a limit somewhere. Grace felt the more you give some, the more theyll take. Jacob explained, if you dont have a limit, it would go back to where we were before in which it would become a generation-type thing. . . . I mean thats just a way of life and they have no kind of gall or aspirations to better themselves. One way to handle time limits is to grant recipients extensions. It is in this policy area that front-line workers and mangers identify substantial differences between the first and second state director of the Department of Social Services in implementing FI. Under Clarks leadership, extensions were granted, according to Kayla, under very extenuating circumstances. For the

72

most part, we did not give any extensions at all. Ryan, a case manager in another county, stated that under Clark . . . it was no extensions, no extensions. You got your 24 months and then boom, you are off the program. But now . . . there are extenuating . . . circumstances where . . . some people really do deserve and need that little bit of extra time. Jason reported: The climate is such that we are more inclined to give an extension if they are participating, if they show a willingness to go to work, or go back to school, or go to training. So you know we are really . . . trying to work with them and if possible they will get an extension, more times than not. Because of the large number of cases terminated under Clark, Kaylas department tried to go back and look at some of those cases, but sometimes, you know, information is lost over a period of time. While extensions became more liberal under Patterson, they were only granted with the approval of the FI supervisor, and clients have to actually plead their case. Moreover, according to Kayla, once a client gets an extension, if they fail to do one thing that we require during that extension time, we close their case. No questions asked. The process seems to be somewhat difficult and challenging for recipients. The following is a practical description of the process as described by an FI supervisor. We usually ask the client to explain to us why they need more than 24 months. The case manager should be backing them up. It has to be documented what its going to take to get that job, complete the education and she has to be guaranteed a job at the end of those three years. Guaranteed a job, not just I got this education. The outcome of completing the education has to be a job. . . .We ask that you try to choose a career thats going to guarantee some type of employment at the end of your education. Most times those are like nursing courses, or some kind of trade. Extensions are granted by increments of one, three, four, or six months, depending on the county and circumstances.

73

Chapter 7 A Survey of County Directors


PRWORA gives state and local human service agencies a major role in making and implementing welfare policies. It presents challenges and opportunities to welfare agencies for serving welfare recipients under the conditions of time limits for benefits and work participation requirements (Hagen 1999, 78-90). Instead of focusing on eligibility, social service agencies must work more closely with families to identify barriers to employment and provide supportive services. As a result of this, states may need to introduce major organizational changes at their social service agencies to emphasize supportive services such as job development and placement, education and training services, referrals, and child care services. This chapter is a study of the Department of Social Services directors views regarding the implementation of FI. Two major questions guide this chapter: How do the services provided to welfare recipients vary throughout the state? What do managers consider to be the areas of success and the impediments for welfare recipients to make the transition from welfare to work? This chapter is limited in that it relies on descriptions from individuals who are not directly involved with clients. It reports on directors views, assessments, and descriptions, rather than observations of program operations and administrative data. Nevertheless, this approach has two major strengths. It focuses on the entire state as opposed to a few counties within the state. Secondly, it focuses on managers who are directly responsible for designing and implementing welfare policies at the local level. It is reasonable to assume that county directors have general knowledge and a broad overview of how FI is being implemented in their respective counties. Moreover, more than any other official, the director plays a significant role in shaping the administrative culture of the agency. Therefore, because they provide the leadership within the

74

local offices, we can learn much about the implementation of welfare policy by examining the viewpoints of county directors. Effective implementation of policy requires good management and managers and front-line workers who are committed to the policys objectives. One of the major concerns of observers of welfare reform is the impact of time limits. Many states have used the flexibility in the law to impose different time limits or different approaches, such as a periodic time limit. South Carolina, for example, has a lifetime limit of five years, but limits benefits to two years out of any ten year period. Directors were asked: In your view, are two years sufficient for recipients to make the transition from welfare to work? Fifty-nine percent of the respondents responded affirmatively. Notably, Figure 7.11 also shows that there were significant variations in the responses, corresponding to the counties development levels. For instance, 88 percent of the directors from developed counties responded affirmatively to the question, while only 29 percent and 44 percent of the directors from moderately and least developed counties responded in the affirmative, respectively. The responses may reflect the directors ideologies as much as the economic conditions of the counties. Seventy percent of the directors from underdeveloped counties felt that two years were sufficient for welfare recipients to make the transition from welfare to work.

Some totals for figures in this chapter may not total 100 percent because not all respondents answered all of the questions.

75

Figure 7.1 Two Years Sufficient to Make the Transition to Work


100 90 80 70 70 60 50 50 40 30 20 10 0 29 30 44 71 87

13

Yes Developed Counties Least Developed Counties Under Developed Counties Moderately Developed Counties 87 44 70 29

No 13 50 30 71

The success of the Family Independence Program largely depends on employment opportunities in the private sector for TANF recipients. Thus, county directors were queried: In your county, are there sufficient employment opportunities to provide economic self-sufficiency for TANF recipients? Sixty-three percent of all respondents answered affirmatively. However, all directors from developed counties responded affirmatively, while only 31 percent of directors from least developed counties responded affirmatively. Directors from developed and moderately developed counties reported more positive attitudes about the private sector than directors from least developed and under developed counties. For example, as Figure 7.2 shows, all of the directors from moderately developed

76

counties and 75 percent of the directors from developed counties indicated that the private sector recruits, trains and hires TANF recipients. On the other hand, only 50 percent of the directors from least developed and under developed counties indicated that the private sector recruits, trains, and hires TANF recipients.

Figure 7.2 Private Sector Recruits, Trains and Hires TANF Recipients
100

100
90 80 70 60 50

75

50
40 30 20 10 0

50

50

50

25

Yes Developed Counties Least Developed Counties Under Developed Counties


Moderately Developed Counties

No 25 50 50

75 50 50 100

An important objective of the Family Independence Program is to help clients get training for employment. One aspect of this objective is for social service agencies to establish working relationships with technical colleges to prepare welfare recipients for employment. As shown in Figure 7.3, only 52 percent of the directors reported they were successful or very successful in developing partnerships with local technical schools and/or colleges to train recipients to make the transition from welfare to work.

77

Figure 7.3 Success of FI in Developing a Partnership with Local Technical Schools and/or Colleges to Train Welfare Recipients
37 34
35

40

30

25

20

15
15

10
10

Not Successful

Somewhat Successful

Successful

Very Successful

The Family Independence Program is designed to reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancy and the number of women having another child after going on public assistance. As Figure 7.4 shows, only 10 percent of the directors responded that the program was successful in the former and only 22 percent responded that the Family Independence Program had been successful or very successful in reducing the number of welfare recipients who have another child after going on public assistance.

78

Figure 7.4 County Directors Reporting FIs Objectives as Successful or Very Successful
Increased family life skills 2.4

Reducing out-of-wedlock births Getting support from non-custodial parent Reducing teenage pregnancy

9.8

14.6

21.9

Reducing number of mothers having children after receiving TANF Partnering with educational institutions Encouraging employers to hire leavers Improving leavers' quality of life

22

51.2

58.5

58.5

Providing transportation for leavers

63.4

Improving leavers' skills

70.8 80.5

Finding child care assistance

Finding leavers employment 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

80.5 90

Figure 7.5 reports directors views of the impediments to welfare recipients finding employment. Roughly 98 percent of the directors reported recipients attitudes and lack of motivation as an important impediment to finding employment. 85 percent reported that the lack of education and training served as an important impediment to employment. On the other hand, 61 percent reported inadequate employment opportunities as an important impediment to recipients finding employment.

79

Figure 7.5 Factors that Impede the Employment of TANF Recipients


Attitude/motivation Child care/child-related barriers Education/training Appearance Insufficient health care and benefits No/limited work experience Primary caregiver for sick family member Substance abuse Inadequate employment opportunities Inadequate transportation Insufficient sanctions for not working Low wages Health/mental health problems
0 10 20 30 36.6 36.6 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 46.3 51.3 61 73.2 70.8 70.7 78.1 85.4 85.3 85.3 97.6

The services provided by DSS to welfare recipients in their transition from welfare to work can lessen the hardships encountered by recipients. In this regard, as figure 7.6 shows, 90 percent of the least developed counties reported using a case worker as a child care specialist to arrange child care for TANF recipients. Only 57 percent of moderately developed counties had such caseworkers.

80

Figure 7.6 Departments of Social Services that Use a Caseworker as Child care Specialist
100 90 90 81 80

70 62 60 57

50 43 40 38

30

20 13 10 10

0 Least Developed Under Developed Moderately Developed Developed

Yes 81 90 57 62

No 13 10 43 38

81

Chapter 8 Getting on Welfare and Living with Stigma


Given the stigma surrounding welfare use and the negative perception of welfare, it is curious that women would choose welfare. At first glance it seems when considering the stigma and the limited benefits of welfare use, the cost would exceed the benefits. Therefore, an understanding of why women choose welfare informs us how they perceive their life chances and the options available to them. Why Welfare Most interviewees attributed their welfare use to circumstances beyond their control and suggested that given their circumstances welfare is the best means to provide for their families. For most Americans, welfare recipients are individuals who have failed. They are products of the culture of poverty and the underclass. The assumption that welfare recipients were lazy and suffered from a culture of dependence steered the welfare reforms of the 1990s. Welfare recipients are highly stigmatized. Because of the stigma attached to welfare use, when applying for public assistance, most applicants feel emotions such as shame, embarrassment, apprehension, and anger. Madison, a 42-year-old single mother, who left New York to raise her child in South Carolina because down here you can send your child outside to play, told of her emotions when applying for welfare: Shame. . . . First of all, I was ashamed when I got pregnant. I was 27. But still, in my mind, Im not married, thats just not good. So, I mean, I came home, I got a job, worked until the day I went into labor. But I still needed some help, you know. But yes, I never saw myself on welfare, never. Isabella, 20, described her experience applying for welfare: Embarrassing because I didnt want to be on it, but I didnt have no other choice. I had

82

to take care of my son. Contradicting the popular notion of generations on welfare, Deirdre spoke of her shame: I was ashamed because that was not how I was brought up. My parents worked, my father worked several jobs. We werent brought up depending on the government for money, or anyone. Alyssa, a 40-year-old married mother, also felt ashamed: Actually, I was a little bit ashamed, although I knew that it was not our fault. . . . You cant help but feel a little bit ashamed when you have to ask for something. I really didnt want to do it, and had it not been for my children, we probably would not have. But we didnt want them to have to do without anything, if we could help it. So we went and applied. Sophia explained she was embarrassed in a way . . . I was so broke and I was having a baby. I told them I didnt have no place to stay because my mom put me out. So they gave me food stamps and then I got a place to stay. As expected, a significant number of recipients saw welfare as a means to take care of their children and as the only option. They were not willing and perhaps too proud to speak of shame. They expressed a sense of anger, frustration, and/or resentment. Some spoke matter-offactly of their experience applying for welfare. An example of the latter is 47-year-old Joan, a mother of four children who had been on public assistance for about six years. She responded: it made me feel good because at that particular time, it was doing something for myself and for my children. Natalie, a 23-year-old single mother, first went on welfare between the ages of 17 and 18 because she had nothing and was in school, just had a baby. Natalie reflected on her experience when first getting welfare: It made me feel good after I accepted. I went willingly. It was something I had to do because I didnt have anything. Brianna, 23, a high school dropout, ignored those who criticized her for applying for welfare. She told the interviewer, people were like, you going to get on public assistance and stuff and you aint independent and all that, but I didnt pay that no attention because I had to do what I had to do. So I didnt really care.

83

Annas decision to apply for welfare represents the difficult choices and circumstances that ambitious single parents have to make. Anna has two children. She moved back to South Carolina from Chicago in 1997 to finish college. Before coming back to South Carolina, Anna worked a full-time job while enrolled in college. She explained her sitter was raising her child. Anna felt that the difficulties of raising a child, working, and attending school were overwhelming. She confronted a dilemma. One the one hand she thought she should continue to work because society said that this is the responsible thing to do. On the other hand she stated: Mind you Im not happy; I dont have any social life. There is no time Im spending with my child and Im tired. Anna struggled with the decision to go on welfare. Then you fight with yourself back and forth, oh lets not talk about that bad word welfare . . . Its just when you prioritize based on what their immediate needs are. So I decided to come back here and yes I got on the welfare system and wasnt worried about it. Sophia, a 23-year-old single mother of two, who planned to complete high school, explained her thoughts about applying for welfare. Scared, but its not really embarrassing. Then I didnt think about it. . . I pay taxes like everyone else. I have a girlfriend who has four kids and she was getting more things faster than I was and I was going out looking for a job. Trying not to get on the system and she was laying up having babies. So, Im like if Im going to pay my taxes, Im going to go down there and get what I want. And if I cant get what I want, Im going to go over their head. You cant stop knocking until the door opens. I had to learn that on my own. . . .I felt like I was helping my family. Taylor, a 46-year-old mother with one child, first went on welfare in her early forties after the death of her husband. She explained: Well, I was married but my husband got killed in an automobile accident. And, that took the family income away. So I just didnt have. I wasnt working at the time, because he was sick before he died, and so I had to have a way to take care of myself and my kids. So when I found an alternative, the only alternative I had was public assistance.

84

Mia, 41, sought public assistance after her husband suffered a stroke. After the stroke he tried to find employment. She recounted: He got sick about a year ago, and had a stroke. After he had the stroke and was hospitalized they laid him off. He remained out of work for approximately a year before he found another job. But he couldnt pass the physical because of his health. He had to go back to his doctor several times. They were trying to get his blood pressure under control and whatnot. He lost several opportunities for jobs because of that. During that time we went to apply for assistance. Kaitlyn, who had periods on and off welfare, explained that after her divorce she had no choice with four children but to apply. However, she went to school for a certified nurse assistant and started working. Many women have several difficulties that lead them to welfare. Kimberly stopped working because of complications with sickle cell disease and hip replacement. Not receiving child support compounded her situation. She reported: My husband does not pay child support. I probably would not be on public assistance if he did. My husband would tell me before he would pay child support he would not work. I can not get a divorce because I can not find him. He can not be served. I have been trying to divorce him for the last three and a half years. Thats making my life harder; its harder on my child, who has never even laid eyes on her father, doesnt even know what he looks like.

Destiny, a forty-two-year-old woman who first went on welfare in 1989, explained: because my husband and I separated and I was young and I wasnt educated at the time. It was just something I had to do to survive; to feed my kids and clothe them. Savannah told the interviewer: I didnt really want to go on public assistance, but I didnt have a choice. She never thought she would go on public assistance. But after the father wasnt providing the child support, I had to go for welfare for money and food stamps for food. Savannah, like many recipients, was concerned about the criticisms of welfare recipients and declared she disagreed with those who say that we should not be on welfare, but most of us dont have a choice. She suggested some recipients should be out there working. But she

85

continued, we cant make anybody, you know, hire us. So therefore we have to, you know, get on public assistance. Carol expressed concerns similar to Savannahs. She found receiving public assistance embarrassing because she didnt want to be on it but she felt she didnt have any other choice. I had to take care of my son. Haley explained her dilemma: I dont like what they are saying. A lot of people are on welfare, but people cant help but be on welfare. You want to get a job but then you cant. You have to get some kind of support. Continuing the theme, Mackenzie explained her choice to seek public assistance: In a way, Im not really embarrassed, but I just really didnt want it, but I didnt have no other choice. I wasnt working and I had to get the things I needed. So it was like something I really didnt want to do but I did have a choice. Mackenzie explained that without public assistance, I probably wouldnt be able to make it at that time because that was my only source of income. Allison has been on and off may be five or six years. She first applied when her employment with a temporary agency ended. She needed help in my transitional period, to feed my children, and to have some type of income. . . . A person is already stripped after not having employment; I didnt need to be completely stripped, so I needed some [assistance.] She explained: What led me to public assistance was I had a child and his father refused to support him, and I needed some assistance in getting support until I could find something. I just had a baby. And of course, maybe in some other countries they work right the day after they have a baby, but I think a womans body needs to heal before going back to work. And so I needed some assistance until I could get my appointment with my doctor, and until I could get strong enough to go back into the workforce. Sharing the view of many recipients, Allison expressed discomfort with receiving welfare: It was a means to an end. It was not something to keep me there or sustain me for life, because I think I have more pride than that. Not that if you have to get public

86

assistance you dont have any pride. I think if you using it as a means, as an income and a livelihood, to me, thats abusing the system. If youre well-rounded and able-bodied, I think its your responsibility to work. A significant number of interviewees felt that the circumstances they found themselves in were unfair. They felt that opportunities were not available to them; some saw the problem as the result of racism. Brooke, along with many other interviewees, thought that welfare recipients are discriminated against. It seemed to be her attempt to explain why many welfare recipients cannot find employment. They think we just sitting around here, doing nothing, accepting the money that they giving us. No, we are not doing that. We are looking for a job, just like everybody else. Unfortunately, they are the ones that get jobs quicker than we do. You understand what Im saying? I dont know how it works, but I think its something in the system that they know who was on and what not, and they just denying us jobs because we were on it. Because its real hard to find a job, you know? Its not like we just sitting here, just waiting on a check or food stamps or whatever. We go out just like everybody else go out and try to find a job. Maria made a similar criticism and raised questions about the quality of jobs, the education and training available in her community: I dont think all of us choose to be on welfare. I think its almost like its just a trap that we fall into, and if there was any way that they could show us a different way out of it . . . I think most of us would be willing. People are just really scared about change. . . .Whats going to be better after this? And for a lot of us, this is all they know . . . So, if someone told me . . . you gave this up and you can have this, which will later give you this . . . then Id be willing to do it. I just never wanted to be a part of that system . . . but a lot of people dont see that . . . you know, because weve been . . . kind of . . . lied to for so long . . . Nobody told us that we werent going to be able to find jobs after we graduated. Nobody told us that we were going to be stuck with, you know, service jobs . . . They build all these fast food places, and the only people that work them . . . are young people and black people. You go in some of these other establishments, big places, and you got white people working . . . theyre young white people working in jobs that got futures . . . Now, hell, look at me, look how old I am. Why didnt anybody ever think about training me? For many interviewees, welfare was viewed as a far better alternative than a low-wage job. Makayla explained: Nobody wants to be working in a fast-food restaurant all their life. The

87

jobs that they offer you are not really the jobs that you want, so you just stay on the system until you find a better job or just dont work at all. That dont mean you have to be a welfare queen, because I would prefer not being on the system anyway, personally. It is not only the problems these women confront that drive them to welfare, but people from whom they seek advice - mothers, friends, sisters, cousins, boyfriends, doctors all advise them to seek public assistance. Madison explained that her mother encouraged her to seek public assistance because, as she revealed, the person I had my kids by . . . aint going to help. Madison did not want to go to that extreme and apply for welfare. She listened to her mother because she was on it one time but she didnt stay on it long herself. Kylie was reluctant to apply but explained: Well, I wasnt going to apply but I just had a baby and one of my friends took me to DSS. And this man, he was talking to me and he worked at the DSS . . . He told me that I should apply, you know, in order to take care of my child. Marissa explained how she decided to use welfare: I didnt think about public assistance when I was younger. . . Actually, my sisters said apply for Family Independence. I thought it was food stamps. I did not realize it was a check until I saw a check in the mailbox. I said what in the world? I called my sister and she said oh yeah you get a check. I said thank you for telling me.

Ariana painted a vivid picture of the process in which women in poor communities are socialized to see welfare as the only option. So the only thing that you do know about is welfare. Like a billboard that is out, you know that especially when you are a young black female. Because when you go to have these children, when you start going to doctors and stuff, this is the first thing that they tell you. Well maybe you need to go apply for welfare. I mean you need to get on food stamps; you need to do this. I mean they tell you these things when you go to a clinic or go for a pregnancy test. They give you pamphlets. Its like they gear you towards going straight on it. I did not know from my family because we were military and we traveled. I did not know what welfare was . . . until I had my first child.

88

Many women interviewed for this study indicated that they were on welfare for healthcare benefits and food stamps, not for the monthly check. Alisa told the interviewer that she did not need AFDC; Im working. But the Medicaid comes in handy. Molly made the same point in speaking of the benefits of being on welfare: Well it saved me. The help for my children like going to the doctor and the dentist and stuff I didnt have to pay for. But, she admitted, the AFDC part was like once a month and I wanted income more than just that. Alicia never thought she would apply for welfare because, as she stated: I thought only poor people applied for welfare. My reason for applying for welfare basically was to get the help I needed for Medicaid. Natalie did not want the monthly check. She wanted insurance for the kid to go to the doctor and all that. Janet explained the temporary aspect of welfare and her need for health care and food stamps: Well, in the beginning, I didnt really want the check. I just wanted a Medicaid card. I was told when I went up there to apply for the Medicaid card and food stamps that I had to get a check. Then they sent me to those classes and when I went to those classes . . . I found out that I didnt have to get a check. I could just get the Medicaid card along with the food stamps. So once I started working and I was at the job for a good month, I let the case worker know I was working and had my case closed. Ariana went through a lengthy discussion of the importance of Medicaid and why the check is not the reason she used welfare. The medical part of it - God if they ever stopped it - I dont know what would happen to the young kids, because my child is on welfare and on Medicaid. Corey has always had a nice pediatrician and hes been with me years. I may have changed pediatricians twice in his lifetime, and hes 11 years old. His shots have always been given on time. I mean he always have yearly checkups and his medication. I never had any problems getting the medication that he needed. Because that medical program is God sent, especially for the younger children. Financially, no you cant make it on welfare.

89

Most women sought welfare to provide a temporary solution to their immediate financial difficulties. Gee wanted welfare just to help until she got on her feet and stuff like that. Jada, 40, saw it similarly, I knew that it would just be a short-term thing, something just to help me out, get me started, you know, with my son. That was it. Autumn explained that she expected welfare to give her a chance to advance in my life, that is, to start a better life. In doing so, Autumn said she just needed help to get me on my feet. I just needed assistance for a little while just to give me that little push. Natalie indicated that she expected welfare to serve as temporary support until she got into school or found a job: Well, when I first applied, I was like well, Im just only going to do this until I get myself in school, you know until I find something or find a job or whatever, you know. Evelyn revealed how she used welfare: I would get it only when I needed it. No soon when I get me a job or something then Id stop receiving it. Its like maybe three or four months at a time when I do get it. I only get it when I need it. Amanda described a similar situation: I think I must have been about 21 or 24 and it was years that I had to go to them, and years that I had my jobs that I didnt turn to them, but I went to them when I needed some assistance. Mary explained a similar approach, when I would work and do pretty good, you know, Id get off of it, and if I was in a bind, and I wasnt working . . . Id get back on it. Lillian shared the experience of being off and on welfare: I started receiving it in 1993. I got off when I started working. At the end of 1995 or 1996 I got off when I got a job. I had the same job for two years. I had to get back on because I had my daughter.

90

The Application Process Interviewees suggested that the application process and the reception offered to welfare applicants by some front-line workers at the Department of Social Services justified their fears and apprehensions. Marie, 29, reported her experience applying for welfare the first time: Well, I started working when I was 14. My mom was in the system. I never thought that I would be in that situation. But then circumstances made it where I had to be in that situation. The first time that I went and applied for assistance, I had a male caseworker and he made me feel this big. Because some of the questions that they asked you, I dont think its relevant to when you need help. I mean Ive worked all my life. Ive paid my taxes, and I felt that at that time when I needed assistance, I should have been able to go down there without feeling like Im being degraded or anything.

Responding to a question regarding her experiences with her welfare agency, Susan reported: The way they made you feel when you go up there to apply for it, like you are nothing, the way they talk down to you. I didnt like it. Monica, a 32-year-old single mother with two children, had been on and off welfare since she was eighteen years old. Monicas last job at a homework center in her neighborhood had paid $8 an hour. She had worked 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. every day with the responsibility of making sure the kids got their homework done. She never went back to this job after the doctor recommended bed rest following the birth of her last child. Monica told the interviewer about her experience applying for welfare: Well . . . when you apply for welfare, its hard to describe . . . its the lowest of the low, you feel like youre dirty, or youre doing something wrong, really, it is - you have to be there to know that. Many women interviewed resented case managers home visits. Taylor explained her experience with case manager visits at her home: the social worker has to come to your house you know, and look and see what you have, and ask you different questions and things, you feel

91

a little bit uncomfortable. As long as you know youve done your best and you trying to tell the truth . . . you can weather the storm. Kylie, 44, a mother of two who had been on and off public assistance since about 33, related her experiences and sentiments regarding the application process and the home visits. They put you through so much trials and tribulations. They ask so many personal questions. They come to your house; they have home visits. I have actually had one to come to my house and said: who sleeps here, who sleeps there. The interviewees viewed the application process as intrusive. Molly reported: because they asked too many personal questions, things that doesnt concern as to why you need help. If theyre supposed to offer you help, you know, they dont need to know every little detail about your personal life. Joan, like many recipients, saw the process as a hassle. She reported: The questions that they take you through and the hassles that they put you through out there at that office. . . . Oh, how you live? Who bought you this ring? Who bought you this necklace? And all sort of personal stuff that I felt wasnt their business. Many women interviewed thought the questions should be limited to efforts to discern the applicants needs. Jada explained, Me sleeping with somebody and having sex with somebody aint got nothing to do with providing food for me and my children. Jocelyn felt that the questions were too personal: Well, my caseworker . . . she just be all in the business. Just all in my personal business and stuff like that. . . . Like, Im not with my baby father, when we getting back together stuff like that. Twenty-two-year-old Arianna painted a picture of the uncomfortable situation she confronted during the interview. When I first went to fill out AFDC I didnt know my babys fathers Social Security number. But I knew his name, address, the school he went to, how old he was. She asked how long I had known him. Im like this, what are you trying to say - I sleep with anybody on the street? Its not like I just rolled over. . . . I didnt really care because she cant judge me because she doesnt know where I

92

have been. . . . I knew him a good little while, its not like I go out in the street and say whats your Social Security number. Maya best expressed the sentiments and the powerlessness of many recipients. They asked questions about your childs father. They were even in-depth to ask me when the last time I slept with him. They asked were we still together? Some questions that I couldnt answer for them. They were very persistent. I couldnt give them the answers they wanted. They asked me the social security for the father, where he stays, how old is he, does he have other children. Some of the questions I could answer. I did with the best of my knowledge. Other questions I couldnt answer for them like Social Security number. They even went as far as telling me that I would not be able to receive anything until I get these questions answered. And I think thats very unfair because we cant make the fathers of our children tell us these things, especially personal things such as Social Security Number. Isabel, a 28-year-old mother of one, like many interviewees questioned how the information is used and the legitimacy of some of the questions. When you initially go in there for your AFDC check, and they want to find out whether or not you have the father on child support and all this kind of stuff, some actually have a detailed outline of questions they are supposed to ask you. But some of them ask you questions just to be nosy . . . They get into those type of questions. . . . A person feels obligated to answer. . . . because if you do not, she might not help you. When you tell them the information . . . they dont do anything with it. They just spread it around, or just . . . have the information there for other people to read. Ariana expressed the anxieties of having to justify personal and familial decisions: I dislike the attitudes the people take who are sitting across the desk from you. Its a look down person attitude. When you go there, they make you feel small and then they get too personal. Because I know they have to do their job and I know they have to find out a lot of personal things, but they sometimes go overboard with it. It makes you feel real bad when you have to explain to a person why you chose maybe to buy extra food or some treats for your children instead of paying the full light bill. Jasmine expressed a concern of many applicants when she explained her perception of the attitudes of her caseworkers. Jasmine moved from one county to another and had the same experience in both counties. They have the same attitude, as if theyre giving you something out

93

of their pocket. I had to deal with them accordingly, you know, and let them know that Im here to apply for assistance and . . . youre not giving me anything. I mean, yes, its the taxpayers money, and Im going to pay taxes too when I go to work. Leoma pointed out that she did not like the long questions you have to go through, the long wait you have to go through. All those humiliating questions they have to ask you. When you go up there, how much money you got in your pocket right now you know those kinds of things. Living with Stigma Many women interviewed for this study demonstrated sensitivity to the stigma attached to welfare use. In their every day lives, they heard negative comments about people who used welfare. Diana explained what she heard about women on welfare and how it made her feel. I feel bad especially if Im receiving it at the time and I hear some people talking about it, about the taxes, how they working to pay for us welfare people. I feel real bad about it. Welfare recipients constantly hear that women on welfare are lazy, unmotivated, and exploiting the welfare system. Danielle told the interviewer that she heard people complaining that welfare recipients need to get out and get a job, but they have to realize that its not that easy. Ariana revealed: It makes me mad at some of the things that they say people dont need but you need it. Then they put everybody in the category theyre just getting it to be lazy, you know that syndrome, and thats not true with everybody. Recipients feel particularly vulnerable to criticism and contemptuous attitudes when using food stamps. Sierra, 52, told of her experience: I didnt like the food stamps, because when you got in the line people looking at you, you know. How much you buying? I wasnt buying no steak or big packs of pork chops with them food stamps. You know, people look down on you. Marie expressed a similar experience: I dont like when you go in the grocery store and people look at you with the EBT

94

card. Aaliyah told the interviewer of her experience using food stamps: I mean its embarrassing when you going to the market and you have food stamps; its very embarrassing. Erin, like many women on welfare, rejected the criticism, embraced the value of independence, and saw AFDC as necessary. She stated: It makes me angry, and I feel like its . . . its very ignorant of a person to judge someone. In other words, if you havent walked in my shoes, and you havent been where Ive been, then you cant really judge and say someones lazy. All of my life Ive . . . tried to be very independent. . . . I have tried to do pretty much for myself and my children. But Im not going to let my children starve or lack anything just for pride or worrying about what someone else is going to think because Im on AFDC. If it puts food on the table and clothes on my childrens backs, then I have to do what I have to do for them. Women interviewed often asserted that the critics of welfare use do not understand their life-worlds and thus cannot possibly understand why they use welfare. Amelias observations are quite typical: Basically they are speaking from a position where they dont know what is going on. They . . . have not had an experience with it personally. And probably most of them have always been pretty well off. I dont know if theyre just going by statistics or what, but I dont think they are going into the neighborhoods and seeing the recipients or how they live. They are trying to understand why they even got to a point where they felt they needed assistance.

95

Chapter 9 Living with Family Independence


Family Life Classes The assumption that poverty stems from the lack of human capital and the culture of poor people underlies FI and the welfare reforms of the 1990s. The two most important parts of FI that manifest these assumptions are the Family Life Skills class and Job Club class. The Family Life Skills class, according to The Manual Memo, is required for adult and minor parent recipients determined to be in need of family skills by the CM. The training program classes address the personal, social and work-related needs of the participant, including parenting education. The topics covered in these classes are, parenting, budgeting, and family planning/medical information. As Figure 9.1 shows, 68 percent of those employed and 57 percent of those who were unemployed did not attend the Family Life classes. Therefore, it is important to discern welfare recipients views and assessments of these classes. The interviewers asked welfare leavers about the benefits of the Family Life classes and Job Club. Many of these recipients felt that the Family Life classes helped. Claire explained: Just being a single parent and being a new parent, they teach you a lot. Bailey expressed a similar experience: I kind of enjoyed the classes . . . because there were a lot of single moms in there. And they did teach me some things that I didnt know about little boys, and some things that I didnt know about little girls. You know, as a single parent, I had to learn it on my own really. But yes, they helped me, as far as parenting. [The classes] gave me a lot of helpful pamphlets and showed me a lot of good films.

Melissa remarked, It was a good thing as far the females sitting around talking about what goes on in your house with your children. Madeline appreciated the older women in her class

96

because, as she stated, I could tell them and they could tell me things and we could learn from one another. Figure 9.1 Participated in Family Life Classes
70 68

60 57

50

40

43

30

32 Employed

Percent

20 Yes No

Unemployed

For Kaylee, The Life Skills classes showed me that once I get off of welfare I can go further. The parenting classes taught me things that, being a single parent, I never knew. According to Kaylee, the class taught her parenting skills and, as she stated, how to discipline my son. Paige learned about budgeting: It was just showing me how to really focus in on budgeting my money. How I spend my money, and basically how to take care of my household expenses. As in budgeting everything in one month . . . where I wont find myself in a hole. Many women interviewed indicated that they knew the material covered in the Family Life class and Job Club and, therefore, they learned little from the classes. Faith told the interviewer: They told me how to take care of my child and all that, and dressing and washing clothes. But you know I already knew all that stuff. Phyllis shared a similar experience, Some of the stuff did help, but a lot of it I was already doing. When asked whether she had taken the

97

Family Life class and if it had helped, Jenna responded: Yes, thats the one they had in order to keep your check. No, because it was just preschool stuff. It was really preschool stuff, stuff you already knew. Andrea attended the class only one day, because the people they had in there were very illiterate and . . . they were holding me back. Some women, like Riley, showed contempt as it wasted their time with the yang, yang, do this and do that. Connie felt that she received little or no benefit from the class and stated: It cost me to go to the classes. . . I lost more money not being able to go to work than I received. So it really didnt help. Angelina left welfare because she felt the Family Life class was a waste of time. She explained: I told them to go ahead and just cut it off because I was looking for employment and everything. . . . I didnt want the hassle and the aggravation. They wanted me to take classes. I felt by being in the class, I couldnt go out and look for jobs like I wanted to. Because we had to be in the class eight hours a day, and I felt like if I was out looking I could find something on my own instead of having to sit in the class. Job Club Classes Job Club is another class offered by FI to teach recipients how to write resumes, conduct interviews, fill out job applications and dress properly for interviews. The Manual Memo states, Job Club consists of a period of structured classroom training plus eight weeks of Job-Club-JobSearch . . . where participants learn job seeking and job retention skills. This class concentrates on helping leavers find employment. However, interviewees had different perceptions of its benefits. Some saw the class as a waste of time. Figure 9.2 shows that 51 percent of employed interviewees and 45 percent of unemployed interviewees reported they did not attend the Job Club class.

98

Figure 9.2 Interviewees Who Attended Job Club Class by Employment Status
56

55 54

52

50 49 48

51

46

Percent

Employed 45 44 Yes No Unemployed

Many of the women said that they gained something from this class. The class taught Madeline how to do a resume better and informed her where different jobs . . . were available. The information motivated her and served as a reinforcement to try to help you get back on your feet again. Leah learned a lot from the Job Club and missed no days. She reported to the interviewer: They taught me a lot about. . . a job application or an interview. They taught me about my attitude, my posture; how to dress when I go . . . looking for a job. They told me how to talk, how to sit. Janet felt the Job Club class helped her in writing her resume, but she did not like the low wage jobs targeted for welfare leavers. Janet explained her experience with Job Club: I had a nice teacher; she was a nice young lady. . . . Theyre training me for how to fill out applications, how to do a resume, and most of the jobs they are sending us . . . to is Burger King. I said thats not my field . . . I got a lot of information out of it. . . . Because the way I was setting up my resume . . . was wrong. . . . Most of the places they were talking about - Burger King,

99

McDonalds, Wal-Mart - Im not knocking those jobs . . . if I have to go to Burger King, Ill go to Burger King and flip a burger to get me a dollar. Natalie credited the Job Club class with her employment and the job she is proud to have. I mean its not that bad, its two weeks, and thats how I got my first good job. You know I did the class, went out and applied for the job . . . and I got hired two weeks later. I was making $7.50 starting off and . . . . before the year was over I was . . . five cents away from $8.00. That wasnt bad for somebody who didnt finish high school. . . . I told my sister, you got a high school diploma and you are just barely making $7.00. Many women interviewed found the Job Club class useless. Lillian said: The Job Club sucked, because it was so boring. I really couldnt stay awake during the class. He just was so repetitive, and he just was treating you like you were in elementary school. She made the following observations regarding the class: I went to a job skills class, or Job Club or whatever. And there were people that could barely read, and they had been in Job Club two or three times, and they still dont have a job, because they still dont know how to read. Those people should not be cut off. They cant do a resume. They cant fill out an application. You know, some of them dont even have the means to go and buy a picture ID to get a job.

This observation illustrates why a recipient with a high school diploma, like Lillian, may not like Job Club: Many participants have the skills being taught in the class. For them, the problem is not the lack of job search skills, but the lack of employment opportunities. Amanda left welfare because of the Family Life class and the work experience component. She explained: I left public assistance because I wanted a job. They had those training programs where you would go for the six weeks and once you did the six weeks training . . . you didnt get paid for the job. I felt like I wasnt getting paid and I could do better. I went out and found my own job.

100

Sofia addressed the burden and difficulties of attending the classes: By the time you run back and forth to those classes that they want you to come up there to, by the time you go to these child care classes that they want you to go to, these job classes that they want you to come to, the time that you take to go and get your baby WIC or whatever, your money is going on transportation alone. Jordan reported that it seemed like it was a waste of my time. I had two kids and I had to get up early in the morning and it still didnt get me a job. I already knew the steps on how to find a job. Molly explained likewise, having you to do certain things that you know how to do . . . like how to fill out a job application, how to conduct yourself during an interview. Thats something I already knew; Ive learned that in high school. Support Services Support Services are a major component of FI. These services are designed to assist welfare recipients in making the transition from welfare to work. Interviews with front-line workers and local managers suggest that support services are essential in helping welfare leavers make that transition. However, they are problematic in the sense that a significant number of case managers view these services as contradicting the primary goal of FI to promote selfsufficiency and independence. Therefore, in studying the impact of welfare reform on the quality of life of welfare leavers, it is necessary to discern the accessibility of these services to welfare leavers and their views regarding such services. This chapter explores welfare leavers experience with support services. A significant number of participants reported they were not aware that support services were available to them. Figure 9.3 shows the percentage of welfare leavers not aware of services available after leaving welfare. In 1996, 51 percent of welfare leavers did not know they could continue to get assistance to pay for child care. In the same year, 60 percent did not know that

101

adult Medicaid was available. As late as 1999, 38 percent of respondents still did not know child care services were available. It is important to note many women were not aware that other services, such as food stamps, were available after leaving welfare. The percentage of women not knowing about these services decreased over the years.

Figure 9.3 Percent of Welfare Leavers who were Not Aware of Services Available after Leaving Welfare
70 60

50

Percent

40

30

20

10

0 Childcare Food Stamps Adult Medicaid Children Medicaid

1996 51.1 24.8 59.9 37.4

1997 52.73 24.94 20.2 18.53

1998 40.18 20.2 43.34 15.06

1999 38.02 18.53 36.02 10.24

Source: The South Carolina Department of Social Services, Survey of Former Family Independence Program Clients: Cases Closed During October Through December, 1996, The South Carolina Department of Social Services, Division of Program Quality Assurance. This figure is based on these reports from November 1997 through December 1999.

According to interviewees, many recipients had to demand support services. For example, Madeline told the interviewer: A lot of things you had to know. A lot of things that they would only tell certain people and a lot of programs that they were offering . . . if you didnt know they wouldnt tell you; if you didnt bring it to their attention . . . they wouldnt tell you about the program themselves. According to Alexa, her case manager did not tell her about available child care. She reported: When I first found out . . . I had already been . . . paying and

102

stuff. I didnt even know that about the childrens vouchers. Similarly, Rebecca found out about the vouchers from my girlfriend, my next door neighbor. Sophia remarked: There are a lot of things that they have going on and they dont tell you about them. You have to find it out through hearsay. Then you ask about it and then they will tell you. Sophia speculated they are afraid that people will abuse the system. From her experience, Sophia described how the system worked: I wasnt informed, I had to ask. Because I knew it was more to the system than just that. I just asked. They help you for three to six months, if you work a job three to six months. They give you a down payment on a car. . . They help you get your car fixed, theyll help you get insurance on it. . . . Its basically whatever you need. But they aint going to tell you about it. You got to ask, you got to struggle hard enough and then get almost downand-out. When you ask one question, they wont say well we got this other. You got to struggle some more to get over here. Support services are essential for welfare leavers to find and retain employment. Most leavers with low-wage jobs cannot afford to pay child care. As shown by figure 9.4, about 56 percent of welfare leavers reported that child care is not affordable.

Figure 9.4 Affordability of Child Care


60

57 56

50

44

P rc n e et

43 40 Yes No

Employed Unemployed

103

Gabrielle stated she never wanted to go on welfare, but affordable child care was a prerequisite for her to maintain employment, and to get it she had to be on welfare. She explained: In order for the ABC program to pay for my kids to go to the daycare, I had to receive welfare, because the amount of money I was making at my job wasnt paying enough for me to pay $100 per week. In reference to DSS she asserted: The only thing they are helping me with is child care, and thats good because I dont have to pay nothing but $10 out of my pocket. Carolina explained: I had my kids in the day-care up there. I had to pay $200 to register them plus $130 every week just to keep them there and thats hard. And the only way I could get that free was with welfare. Vanessa received about $50 as her monthly TANF stipend. She explained: It wasnt that much. And the only reason I went back on it that time was child care . . . and you see I was working and needed child care . . . the child care is good; because the jobs Ive had I wouldnt have been able to pay my rent and child care. By being aggressive, Sophia persuaded DSS to pay her mother for child care on the weekends as she worked. Sophias role in persuading DSS to provide child care illustrates the influence clients can have over the distribution of support services. She explained: So they paid for my children to go to child care from eight to five; so what about the weekends? Day care is not open on the weekends so what am I going to tell my boss? I cant go to work because I dont have anybody to keep my kids! So now they pay my mother to keep my kids . . . They pay my mother to watch my kids during the week . . . They pay her instead of putting my kids in the daycare. In her struggle to get child care Sophia said, I had to struggle but it was all progress. But it was all good. Both Evelyn and Morgan saw several benefits of daycare. It allowed them to work and it provided a good experience for their children. Evelyn pointed out: My kids was in daycare among other kids. And one of my kids did learn from being around other kids in the daycare. Morgan added, Yes, they have. I have daycare and it really works for me, because

104

hes interacting with more kids. Gabriella appreciated the child care services made possible by DSS: Every time I needed their assistance with child care, they were very helpful. Well, I only went through the voucher one time, and they gave me a long list of daycares that I could chose from. And the one that I did choose, I stuck with them and I had no problems out of them. I always worked things out with them. I liked the daycare and I liked the service and stuff. If I could pay whatever I could, out of my pockets; just to keep my child going, then I would. Child care services were also provided for children after school. Avery explained: Last year and this year they helped me out with the after school vouchers for my twelve-year-old and my nine-year-old. When I was at work and she was at school, theyll pick them up after school and bring them home by the time they think Im home from work. The lack of transportation is one of the major barriers to employment for welfare leavers interviewed. Alice said her case manager provided such services as needed: Sometimes I didnt have money to go to work, and sometimes they did provide some tokens for transportation. FI assisted Natalie with car repairs and rent. She described the support she received: My car got repossessed and they paid the balance off for my car. . . . They offered to fix my headlights. They offered to fix my car for me . . . so I could go and find another job. They paid my deposit for the apartment here. I mean, they help out in a lot of ways when you really, really need it. When you really, really need it you can go and they will help you out the best way they can. And thats what I like about it. Some counties provide transportation to doctors offices. Margaret explained how DSS provided transportation services for her: They helped me when I had to go to the doctor, like times when I didnt have a ride when I was pregnant. Ann believed support services helped her. She told the interviewer: Before I got terminated, they helped me get into college for the CNA, a program to help me get a career

105

instead of just having a job. We were in this class for six months and it was very educational for me. It taught me a whole lot of things. Chloe acknowledged that support services helped her with employment, transportation, and daycare. Enrolled as a full-time student in a nontraditional program, Chloe wanted fulltime employment. Her caseworker told the workforce manager or someone and they found Chloe immediate employment. She explained the process. They gave me $150 stipend for Wal-Mart to get business attire and $309 worth of work on my car because I needed tires and an oil change in order to get back and forth to work. I had child care. I received news that I got the position on Thursday. On Monday my child was in a nursery and my child care had been paid for. They were just totally different people. But I went through every step and procedure that they gave me. I didnt get an attitude about it. I made up my mind; this is what I need to do. . . . I mean they have a lot of things they still need to work on but I did find out that if you follow through the system and follow up on what. . . they tell you to do then it could actually work for you.

Work Experience as Training Work experience is a component of the FI Program that counts towards recipients work participation. Melissa told the interviewer she really enjoyed that job, but that was just volunteer work. Many recipients did not like the work experience component. Lois, 26, a high school graduate, bitterly recounted her experience with this component: Yes, working for free, I worked six weeks for free . . . They tell you . . . what the job pays and subtract the food stamps and what you get on welfare together and what is left . . . they will pay you. . . . They dont pay you. Because you want to know what I got, every two weeks I got $34. According to many recipients the work experience component does not offer job training. Moreover, for many it does not translate into full and meaningful employment. The interviewer asked Lois if her case manger placed her there for job training. She responded: No. I dont think so, it cannot be. She did housekeeping at a nursing home; thus it seems unlikely that her participation contributed to 106

job training. However, she eventually got a job at the nursing home with an income from $335 to $350 every two weeks. Erin had a more positive assessment of the work experience component. She proved to the DSS staff that she was over qualified for her assignment. She explained: I went through Work Experience while I was in AFDC, which I really didnt need, and they finally realized that after I got in the program, because they realized that I had more knowledge than what they were . . . anticipating. The agency removed Erin from the work experience component; she completed high school and received her CNA. The problem leavers identified with the work experience component is that after working at a site for six to twelve weeks, one is not guaranteed a job with the employer. Linda worked with a work experience component for three months without getting paid; nor did she get the job. She explained the process and the fact that one may participate in these programs to avoid sanctions. Reporting on her experience, she stated: I had to go through . . . a little work support program. They send so many people out there to the different job sites; you work training and its up to the company . . . to hire you. I did that. If you didnt go through the program, you werent going to receive your AFDC; you were going to be sanctioned. Amanda suggested that employers replace welfare recipients with other welfare recipients as a means of getting unpaid labor: You didnt get paid for the job. You do the six weeks and there was not any guarantee that you would get the job. So you just give these people six weeks of labor . . . and you never received any pay. After your six weeks was up then someone else would come in. . . . A lot of the girls that I knew that went with the program never got hired. Kathleen shared her contempt for the work experience component. She explained:

Yes, working for free? . . . They were saying you can work until they hire you . . . I know some people were working on jobs for like six months and stuff with no pay. Just on the check that DSS gives you. If that job wanted to hire you, they

107

could hire you; if not they wont, you know. I did not like that at all. Because you did just as much as work as anybody else did. And youre only getting $159 a month, doing long hours too. Barbara explained what she did not like about the work experience component. Like many recipients she referred to the work experience as volunteer work. She revealed: You volunteer, but then they can cut your stuff off . . . whats the point? Why? And you are not going to get hired. I thought the purpose was . . . to . . . find you a job . . . a paying job. Well, its about volunteer stuff. If Im going to be on a job, I do want to get paid. Many interviewees said they left because they refused to participate in the work component. Ariana provided the rationale for leaving welfare under those circumstances: They send you out on job sites and you just get the training, but you dont get paid like everybody else gets paid. So, I figured instead of me going and working for nothing, I could go and find me a job and get paid when everybody else get paid. So thats when I just went out and started working on my own. Jada was one of the few leavers who had a very positive experience with her work experience component. She went to work at DSS as a volunteer worker and was hired permanently. Jada reported she received a whole lot of training and was transferred to food stamps as a case worker, which I thought was ironic, you know. While all this time receiving benefits, and here I am being the one to work for the system, right? But I ended up with Prevent Child Abuse of South Carolina. Beverly explained that her case manager provided her with a choice of going through some kind of program . . . not to get paid . . . or training . . . She asked me what I was interested in and thats when I told her I was interested in CNA. I dont know who she referred me to, but thats when I got in the program at a local college.

108

Getting Off Welfare Figure 9.5 shows interviewees spells on welfare. Approximately 27 percent were on welfare for 12 months or less and about 11 percent were on welfare for six months or less. However, 51 percent of interviewees stayed on welfare for over two years.

Figure 9.5 Interviewees Spells on Welfare


18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 15.72 14.85 13.54 15.72

10.92 9.61 7.42 5.24

6.99

0-6 Months 10.92

7-12 Months 15.72

13-18 Months 6.99

19-24 Months 14.85

25-36 Months 13.54

37-48 Months 9.61

49-60 Months 5.24

6-10 Years 15.72

Over 10 Years 7.42

Percent

Figure 9.6 shows the number of months they spent off welfare. Over 50 percent were off welfare for 24 months or less. Most interviewees had been off welfare longer than 19 months. The women interviewed for this study left welfare for different reasons. Some left because of an earned income, time limits, sanctions, or because they simply did not want to comply with the requirements of the Family Independence Program.

109

Figure 9.6 Interviewees Length of Time off Welfare


20.00 18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00
Percent

18.78

18.31

18.78

14.10 12.68

8.92

8.45

0 to 6 Months 12.68

7 to 12 Months 18.78

19 to 24 Months 18.31

31 to 36 Months 18.78

43 to 48 Months 14.10

49 to 60 months 8.92

Over 60 Months 8.45

Table 9.1 shows the reasons former welfare recipients reported leaving welfare. Black former recipients accounted for 70 percent of persons who had left welfare due to earned income and 70.6 percent of persons who had left for "other" reasons. In contrast, blacks were disproportionately represented among persons who had left due to time limits, accounting for 92.9 percent of these cases.

110

Table 9.1 Reason for Leaving Welfare, by Race


Race Black White Total Earned Income 70 30 100.0% Sanctions 77 22 100.0% Time Limits 92.9 7.1 100.0% Other Total 70.6 78.3 29.4 21.7 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Philip Richardson, Gregg Schoenfeld, Susan LaFever, Frances Jackson, and Mark Tecco. March 2001. Welfare Leavers and Diverters Research Study: One-Year Follow-Up of Welfare Leavers Final Report, Prepared For South Carolina Department of Social Services, McLean, VA: Maximus, Inc., Exhibit II-1, p.II-1

As shown in Figure 9.7, 45 percent of unemployed and 39 percent of employed interviewees were sanctioned. These women offered a variety of explanations as to why they were sanctioned. Connie suffered the imposition of sanctions because she failed to meet all the appointments and deadlines and other things that they said she had to do and still work. Vanessa did not make a lot of hours at her job so they wanted her to do that work support thing and work at her job too. She refused, and DSS sanctioned her. Nicole explained the circumstances in which she received a sanction: I told them if I had to work for free with DSS I could go out and find me a job and work for money. So I wouldnt do it and they sanctioned me.

111

Figure 9.7 Interviewees Sanctioned by Employment Status


70

60

61

55 50

45 40 39

Percent

Employed 30 Yes No Unemployed

Betty, like a significant number of recipients, received a sanction because she refused to disclose the name and information about her childs father. I didnt go along with them suing my babys father. I didnt want to sue my babys father. Bonnie told of a similar experience with FI: I was tired of my social worker and her nagging and telling me what time I had to do this and what time I had to do that. For a 30-year-old woman I didnt feel like I had to be subjected to that. So I said look, everything about the childs father and all that stuff gives me a headache. And I think that was the purpose to give you a headache so youll say I dont need it anymore. Evelyn got off the system for similar reasons. She explained: My youngest babys dad helps me with him, and he helps me with my three-year-old son thats not his. They put him on child support. I didnt want him on child support because he was helping me. So I just dropped everything, and I told him with me dropping all of this you got to take care of everything. And I was working. I had found a job; I was working at Dollar General.

112

Many interviewees stopped receiving assistance because the check and food stamps were reduced substantially and the benefits were not worth the requirements of FI. Lillian explained why she left: Because I feel the money wasnt worth . . . the hassle; it doesnt cover everything. I know it will not take care of my household, not with two kids, plus lights and the phone bill. One hundred and sixty dollars is not going to do it. Gloria explained she just got tired of the hassle of, you know, like jobs are going to jump out at you, and theyre not. Many of these recipients left welfare due to time limits. Some found jobs, but many did not. Lois left welfare, because my two years were about up and it was time for me to get a job and if I didnt get a job, she asked rhetorically, how am I going to support my family? Janice explained leaving welfare: Im not getting any kind of help now; thats what Im telling you. They told me my 24-month period was up and they cut their system off . . . Oh, I didnt leave; they cut me off.

113

Chapter 10 Employment Experience


Most interviewees had work experience and went on welfare in transition from one job to the next job. One of the most important indicators of the well-being of welfare recipients is their employment status. Thus, it is necessary to evaluate their employment status and experience at work. Unemployment As Figure 10.1 shows, 60 percent of the women interviewed were unemployed. This unemployment was not equal among the counties studied. As expected, it was significantly higher in poor and rural counties. For instance, unemployment among interviewees in Marion County was 77 percent, while it was 48 percent in Richland County. The poorest counties, Lee, Marion, and Marlboro, had the highest rates of unemployment among interviewees. Figure 10.1 Unemployment of Interviewees by County
All Counties
60.14

Richland

47.73

Orangeburg

62.26

Marlboro

63.16

Marion

77.5

Lee

75

Charleston

56.25

Allendale

60

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

114

Findings regarding the reasons why welfare leavers were not working are displayed in Table 10.1. Respondents who left welfare due to sanctions or time limits were more likely than other respondents to report that they could not find jobs. More importantly, over 24 percent of those sanctioned responded they were not working because of physical or mental illness or injury. Table 10.1 Unemployed Respondents - Reasons Not Working by Reason Left Welfare Reason Not Working Can't find job Don't have skills/experience Can't find job that pays enough Have no transportation Lack child-care In job training In full/part time education Physical/mental illness/injury (self) Physical/mental illness/injury illness/injury (other) Currently or recently pregnant Too old to work Want to stay home with children Couldn't get along with coworkers/boss Laid off from job Fired from job Quit job Other In-between temp jobs/seasonal ork Spouse works Earnings 9.0 2.5 2.5 6.4 11.5 2.5 3.9 24.4 8.3 10.9 0.0 7.0 0.0 10.3 7.7 0.0 3.9 3.9 0.0 Sanctions 20.2 3.8 2.6 19.3 16.6 0.6 4.1 17.0 6.4 5.6 0.0 9.3 0.0 11.1 3.2 2.3 8 0.0 0.0 Time Limits 16.7 2.4 1.9 19.3 15.1 0.0 6.5 21.7 2.7 5.9 0.8 7.5 .6 12.4 2.7 2.7 0.0 0.8 0.0 Other 7.6 1.1 0.0 10.9 16.7 1.1 5.4 31.9 6.2 8.3 1.1 10.5 0.0 5.8 1.8 1.1 2.2 3.3 1.1 Total 13.1 2.5 1.8 13.3 14.9 1.2 4.7 23.7 6.4 7.9 0.4 6.7 0.2 9.6 4.2 1.4 2.2 2.1 0.3

Source: Philip Richardson, Gregg Schoenfeld, Susan LaFever, Frances Jackson, and Mark Tecco. March 2001. Welfare Leavers and Diverters Research Study: One-Year Follow-Up of Welfare Leavers Final Report, Prepared For South Carolina Department of Social Services, McLean, VA: Maximus, Inc., Exhibit III-19, p.III-16.

115

Job Satisfaction It is not only important to note why leavers were not working, it is essential to document their experiences on the job. Many interviewees who worked with customers in the retail industry told interviewers that they enjoyed working with people or working with customers. Autumn stated, I like to have smiling faces. There was nothing I disliked about the job. For Judith, the people, the environment were good. Helen, who worked as a dormitory assistant, expressed that she liked working with the public best. She spoke highly of her job: I love my girls. I treat my girls just like theyre my kids. We dont have too much problems. Were like a family . . . and I like cleaning. I like seeing something real junky, then I can turn back, after I done finished cleaning it, then look at the job Ive done . . . so I like that. Taylor liked her job in a senior citizens home: I looked at it as a ministry when I was taking care of older senior citizens. They had their life, but now they were sick and not able to take care of themselves. And I felt like I was needed and . . . doing a job to give them some peace. Erin described her experience working with the elderly: I like the fact that I work with elderly people, and the fact that I can help them. . . . People seem to neglect elderly people a lot. A lot of families just throw them in a home, leave them. They have no one . . . They do have some people that treat them very harshly, which is bad. . . . Ive learned to take blood pressures, pulse . . . Ive learned so much. Its a lot of things about the elderly that people dont know, that they need to know. A lot of people say they wont do this kind of work. Its very hard, dont get me wrong; its not something easy, but I like it because its working with people. Jeans job responsibilities included working with other recipients thats on DSS receiving public assistance. She issue[d] bus tickets and described her job in the following way: Im an administrative secretary, and basically I do secretary work. And this job improved her life because it was a big improvement because the money is a whole lot better. Also, Jean liked helping people. She said this motivated her to get up every day to go to work.

116

Overworked One of the characteristics of low-wage jobs is a high rate of absenteeism and tardiness. Those who attend work have to assume the duties of those absent. Generally the work is hard and unrewarding. These issues were identified by interviewees as a major source of job dissatisfaction. Karen declared her frustration when everybody doesnt show up for work and youre forced to take on their load and its a lot. Erin felt overworked because they have younger girls thats not reliable; theyre never on time to work. Gabriella, like others, appreciated getting the extra hours because it increased her wages. She explained that many times her employer didnt have any workers coming in. I always took the slack for somebody else just to get extra money. Isabel felt overwhelmed, not only with the work, but when supervisors put work on me when they know they should do it themselves. Taylor complained about demands placed on her: A lot of time we were short of help and sometimes there were just two of us, so then two of you have to do work for sometimes three or four persons. . . And each person will have about 20 or 24 patients; you feel like you wanted to quit. But you try to hold your peace and work, because you know you need to make the money. Janet explained the long hours she sometimes had to work. Well we all felt it at the job. We felt that we were overworked and under paid. That was our biggest issues every time we had a meeting . . . I would leave in the morning [and] get home sometime at 7:30 P.M. They call on the phone, could you come back for three to eleven. Or could you come back, somebody didnt come in for seven to three. I told them, Im not going to come back at seven Ill come back on the three to eleven. So thats like stretching it. Jada described working with patients. Its very stressful, its a lot of pressure, too much, and its too much pressure. I have to come home and deal with my own kids and Im tired and real burned out physically and mentally. . . . We have doctors that come in and assign us to patients.

117

We are with that patient all day, all day, and its hard. Marie explained her job is just a job to me. . . . But I try not to quit because I dont want my kids to get in their mind that they can just stop. Thats the only reason. I try to explain to them that there are a lot of things you dont like, but you have to keep on. Morgan worked at a lumber mill: Lifting boards, its too much hard work for a woman. I was on the assembly line. The wood would come down the line. Its like big boards you have to pick them up and stack them. I used to cut wood. The doctor says thats probably why my hand is like it is now. . . Its too hot, there is no air. Its not a good environment to be working. The restrooms are not clean. I didnt have nowhere else to go. No Advancement Many leavers see their jobs as dead end jobs with little opportunity for advancement. In reference to her job, Helen remarked, Its not going to take me anywhere. Alice declared that she did not expect to advance, because the company was not growing. The growth is very slow. I was working there for . . . four years and I think I should have been more advanced than I am. You know its slow. . . . But they know I do a good job. Gabriella, after working for about three years, was offered a promotion to assistant manager at a deli. However, due to problems with child care and tensions at the job she did not accept the promotion. She explained, I didnt want to take it. . . . It was a lot of confusion going on . . . I didnt want to be in that position at that time and I was going to school and stuff. . . . I needed a sitter so I just didnt worry about taking it. Gabriellas case shows how child care issues serve not only as barriers to employment, but to advancement as well. Elaine hopes to maintain her present job until something better comes. Asked if she liked her job making $8 an hour, doing kitchen help and setting tables, she replied, Well, if it could pay the bills . . . I want something thats got some advancement . . . you know how it

118

is. I mean, I like people and I dont mind doing the work, but everybody, I think, wants to be a little bit better anyway. Donna articulated a similar concern: I feel like I have a whole lot more in me to offer than just doing what Im doing. Dont get me wrong. Im grateful to have a job, but I see where I have capabilities to do other things, and Im planning on doing that, you know. I look at that as a start for me and its been a good start, and its given me growth, and it has built me up given my self-esteem back, to move on to other things. Transportation is a major barrier to employment for welfare leavers. Joan wanted to quit her job because going that distance for that little bit of money, it really wasnt worth it. Jordan had a similar experience. I mean it got kind of stressful because I had kids and the long hours and then I had to travel a whole hour before I get to work, so it was like a total of fourteen hours a day. Many of the women interviewed felt they did not get respect on their jobs. According to Catherine, sometimes I didnt like the way they treated us, but there was nothing we could do about that. Mary did do something; she quit her job, because I didnt want anybody cussing at me. Isabel basically liked her job, but felt like quitting because she sometimes felt her opinions and thoughts are not really getting heard. Moreover, she asserted, other supervisors put work on me when they know they have to do it themselves. Taylor, who worked as a nurse assistant, complained that the staff did not appreciate her work. They dont realize how hard the nurse assistant works and that we are the backbone of the nursing home or hospital . . . [They] try to get on your case really when theres no reason to.

119

Not Enough Pay As expected, interviewees overwhelmingly expressed dissatisfaction with their wages; as Figure 10.2 shows, 62 percent ran out of money between paychecks. As shown in Table 10.2, 63 percent of interviewees made less than $600 a month. In Allendale, 70 percent of respondents made less that $600 a month. Interviewees felt they were not always paid for overtime work. This was Janets biggest problem, as she explained: I had to do a lot of overtime and I wasnt getting overtime pay. Then some weeks she gives it to us and some weeks she doesnt. I had gone in there because I didnt get my ten cents raise in November. And here it is January, eleven months done past. Gabriella, dissatisfied with her job, explained: I was supposed to get my raises, and I really didnt get them the way I was supposed to. So, I believe I was underpaid for the work that I was doing. Sometimes the managers were slack. We had different managers coming in and out, never could get to our evaluations and stuff on time, so that threw our raises behind. And while our raises were behind, I was doing more work, so I thought maybe that was a little slack on their part. But when I did get my raise, it wasnt more than a quarter or fifteen cents. Figure 10.2 Run Out of Money between Paychecks
70

60

62

50

40 38 30

20

P ent erc

10

0 Yes No

120

Elizabeth summarized the frustration many of the women interviewed felt with their lowwage jobs: They dont offer no benefits or nothing. I want something that offers some benefits. Dont have any opportunities to advance. They just dont pay you enough. But its a job; it helps me with my baby and my bills . . . Well its a job. I really dont like cleaning behind people. . . . I want a better job than what I got because I dont plan on cleaning up behind people for the rest of my life. Many of the women interviewed worked part-time and/or alternating hours. Therefore, reliable and stable hours concerned many of them. As Table 10.2 shows, only 46 percent of the interviewees worked 40 or more hours per week. Melissa reported that when she started her job, she worked forty or more hours a week. However she charged, the manager really was coming out with her true colors . . . trying to stop my long hours and started working me like 20 hours to 30 hours. My check started to look like $150 a week or $120 a week. Madeline reported encountering a similar problem while working at a fast food restaurant. I wasnt getting the hours, no matter how available I became. I was working at Checkers . . . but I was not getting the hours. I was paying more for gas than . . . the paycheck was really going to pay. Yeah. It cost more to work than what I was getting. Table 10.2 Monthly Income and Hours Worked Weekly by County
Monthly Income < $600 $600- $900 $901- $1,200 $1,201- $1,500 $1,500 > Hours Worked Weekly <20 20-29 30-35 36-39 40 and Over Allendale 70.00 20.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 Charleston 65.63 18.75 9.38 3.13 3.13 Lee 83.33 4.17 8.33 4.17 0.00 Marion 62.50 15.00 17.50 2.50 2.50 Marlboro 68.42 15.79 10.53 5.26 0.00 Orangeburg 60.38 22.64 5.66 5.66 5.66 Richland 56.82 19.32 9.09 3.41 11.36 All Counties 63.41 17.75 9.06 4.35 5.43

0.00 25.00 5.00 5.00 45.00

15.63 15.63 25.00 9.38 21.88

0.00 8.33 4.17 4.17 79.17

12.50 7.50 5.00 2.50 62.50

5.26 26.32 5.26 15.79 47.37

5.66 11.32 11.32 9.43 43.40

12.50 11.36 17.05 7.95 39.77

9.06 13.04 12.32 7.61 46.01

121

Jane quit her job because it was not full-time. The hours varied. She took the job with the understanding she had a full-time position. But she explained: The hours they were giving me didnt meet the criteria of being a full-time job. I never got full time hours. Patricia said she eventually quit her job because they cut hours real bad to where, you know, it wasnt even no need for me to work there because I couldnt even pay my bills. Janice explained her difficulties with the night shift. She quit her job because it was so far and then it was dangerous being out on third shift coming home in the morning time. Linda quit her job because of her daughters illness. She stated: My daughter had . . . scoliosis, she had back surgery. So I had to quit. I had to be with her 24 hours a day because she couldnt walk and stuff. She was out of school for about five, about four-and-a-half months. She just went back to school this winter. Many of the women interviewed were laid off or fired from their jobs. Virginia got laid off because the job that I had shut down for the summer at USC. Doris lost three jobs because of businesses closing down. She recounted, The motel job went out of business, and one fastfood went out of business. The other job behind the Courthouse went out of business. Marie revealed: My shift shut down and they went by seniority. . . I didnt have anything but six months in the plant. There were a lot of people leaving. Ruth worked at Taco Bell . . . until it went out of business, and then I didnt have no job after that. Molly lost her job because they closed, so that has been quite an adjustment for me right there. Martha explained the circumstances of her unemployment, Because my job closed. They came here and they left. It was a plant . . . and they just closed down. They sold out to another company and the company didnt reopen or establish any jobs for the people that were already working and they left.

122

Chapter 11 Life after Welfare


Making Ends Meet Many interviewees indicated they were having difficulties trying to make ends meet. Carolyn told the interviewer, I dont have an income so I guess I have a lot of financial difficulties. Her son paid her bills. She managed to have what we need which is the basics. Nothing of what we want. No way can I get us what we want. She went on to explain, to some extent, the conditions facing poor people. I think they need to come spend the night with me. They would see that we live and sleep with roaches and rats . . . and its hot because the air conditioner doesnt work. . . . You have kids looking at you because they are not pleased with what they are wearing and we cant do any better . . . and sometimes we have to choose between our own personal needs and our kids and thats a hard thing to deal with when you are young. Morgan made just enough to pay her bills and thats about it. Zoe admitted the benefits of TANFs monthly stipend as she struggled trying to stay ahead, trying to get myself back ahead. I mean that little . . . assistance did stop; it didnt really hurt much . . . . But it hurt in a sense because . . . I didnt have it so I had to improvise some kind of way. Speaking of her circumstances, Megan said: You dont catch up. Get a phone one month; its off the next month. Get it on one month; its off in two months. Nancy lamented, there was nothing I can do, just keep working to pay the bills, you know, I live check by check. . . . I dont catch up. I dont catch up that is the whole problem; I dont catch up, and I wish I could catch up. Peggy reported problems she encountered with the termination of public assistance: I just moved out on my own. It was very difficult trying to take care of three kids, and you only making $5, $6 an hour and trying to take care of rent and all that when youre not getting assistance.

123

Some interviewees reported problems getting enough food. According to the Welfare Leavers and Diverters Research Study, about 25 percent of the respondents who were not currently working reported that they had cut the size of meals or skipped meals in the past year(Richardson et al. 2000). Lillian reported on the difficulties of finding a job and providing food for her family: Its no extra jobs. The economy is so low. I struggle to buy food. I really cant buy food. I have to go to other peoples house and eat food. Marie revealed that after welfare she received help from the Sisters of Charity and lived in one of their shelters. She explained her decision to move her family to the shelter. It was, like I said, one of the difficult times. I didnt like the fact that I had to have my children in there. But once again, I had to do what I had to do. I had to get them out of an environment that I felt wasnt good for me like it wasnt good for them. So at that time my mom was going through some things with herself and I didnt want to leave them with anyone else. Because family or no family I couldnt trust them so I went into the shelter and I stayed 41 days. I did go back into the situation but at that time it was better in a way. But in a way it eventually fizzled completely out. Then me and my mom got a place together. Studies have discovered that women on welfare learn to manage daily life with a small amount of money. The interviewees in this study supported these findings. Ruth explained that she had to learn to budget: Ive been learning to budget myself, to the point where at least I know Ill be straight for the next paycheck. Learning to budget myself, that helps out a lot. Similarly, Morgan told the interviewer that she tried to save by putting money aside here and there. Zoe had to pinch and squeeze and prepared herself for the time when she would no longer receive welfare. I knew that I had to make a change in order to be able to function without that little bit of money per month, so I had to just manage myself to where I would be able to adjust once that money stopped coming. So thats the main thing, because I didnt have a fulltime job.

124

Health Care Issues Interviewees identified the lack of access to professional healthcare as being one of the major problems they confronted after leaving welfare. As Figure 11.1 shows, of the 184 women who explicitly addressed the question of healthcare, 39 percent reported not having health insurance. Figure 11.1 Interviewees with Health Insurance or Medicaid
45.00 40.54 40.00 38.92

35.00

30.00

25.00

20.00 20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00 Medicaid Health Insurance No Health Insurance

As shown in Figure 11.2, only 58 percent of employed interviewees had health insurance. Shirley, who no longer received Medicaid, told the interviewer she had had health problems since being off public assistance: Yeah my eyes, I cant half see and I cant afford glasses. The Medicaid when I was on it they gave me some glasses but I broke them. I didnt mean to break them. But I wasnt on Medicaid any more and I couldnt afford to get any more.

125

Erin explained her health problems since leaving welfare. She worked two jobs and neither of her employers provided health insurance. I have a health problem, and its hard to get benefits at a lot of jobs. . . . Even though I do have health problems Im still working. The places where I am now do not have benefits. And its hard when you have a health problem, and youre taking medication, plus youre trying to work. . . . So, right now, Im in a dilemma where I had to take two jobs because Im trying to keep my bills up, because my bills are behind because of my . . . health problems, getting sick and that type of thing. . . . youre between a rock and hard place.

Erin was in the untenable position of having to work harder to pay her health care bills, while working harder only made her health worse. She told the interviewers how she obtained health care since leaving welfare: Well, its according to what the situation may be. I have been sick and my medication has been out. Ive called my doctors office and told them I need medication. Im out. I dont have the money to get it. Sometimes they may have samples and sometimes they dont. But, if its . . . really a dire emergency I just may borrow some money and basically pay it back when . . . I have it.

Figure 11.2 Interviewees with Health Insurance by Employment Status


70

60 58 55 50

40

30

33 26

20 19

P rc n e et

10 9 0 Yes No Medi c aid Employed Unempl oyed

126

Susan explained: The assistance that I need is mostly with my medical assistance, because when my kids get sick I cant just take them to the doctor because I dont have the money to pay them right then. As Figure 11.3 shows, of the 231 women who addressed the issue, 31 percent reported that they did not visit a doctor when they were sick. This is significantly higher than responses to a similar question reported in the Welfare Leavers study. Table 11.1 shows over 10 percent of respondents had someone in their homes who could not get medical care during the previous year. The rate was higher for those not working, as Table 11.2 shows over 14 percent of unemployed respondents had someone in their homes who could not get medical care in the previous year. Nicole explained: A lot of my money has to go towards my health care, because my kids still have Medicaid, but me myself, I have to pay for my health care.

127

Figure 11.3 Interviewees Practices Regarding Doctor Visits when Sick


70.00

61.47 60.00

50.00

40.00

31.60 30.00

20.00

10.00 5.19 1.73 0.00 Visit Doctor Do Not Visit Sometimes Don't Get Sick

Like Annie, many welfare leavers took their children to the emergency room and hoped theyll still see them. This seemed to be the prevailing strategy among them, because as Gloria stated, they have to give you assistance, you know. In this regard, Phyllis responded: I go to the emergency room. They will bill you later. And I worry about that when it comes because my children are going to be taken care of. Many interviewees said they went to the public health care centers in their respective counties for health care. Sierra explained, Im on a co-payment. They go by your income at the clinic . . . like $10, something like that. Kaylee reported going to the clinic and telling the staff: Im sick. I need to see the doctor. They put me on a sliding fee and they bill me.

128

Some women interviewed pointed out that they had problems paying for medication. Some went without prescription medicine and used home remedies. Natalie revealed, I try to treat it with something like a home remedy, something I can buy at the store, tough it out most of the time. Alice said, I do the old time remedy thing. Ill get well. If it aint hurting that bad, we dont need to fix it. Doris had to buy three or four medications a month but many times she could not afford all of them so she would get the main one, my high blood pressure pills. She told the interviewer she made sure to get the main one, and then paid for one or whatever. Vonita said, My biggest thing is paying for my medicine, my insulin and my strips. The Welfare Leavers study documented the adverse events that occurred in the lives of welfare leavers before last year and during last year. Table 11.1 shows that 25 percent of the respondents reported they had gotten behind in rent payments before the previous year and 33 percent reported getting behind in the past year. Twelve percent reported having moved during the previous year because they could not afford to pay for housing, and another 19 percent said they had to move for the same reason before the previous year. Forty-eight percent reported they had gotten behind in paying a utility bill in the past year. Over 20 percent indicated that during the past year they needed but could not find childcare services.

129

Table 11.1 Adverse Events that Happened to Respondents Adverse Event Got behind in paying for rent or other housing Had to move because could not pay for housing (Moved in last 12 months for other reasons) Got behind on a utility bill Went without electricity Went without heat Had water cut off Had to go to a homeless shelter Had telephone cut off Children had to live with someone else because Needed a regular babysitter or child care service but could not find it Had a car or truck taken away because could not pay for it Had a child who got in trouble with police Needed a regular babysitter or child care service but could not pay for it Had someone in your home who got sick or hurt When you could not get medical care When Happened Before During Last Year Last Year 25.2 32.8 19.4 n/a 26.1 9.4 5.8 5.0 3.2 23.0 4.5 13.4 7.0 4.0 15.2 4.3 12.1 25.7 48.2 11.4 8.7 7.0 1.8 34.9 4.5 21.6 5.6 4.8 24.3 10.2

Source: Philip Richardson, Gregg Schoenfeld, Susan LaFever, Frances Jackson, and Mark Tecco. March 2001. Welfare Leavers and Diverters Research Study: One-Year Follow-Up of Welfare Leavers Final Report, Prepared For South Carolina Department of Social Services, McLean, VA: Maximus, Inc., Exhibit IV-1, p.IV-2.

Table 11.2 shows the percentage of respondents who reported adverse events in the past year, by employment status. The non-working respondents were slightly more likely than working respondents to have experienced adverse events in the past year. They were more likely to get behind on rent payment. They were also more likely to go without heat and to become homeless.

130

Table 11.2 Adverse Events that Had Happened to Respondents in the Past 12 Months, by Employment Status Employment Adverse Effect Got behind in paying for rent or other housing Had to move because could not pay for housing (Moved in last 12 months for other reasons) Got behind on a utility bill Went without electricity Went without heat Had water cut off Had to go to a homeless shelter Had telephone cut off Children had to live with someone else because could not afford to take care of them Needed a regular babysitter or child care service but could not find it Had a car or truck taken away because could not pay or it Had a child who got in trouble with police Needed a regular babysitter or child care service but could not pay for it Had someone in your home who got sick or hurt when you could not get medical care Working 31.2 10.5 25.7 47.9 9.9 7.1 6.2 1.5 34.0 4.0 18.2 5.9 5.1 22.6 7.6 Not Working 35.1 15 25.6 48.9 13.8 11.0 8.4 2.3 36.7 5.8 26.9 5.1 4.4 26.8 14.2

Source: Philip Richardson, Gregg Schoenfeld, Susan LaFever, Frances Jackson, and Mark Tecco. March 2001. Welfare Leavers and Diverters Research Study: One-Year Follow-Up of Welfare Leavers Final Report, Prepared For South Carolina Department of Social Services, McLean, VA: Maximus, Inc., Exhibit IV-3, p.IV-7.

Table 11.3 shows the percentage of respondents who reported adverse events in the past year by race. Whites were much more likely than blacks to have gotten behind in rent. On the other hand, blacks were more likely than whites to have gone without electricity. Whites were more likely to have someone in their homes who needed medical care but did not get it.

131

Table 11.3 Adverse Events by Race Race Adverse Event Got behind in paying for rent or other housing Had to move because could not pay for housing (Moved in last 12 months for other reasons) Got behind on a utility bill Went without electricity Went without heat Had water cut off Had to go to a homeless shelter Had telephone cut off Children had to live with someone else because could not afford to take care of them Needed a regular babysitter or child care service but could not find it Had a car or truck taken away because could not pay for it Had a child who got in trouble with police Needed a regular babysitter or child care service but could not pay for it Had someone in your home who got sick or hurt when you could not get medical care Black 2 9. 4 11.2 25.8 47.9 12.7 8.0 8.0 1.2 36.2 4.5 20.3 4.8 5.1 23.5 9.7 White 42.0 14.8 24.4 49.9 6.5 9.8 4.6 3.4 31.9 5.5 27.9 8.1 4.1 26.8 11.7

Source: Philip Richardson, Gregg Schoenfeld, Susan LaFever, Frances Jackson, and Mark Tecco. March 2001. Welfare Leavers and Diverters Research Study: One-Year Follow-Up of Welfare Leavers Final Report, Prepared For South Carolina Department of Social Services, McLean, VA: Maximus, Inc., Exhibit IV-p.IV-8.

132

Charity Charity played a significant part in many of these womens lives. They indicated that they had received food, clothes, toys, and utility payments from charities. Linette went to church for assistance to help pay her utility bills. Mia got help from her church. She explained: Our church was very helpful during that time. There were several times that they gave us money in the form of love offerings to help us with groceries or just miscellaneous things that we would need that the food stamps would not cover, basic things that you need for the home that you cant buy with your food stamps. They helped us with that. They gave . . . money several times for gas to go back and forth and look for jobs and whatnot. So they were very helpful. . . . They covered her tuition during that time. Jasmine went to a few churches for assistance. Joyce went to a church when they were giving out Christmas stuff. Joana went to a church to get some shirts for my kids to wear back to school. Beverly spoke for her family, asserting that they were lucky enough to get adopted by a family; they bought us clothes and gave us gift certificates. Many interviewees sought help in paying utility bills. Gabrielle explained: I went . . . to get a utility bill paid, I think around Christmas. Janice went to the Salvation Army and they paid the two months for her. Jasmine reported that she had gone to all of them for food and help with her utility bill. Molly explained the circumstances in which she sought assistance to help pay her utility bill: I went there once, and thats when my second child was a baby. I needed help with my light bill. They helped me; they gave me part of the money for my light bill. I had to come up with the other half. Morgan explained her circumstances and why she needed public assistance. My lights done got cut off. My kids dont have what they need. My kids dont have school clothes to go back to school. I went up there to the welfare office and told them and they told me they cant do anything . . . about it. But yet and still they supposed to help people. They wont put me on welfare or nothing. I 133

cooperated with the program. I went out and found my own job . . . The only reason why I cant work right at the present time is I have a pinched nerve in my right arm. The doctor has me under their care. They have my doctor paper and everything up there, but still they wont give me any help. Asked if she was better off since being off public assistance, Peggy responded, Right now I dont think I am. I think if I could get assistance for just a little while longer, some more job training, then I think I would be all right. View of Life after Welfare It is important to determine how the interviewees saw life after welfare. Carolyn reported she preferred working to being on welfare: If I had to choose one, I think work, right now. I dont like the looks. I dont have to go in there and be stripped of my pride, you know, walking in there every month, waiting in a smelly place, so I dont have to do that. Carolyn worked at Western Sizzler about twenty-five hours a week and made about $140 every two weeks. When asked about job satisfaction she replied, I get paid. I dont get paid enough. . . . See thats the trick, they keep you below those hours. You got to be like almost full time to get the benefits and Im only making twenty to twenty-five hour a week and you got to be full time so I dont qualify. Moreover, Carolyn said she felt like quitting her job every day. When asked what she did when she felt like quitting, she responded: Smoke me a joint, you know, drink me a beer with the girls, sit down and talk about it We laugh about it, like okay, the next day get up and do it again. Sometimes I smoke me a joint on the way to work so that helps too. Beverly was somewhat ambivalent: I wouldnt say better off, but Im able to provide more for me and my kids and I was able to get a better car and stuff so yeah in a sense yeah. Natalie considered herself better off because she had more money at her disposal. She admitted: Its better than waiting for a check once a month. . . its gotten better, like I said, little

134

by little, because the money each month was just horrible, so . . . its better in that sense, Im not struggling, though at times it does get a little hard, but Im not struggling. Lillian compared being on welfare with working in her low-wage job and concluded she was better off on welfare. It was better being on assistance than having the job. It was nothing. It was cleaning motel rooms. And I barely made it. She went on to explain the comparative advantage of welfare: Im going to start having to pay for some of my kids prescriptions too. So its best not for me to work. She explained the job was minimum wage, and I actually did better on the AFDC. I might have gone home [with] a few pennies more with the job, but it didnt matter. I mean, it was just not enough to do anything with. I couldnt even afford cable. Table 11.4 shows how respondents in the welfare leavers study viewed life after welfare. As the table shows, only 20 percent of respondents agreed that life was better on welfare. However, 30 percent of those who left due to time limits and 24.4 percent of those who left due to sanctions agreed life was better on welfare. About 62 percent of the respondents agreed with the statement you have more money now than when on welfare. Seventy percent of those who left due to income earnings agreed with the statement, while 47 percent of those who left due to time limits agreed with the statement. Over 48 percent of the respondents agreed that they were barely making it from day to day. Forty three percent of all respondents reported they worried more about their families than a year ago. As with the interviewees, welfare leavers assertion that life is better after welfare does not mean that life is not burdened with serious difficulties.

135

Table 11.4 View of Life after Welfare, by Reason for Leaving Welfare Statement Life was better when you were getting welfare You hardly ever worry about money anymore You have more money now than when on welfare You buy little extras without worrying about every penny You are pretty sure you will not need to be on welfare again You feel you are just barely making it from day to day You feel better about yourself than a year ago You worry more about your family now than a year ago You feel more stress now than you did a year ago Response Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Earned Income 15.4 84.6 38.3 61.7 69.6 30.4 57.2 42.8 56.6 43.4 47.6 52.4 84.7 15.3 38.2 61.8 39.2 60.8 Sanctions 24.4 75.6 29.3 70.7 55.2 44.8 52.4 47.6 47.8 52.2 47.1 52.9 81.3 18.7 46.0 54.0 41.3 58.7 Time Limits 30.0 70.0 28.6 71.4. 46.9 53.1 52.0 48.0 45.7 54.3 56.8 43.2 81.3 18.7 53.4 46.6 46.5 53.5 Other 22.0 78.0 32.7 67.3 58.9 41.1 57.4 42.6 55.7 44.3 46.5 53.5 82.2 17.8 46.4 53.6 37.6 62.4 Total 20.2 79.8 34.1 65.9 61.7 38.3 55.8 44.2 53.5 46.5 48.2 51.8 83.2 16.8 43.4 56.6 40.0 60.0

Source: Philip Richardson, Gregg Schoenfeld, Susan LaFever, Frances Jackson, and Mark Tecco. March 2001. Welfare Leavers and Diverters Research Study: One-Year Follow-Up of Welfare Leavers Final Report (Prepared For South Carolina Department of Social Services, McLean, VA:Maximus, Inc.), Exhibit IV-19, p.IV-20.

The respondents reporting that life is better after welfare is problematic given their responses to view of life after welfare, as well as their responses to interview questions. Table 11.5 compares working and non-working respondents regarding views of life after welfare. Table 11.5 indicates that there are significant differences in the responses of working and nonworking welfare leavers to each of the statements. Nevertheless, 65 percent of those not working

136

felt their lives were not better on welfare. More perplexing is that 40 percent of the non-working respondents reported they had more money than when they were on welfare. However, 54 percent of the non-working respondents, compared to 36 percent of the working respondents, reported that they worried more about their families than a year ago. The response to the question seemed more about the stigma attached to being on welfare than about the material conditions in which many of these women lived. Nicole said she was better off after welfare. But she regarded health care not so well, and she worked at a janitorial service, part time . . . only three days and like two hours a day, so its $75 to $80 every two weeks. Nicole also said that a lot of my money has to go towards my health care. Table 11.5 View of Life after Welfare, by Employment Status Employment Status Not Workin Working 11.1 34.5 88.9 65.5 39.0 26.8 61.0 73.2 76.3 23.7 63.3 36.7 62.8 37.2 40.8 59.2 91.6 8.4 36.3 63.7 33.7 66.3 39.5 60.5 43.9 56.1 38.9 61.1 60.1 39.9 70.1 29.9 54.0 46.0 50.1 49.9

Statement Life was better when you were getting welfare You hardly ever worry about money anymore You have more money now than when on welfare You buy little extras without worrying about every penny You are pretty sure you will not need to be on welfare again You feel you are just barely making it from day to day You feel better about yourself than a year ago You worry more about your Family now than a year ago You feel more stress now than you did a year ago

Response Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree

137

Source: Philip Richardson, Gregg Schoenfeld, Susan LaFever, Frances Jackson, and Mark Tecco. March 2001. Welfare Leavers and Diverters Research Study: One-Year Follow-Up of Welfare Leavers Final Report, Prepared For South Carolina Department of Social Services, McLean, VA: Maximus, Inc., Exhibit IV-20, p.IV-21.

Table 11.6 compares blacks and whites in terms of whether they agreed or disagreed with statements regarding their lives since leaving welfare. There were no major differences between blacks and whites regarding the statements about life after welfare. Blacks (51 percent) were somewhat less likely than whites (57 percent) to feel they would need to be on welfare again. Table 11.6 View of Life after Welfare, by Race Race Statement Life was better when you were getting welfare You hardly ever worry about money anymore You have more money now than when on welfare You buy little extras without worrying about every penny You are pretty sure you will not need to be on welfare again You feel you are just barely making it from day to day You feel better about yourself than a year ago You worry more about your family now than a year ago You feel more stress now than you did a year ago Response Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Black White 20.1 21.6 79.9 78.4 36.8 63.2 63.2 36.8 59.0 41.0 51.4 48.6 49.3 50.7 83.8 16.2 44.0 56.0 40.1 59.9 27.7 72.3 58.0 42.0 47.8 52.2 59.6 40.4 46.7 53.3 81.7 18.3 41.6 58.4 40.5 59.5

Source: Philip Richardson, Gregg Schoenfeld, Susan LaFever, Frances Jackson, and Mark Tecco. March 2001. Welfare Leavers and Diverters Research Study: One-Year Follow-Up of Welfare Leavers Final Report, Prepared For South Carolina Department of Social Services, McLean, VA: Maximus, Inc., Exhibit IV-21, p. IV-22.

138

Given the conditions in which most of the women interviewed live and the conditions reported by respondents to the Welfare Leavers study, it does seem likely that most of these women will find themselves in need of some assistance in the future.

139

Chapter 12 Conclusion and Recommendations


The women interviewed for this study, along with front-line workers and managers, provide useful information to suggest that explanations concerning poor people and welfare recipients must become more inclusive of womens experience. Perhaps what is most apparent from this study is the difficulty and pain associated with living on welfare and living on lowwage jobs. Interviewees provided sufficient testimony demonstrating that the aim of getting on welfare is not the monthly stipend. They applied for welfare to get Medicaid, food stamps, and after the reforms, support services. Most recipients agonized before applying for welfare, and they experienced firsthand the stigma associated with receiving welfare. It seems implausible that anyone would choose such a life. It is clear from this study that many women choose welfare because it seems the only option to take care of their families. Welfare offers poor women a sense of security in knowing that their children will be provided for and, most importantly for these women, that they will have proper medical attention. These women share basic American values. They value work and family. They value their independence. This may seem ironic, but welfare allows the recipient to support her child, no matter how poorly, without having to maintain an undesired relationship with the childs father. The value of independence is why many recipients claim that life is better after welfare even though their material conditions may be about the same or worse. The women interviewed manifested complex relationships with the labor market and the welfare bureaucracy. Some women interviewed did seem lazy in the sense that they had not looked for, or found jobs in months or years. Some were on welfare for five years or more. It is indeed questionable if these women were sufficiently motivated to look for work and whether they were making the necessary efforts to improve the financial circumstances of their families.

140

But these women made up only a very small minority of women interviewed. Most were on welfare for two years or less. A substantial number who were unemployed and looked for work had low levels of education, rudimentary skills, and lacked the human capital that employers find attractive. The most puzzling question is to what extent the lack of motivation and skill are responses and adaptations, no matter how inappropriate, to poverty and limited opportunities. To what extent are these attitudes simply adaptations to a world in which success in terms of upward mobility is very seldom seen or experienced? Most of the women who were on welfare for lengthy periods did not intend to remain on welfare that long. To a large extent, it was an adjustment to the labor market. The majority of women interviewed showed considerable movement off and on welfare, indicating an interest in work. Practically all of the women who participated in this study had some work experience. These interviews revealed that poor mothers face several burdens as they try to care for their children and work. Transportation is a problem for them as well. The interviews revealed that it is more difficult for low-wage earners to obtain the psychological resources needed to find and maintain jobs, particularly when they know they will not measurably improve their quality of life. This study found that many women were poor and in need of welfare because of the lack of jobs in their communities. Despite the rise in service sector jobs, there are not enough for all welfare recipients who need and want them. Welfare reform was founded on the assumption that welfare recipients values and attitudes were responsible for poverty and their own deprivation. The policies and procedures instituted by FI have thus been aimed at correcting the behavior and attitudes of welfare recipients. These views were shared by many front-line workers and local managers. There is a

141

paradox in holding this view while acknowledging the lack of jobs and sufficient training to prepare recipients to make the transition from welfare to work. Largely because of the lack of well paying jobs, sufficient training, affordable child care and education, the policies instituted with welfare reform have left the states poorest mothers in a position in which their commitment to work will not protect them or their families from poverty. Unlike past reforms, FI leaves poor people without a safety net. An important issue this study attempted to address is the extent to which welfare leavers are better off after welfare. Financial success is clearly not the central reason so many have reported that life is better after welfare, while at the same time admitting adversities and difficulties. It seems more feasible that they no longer want to be associated with the welfare state. Data indicate that the rolls began to increase as the economy began to decline in 2000. In the context of a favorable economy, the welfare rolls in South Carolina were cut by more than half for five reasons: 1. 2. More welfare recipients were finding work more quickly than under the old system. More poor people were discouraged from using welfare than was true under the old system. Most were required to do a two week job search before their applications would be processed. More were leaving faster because of the new regulations and because they did not want to deal with the hassle. More were returning more slowly than under the old system. More were sanctioned or otherwise had their cases closed for not following the new rules and regulations. This study finds that a large number of these women have found employment. And a few have obtained jobs with wages above the poverty level. But most of them are in low wage jobs in

3.

4. 5.

142

which they are unable to pay childcare. Most of these jobs are insecure and many work fewer than 40 hours a week. A majority of the women interviewed reported making less than $600 a month. Many of these women admitted that these were dead end jobs with little room for advancement. Many felt overworked by having to take on the responsibilities of absent workers. Moreover, most of these jobs did not provide important benefits such as sick leave and health care. Many became discouraged and frustrated with work that demanded so much and returned so little in terms of wages, benefits, advancement and, most of all, security. Most of these women wanted to work. Some found the cost of low-wage jobs greater than the benefits. With the economy no longer booming, there is reason to believe that many will be unable to sustain even these levels of work and income over time. Another important but seldom discussed issue regarding welfare leavers work is that the number of interviewees and families whose lives are truly better after welfare is indeed significant. The services and income support offered by FI have been positive. But these services are furnished for a limited amount of time. And to the extent that these families better conditions are predicated on support services, they are tenuous. This study reveals that there are significant variations between county directors views regarding welfare reform in South Carolina. The variations seemed to coincide with the counties levels of development. This study reveals that the majority of county directors in South Carolina support the basic principles of TANF. They believe that two years are sufficient time for welfare recipients to make the transition from welfare to work. Moreover, the majority of these directors believe that enough employment opportunities exist for welfare recipients to gain self-sufficiency. However, there are important variations between directors opinions. Directors from developed counties are more inclined to believe that employment opportunities are

143

sufficient in South Carolina for welfare recipients to make the transition from welfare to independence. Therefore, the real issue for these directors might be economic development. The fundamental problem, however, is that strategies and resources available are insufficient to address the number of problems confronted by welfare leavers as they seek employment. However, the difficulties faced by each countys agency are largely shaped by local conditions beyond the control of front-line workers and local managers. Successfully counseling clients to seek employment over welfare is complicated by the fact that employment for many recipients does not improve material well-being. This study finds that the solution to the welfare problem is fundamentally a solution to the problem of poverty and should involve changes in the way policy makers structure both employment and social welfare policies. In regards to work, the following recommendations are made: 1. South Carolina and the federal government must invest in human capital among poor and low income groups. This includes remedial education for those who possess limited education and skills. South Carolina must adopt a targeted economic development strategy, creating jobs and locating industries in counties and communities with the highest rate of poverty. Economic development has to be driven by employment concerns and not economic growth per se, which is generally focused on the needs of capital. The state of South Carolina and the federal government must develop a secure and full employment policy for every person who wants a job. These jobs must pay a living wage and provide essential benefits such as health care, sick leave and paid vacation.

2.

3.

4.

The welfare system can be improved to better protect families. Policy recommendations for social welfare fall into two areas. The first area consists of broad social policies that require action on the part of the national government. In the second area, the narrow policy

144

recommendations should take place without the assistance of the national government and within the policy framework of FI. Social welfare policy should do the following: 1. Enhance the feasibility of work by providing childcare and transportation to low income workers. 2. Provide public sector jobs for those who cannot find employment in the private sector. 3. Provide benefits and medical insurance for all families who do not have it and family leave policies that allow for care of the sick or of needy children. There are improvements South Carolina can make to its existing policy to better serve the needs of welfare recipients. In this regard, the states policymakers should do the following: 1. Make consistent and generous distribution of support services. Case managers and managers should be disabused from the notion that these services conflict with the goal of independence and self-sufficiency. 2. Abolish the two year time limit within ten years. This does not provide case managers sufficient time to address many of the employment barriers welfare recipients may have. More importantly, it does not allow recipients sufficient time for training of more highly skilled jobs. 3. Provide financial support training for associate degrees. 4. Enhance child care and transportation services.

145

References
Anderson, Martin. 1978. "Why Carter's Welfare Reform Plan Failed." Policy Review 5 (summer): 537-9. Anderson, Steven G. and Brian M. Gryzlak. 2002. "Social Work Advocacy In The Post-TANF Environment: Lessons From Early TANF Research Studies." Social Work 47, no. 3:301314. Axinn, June M. and Amy E. Hirsch. 1993. "Welfare and the "Reform." of Women." Families in Society 74 no. 9:563-572. Bane, Mary Jo. 1999 Poverty, Poverty, Welfare, and the Role of Churches. America 181, no. 18: 8-11. Bane, Mary Jo and David T. Ellwood. 1994. Welfare Realities: From Rhetoric to Reform. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Besharov, Douglas J. and Karen N. Gardiner. 1996. "Paternalism and Welfare Reform." Public Interest 122 (winter): 70-84. Blank, Rebecca M and Lucie Schmidt. 2001. "Work, Wages, and Welfare." In The New World of Welfare. edited by Rebecca M Blank and Ron Haskins, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Bowen, Gary L., Laura M. Desimone, and Jennifer K. McKay. 1995. "Poverty and the Single Mother Family: A Macroeconomic Perspective." Marriage and Family Review 20:11542. Brown, Michael C. 1999. Race, Money, and the American Welfare State. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Cammisa, Anne Marie. 1998. From Rhetoric to Reform? Welfare Policy in American Politics. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Cancian, Maria and Daniel R. Meyer. 2000. "Work After Welfare: Women's Work Effort, Occupation, and Economic Well-Being." Social Work Research 24, no. 2:69-86. Carney, Eliza Newlin. 1996. "Test Drive." In American Public Policy 96/97: Readings from the National Journal. edited by Bruce Stinebrickner, Guilford, Connecticut: Brown & Benchmark Publishers. Cherlin, Andrew J., Karen Bogen, James M. Quane, and Linda Burton. 2002. "Operating Within the Rules: Welfare Recipients' Experiences With Sanctions and Case Closings." Social Service Review 76, no. 3:387-406. Corcoran, Mary and Susana Loeb. 1999. "Will Wages Grow with Experience for Welfare Mothers?" Focus 20, no 2: 220-221. 146

Curtis, Karen A. 1998. "Welfare Reform in Delaware: "A Better Chance" for Whom?" Publius 28, no. 3:105-122. Danziger, Sandra K. and Kristin S. Seefeldt. 2002. "Ending Welfare through Work First: Manager and Client Views." Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services 81, no. 6:593-604. Derthick, Martha. 1989. "The Enduring Features of American Federalism." The Brookings Review (summer):89. Douglas, J. Besharov and Germanis Peter. 2000. "Welfare Reform--Four Years Later." Public Interest 140 (summer): 17-35. Dunton, Nancy, Jane Mosley, and Lola Butcher. 2001. "Continuing Use of Low-Income Services by Former Missouri Welfare Recipients." In Outcomes of Welfare Reform for Families Who Leave TANF, edited by, George Julnes and Michael E. Foster. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. East, Jean F. 1999. "Hidden Barriers to Success for Women in Welfare Reform." Families in Society 80, no. 3:295-304. Freedman, Stephen. 2000. Four-Year Impacts of Ten Programs on Employment Stability and Earnings Growth. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Education. Gallaway, Lowell and Richard Vedder. 1986. Poverty, Income Distribution, the Family and Public Policy: A Study Prepared for the Use of the Subcommittee on Trade, Productivity, and Economic Growth of the Joint Economic Committee of the Congress of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Gilder, George. 1981. Wealth and Poverty. New York: Basic Books. Gueron, Judith M. and Edward Pauly. 1991. From Welfare to Work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Hagen, Jan L. 1999. "Public Welfare and Human Services: New Directions Under TANF." The Journal of Contemporary Human Services 80 no. 1:78-90. Hamilton, Charles V. and Donna Hamilton. 1893. The Dual Agenda: The African-American Struggle for Civil and Economic Equality. New York: Columbia University Press. Handler, Joel F. 1995. The Poverty of Welfare Reform. New Haven: Yale University Press. Handler, Joel F. and Yeheskel Hasenfeld. 1991. The Moral Construction of Poverty: Welfare Reform in America. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications. Harris, Kathleen Mullan. 1996. "Work and Welfare Among Single Mothers in Poverty." American Journal of Sociology 99: 317-352.

147

Hasenfeld, Yeheskel and Dale Weaver. 1996. "Enforcement, Compliance, and Disputes in Welfare-to-Work Programs." Social Service Review 70, no. 2:235-56. Haveman, Robert. 1996. "From Welfare to Work: Problems and Pitfalls." Focus 18, no. 1:21-24. Holcomb, Pamela A., Kristin Seefeldt, and John Trutko. 1993. "One Stop Shopping Service Integration: Major Dimensions, Key Characteristics and Impediments to Implementation. Final Report to U.S. Department of Labor, Employment, and Training Administration." Urban Institute. Holzer, Harry J. 1998. Are Jobs Available for Disadvantaged Workers in Urban Areas? Discussion Paper no. 1157-98. (March) Washington, D.C.,. Isaacs, Julia B. 2001. Cross-State Findings on Families Leaving Welfare. In Outcomes of Welfare Reform for Families Who Leave TANF. edited by, George Julnes, and Michael E. Foster. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Johnston, Jocelyn M. and Kara Lindaman. 1998. "Implementing Welfare Reform in Kansas: Moving, But Not Racing." Publius 28, no. 3:123-142. Kalil, Ariel, Kristin S. Seefeldt, and Hui Wang. 2002. "Sanctions and Material Hardship Under TANF." Social Service Review 71 no.4:641-662. Kane, Thomas J and Cecilia Elena Rouse. 1995. "Labor-Market Returns to Two-and-Four-Year College." American Economic Review 85: 600-614. Katz, Michael B. 1986. In The Shadow Of The Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in America. New York: Basic Books. Kerlin, Ann E. 1993. "From Welfare to Work: Does it Make Sense." Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 20:71-85. Kimmel, Jean. Reducing the Working Dependence of Unmarried Mothers: Health-Related Employment Barriers and Policy Responses. Eastern Economic Journal 23, no. 2:151-63. 1997. Loprest, Pamela. Families Who Left Welfare: Who Are They and What Are They Doing? Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Loprest, Pamela. 2002. "Who returns to welfare?" New Federalism National Survey of America's Families Series B, No. B-49. Lower-Basch, Elizabeth. 2000. "Leavers" and Diversion Studies: Preliminary Analysis of Racial Differences in Caseload Trends and Lever Outcomes. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Washington, DC. : GPO. Mandell, Betty Reid. 1995. "Shredding the Safety Net." New Politics (spring): 8-22. 148

Marcenko, Maureen O. and Jay Fagan. 1996. "Welfare to Work: What Are the Obstacles?" Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 23, no. 3:113-131. McCallum, Heather. 1999. Working as we know it now... State approaches to TANF. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, September 1-5. Mead, Lawrence M. 1992. The New Politics of Poverty: The Nonworking Poor In American. New York: BasicBooks. Mendelberg, Tali. 2001. The Race Card: Campaign Strategy, Implicit Messages, and the Norm of Equality. Princeton: Princeton Unversity Press. Mills, Bradford and Gautam Hazarika. 2003. "Do Single Mothers Face Greater Constraints to Workforce Participation in Non-Metropolitan Areas?" American Journal of Agricultural Economics Association 8, no. 1: 143-161. Moffitt, Robert A and Andrew J. Cherlin. 2002.Disadvantage Among Families Remaining on Welfare. Paper presented at the Conference, The Hard to Employ and Welfare Reform, February 28-March 1, 2002, sponsored by the Joint Center for Poverty Research. Murray, Charles. 1998. "What Government Must Do." American Enterprise 9, no. 1:72-76. Neubeck, Kenneth J. and Noel A. Cazenave. 2001. Welfare Racism: Playing The Race card Against America's Poor. New York: Routledge. Olson, Krista and Ladonna Paveti. 1996Personal and Family Callenges to the Successful Transition from Welfare to Work. . Washington, D.C. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Pauly, Edward and Christian Di Meo. 1996. The JOBS Evaluation: Adult Education for People on AFDC-A Synthesis of Research. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Washington DC: GPO. Pavetti, LaDonna. 2000. "Creating a New Working Reality: Early Implementation of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program." Journal of Social Issues 56, no. 4: 601-16. Pavetti, LaDonna and Dan Bloom. 2001. "State Sanctions and Time Limits." In The New World of Welfare, edited by. Rebecca M. Blank and Ron Haskins. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Peterson, Paul E. 1992. The Politics of Social Policy in the 1990s. In Fulfilling America's Promise: Social Policies for the 1990s, edited by Joseph A. Pechman, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

149

Peterson, Paul E. 1995. "State Response to Welfare Reform: A Race to the Bottom." In Welfare Reform: An Analysis of the Issue,. edited by Isabel V. Sawhill, Washington, DC: Urban
Institute

Plimpton, Lise and Demetra Smith. Nightingale. 2000. Welfare Employment Programs: Impacts and Cost-Effectiveness of Employment and Training Activities. In Improving the Odds: Increasing the Effectiveness of Publicly Funded Training, edited by Burt S. Barnow and Christopher Tiking. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press. Quadagno, Jill. 1990. "Race, Class and Gender in the U.S. Welfare State: Nixon's Failed Family Assistance Plan." American Sociological Review 55 (February):11-28. Rangarjan, Anu, Peter Schochet, and Chu Dexter. 1998. Employment Experience of Welfare Recipients Who Find Jobs: Is Targeting Possible? Princeton, N.J.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Rickman, Dana K., Nancy Bross, and Michael E. Foster. 2001. "Patterns of Recidivism for Welfare Leavers." In Outcomes of Welfare Reform for Families Who Leave TANF, edited by. George Julnes and Michael E. Foster. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rickman, Dana K., Nancy Bross, and Michael E. Foster. 2001. "Welfare Reform and Children: A Comparison of Leavers and Stayers in Georgia." In Outcomes of Welfare Reform for Families Who Leave TANF, edited by Dana K Rickman and Michael E. Foster. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sawhill, Isabel V. 1995. Welfare Reform: An Analysis of the Issues- An Overview. In Welfare Reform: An Analysis of the Issues, edited by Isabel V. Sawhill, Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute. Schiller, Bradley R. 2000. "State Welfare-Reform Impacts: Content and Enforcement Effects." Contemporary Economic Policy 17 no. 2:210-222. Sheak, Robert. 1996. "Real Welfare Reform Requires Jobs: Lessons from A Progressive Welfare Agency." Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare XXIII no. 3:91-111. Sheak, Robert J. and David D. Dabelko. 1991. "Conservative Welfare Reform Proposals and the Reality of Subemployment." Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 18, no. 1:49-70. South Carolina Legislative Audit Council. 1996. A Review of the Implementation of the South Carolina Family Independence Act. Columbia, S.C.: South Carolina Legislative Audit Council. South Carolina Legislative Audit Council. 1998. Impact of the South Carolina Family Independence Act: 1996 to 1998. Columbia, S.C.: South Carolina Legislative Audit Council. South Carolina Legislative Audit Council. Impact of the South Carolina Family Independence Act: 1998 to 2000. 2000. South Carolina Legislative Audit Council. 150

Spalter-Roth, Roberta M. and Heidi I. Hartmann. 1993. Dependence on Men, the Market, or the State: The Rhetoric and Reality of Welfare Reform. Washington, D. C.: Institute for Women's Policy Research. Strawn, Julie. 1998. "Beyond Job Search or Basic Education." Policy & Practice of Public Human Services 56 no. 2:48-55. Strawn, Julie, Mark Greenberg, and Steve Savner. 2001. Improving Employment Outcomes under TANF. In The New World of Welfare, edited by Rebecca M Blank and Ron Haskins. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute. Taylor, Lorraine C. 2001. "Work Attitudes, Employment Barriers, and Mental Health Symptoms in a Sample of Rural Welfare Recipients." American Journal of Community Psychology. 29, no. 3:443-454. Turner, Jason A. and Thomas Main. 2001. "Work Experience under Welfare Reform." In The New World of Welfare. edited by Rebecca M Blank and Ron Haskins. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Zedlewski, Sheila and Sarah Brauner. 1999. Are The Steep Declines In Food Stamp Participation Linked To Falling Welfare Caseloads? Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Zinn, Deborah K. and Rosemary C. Sarri. 1984. "Turning Back the Clock on Public Welfare." Signs 10, no. 2:355-70. Zinn, Maxine Baca. 1989. "Family, Race, And Poverty in the Eighties." Signs 14, no. 4:856-874.

151

Appendix

152

Appendix A Survey of County Directors The following questions are designed to help us understand your assessment of welfare reform in your county. Your answers to the questions will remain confidential.
1. As a Department of Social Services Director, were you given an opportunity to participate in shaping the Family Independence Act of 1995? 1. Yes 2. No

2. As a Department of Social Services Director, were you given an opportunity to participate in policy decisions regarding the implementation of the Family Independence Act of 1995 in South Carolina? 1. Yes 2. No

3. What percentage of TANF recipients are employed in the following areas: [80% - 100%] 1. Agriculture 2. Clerical Services 3. Construction 4. Manufacturing 5 5 5 5 [60% - 79%] 4 4 4 4 4 [40% - 59%] 3 3 3 3 3 [20% - 39%] 2 2 2 2 2 [1% - 19%] 1 1 1 1 1

5. Service Industry 5 ( fast food, waitress, janitor, etc.)

153

4. In your county, are there sufficient employment opportunities to provide economic selfsufficiency for TANF recipients?

1. Yes 2. No 5. In your county, what type of training or employment assistance is provided by the private sector to assist TANF recipients in the transition from welfare to work? Check from the list below. 1. Recruit, train, and hire TANF recipients. 2. Train, but do not employ TANF recipients. 3. Meet and provide information to TANF recipients regarding employment opportunities. 4. Meet and provide information to TANF recipients regarding proper work etiquette and expectations of employers.

6. How important are the following factors in impeding the employment of TANF recipients: Very important 4 4 4 4 Important 3 3 3 3 3 Somewhat important 2 2 2 2 2 Not important 1 1 1 1 1

1. Appearance 2. Attitude/motivation 3. Child care/child-related barriers 4. Education/training

5. Primary caregiver for a sick or disabled 4 family member 6. Health/mental health problems 7. Inadequate employment opportunities 8. Inadequate transportation 4 4 4

3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1

9. Insufficient health care insurance and 4 other fringe benefits offered by employers

154

6. How important are the following factors in impeding the employment of TANF recipients: 10. Insufficient sanctions for not working 11. Low wages 12. No/limited work experience 13. Substance abuse 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

7. Are your caseworkers sufficiently trained to assist TANF recipients in the transition from welfare to work? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Does your agency have a job retention specialist or a caseworker that monitors the progress of TANF recipients on the job? 1. Yes 2. No 9. In your county, are TANF recipients aware of transitional support services? 1. Yes 2. No

10.

How does your agency inform TANF recipients about transitional support services? Check each that is appropriate: 1. 2. 3. 4. Information regarding the transitional support services is posted on bulletin boards. Transitional support services are explained at mandatory workshops/classes. Transitional support services are explained at non-mandatory workshops/classes. Transitional support services are explained in consultation with the recipient by the caseworker. Transitional support services are explained in a letter mailed to recipients. Caseworker provides clients documents that explain transitional support services.

5. 6.

155

7.

Other, specify_______________________________________________

11. Does your agency use a caseworker as a child care specialist in arranging child care for TANF recipients? 1. Yes 2. No 12. How important are the following factors in preventing TANF recipients from obtaining child care: Very Important 1. Inadequate child care in the community 2. Inadequate transportation 3. Unaffordable child care 4. Inadequate staff to assist in finding child care 5. Recipients lack of motivation to search for child care 4 4 4 4 4 Important 3 3 3 3 3
Somewhat Important
Not Important

2 2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1 1

6. Inadequate child care for children with special needs 4 (disabilities, temporary illness, etc.) 7. Inadequate child care for hours after 6 p. m. 4

13. In your county, are there sufficient affordable child care providers to provide child care assistance to TANF recipients in rural areas? 1. Yes 2. No 14. In your county, are there sufficient affordable child care providers to provide child care assistance to TANF recipients in towns/cities? 1. Yes

156

2. No

15. In your view, are two years sufficient for TANF recipients to make the transition from welfare to work?

1. Yes 2. No

16. In your county, what proportion of TANF recipients receive child care from the providers listed below: [80% - 100%] 1. Child care center 2. Church 3. Friend 4. Head Start 5 5 5 5 [60% - 79%] 4 4 4 4 4 [40% - 59%] 3 3 3 3 3 [20% - 39%] 2 2 2 2 2 [ 1% - 19%] 1 1 1 1 1

5. Relative in the 5 home 6. Relative not in 5 the home 7. School program 5

17. How often do TANF recipients use the following transitional support services: Very Often 1. 2. 3. Child Care Transportation Health care 4 4 4 Often 3 3 3 Not Often 2 2 2 Never 1 1 1

157

17. How often do TANF recipients use the following transitional support services: Very Often 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Medical examinations Automobile repairs/car expenses Parenting programs Mental health services Alcohol & drug counseling Relocation assistance Housing services 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Often 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Not Often 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Never 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

18. Rank the success of the Family Independence Program in the following areas: Very successful 1. Encouraging local employers to hire 4 TANF recipients Reducing teenage pregnancy Reducing out-of-wedlock 4 4 Successful Somewhat successful 2 Not at all successful 1

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

3 3

2 2

1 1

pregnancies Reducing the number of AFDC/TANF 4 recipients that have another child after receiving public assistance Finding child care assistance for TANF 4 recipients Finding transportation recipients Finding employment recipients for for TANF 4 TANF 4

7.

8. 9.

3 3

2 2

1 1

10.

Improving the quality of life for TANF 4

158

18. Rank the success of the Family Independence Program in the following areas: Very successful recipients 11. Improving employment skills of TANF 4 recipients Obtaining child support from the non- 4 custodial parent Developing a partnership with local 4 Technical schools and/or colleges to train welfare recipients for employment Developing a relationship with local 4 churches to assist in preparing welfare recipients to make the transition from welfare to work Developing a relationship with private 4 organizations to assist in preparing welfare recipients to make the transition from welfare to work 3 2 1 Successful Somewhat successful Not at all successful

12.

13.

14.

15.

16. Increasing family life skills 4 3 2 1 19. In your county, what percentage of TANF recipients are ineligible for support services because their time limit has expired?

20. Is job retention a problem for TANF recipients in your county? 1. Yes, if yes, please answer the following question 2. No, if no, this concludes the survey

159

21. How important are the following factors in explaining why TANF recipients do not retain employment: Very Important Somewhat Not Important Important Important 1. Absenteeism 4 3 2 1 2. Appearance 3. Attitude/motivation 4. Cannot accept constructive criticism 5. Child care/child-related barriers 6. Health/mental health problems 7. Inadequate transportation 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

8. Insufficient health care insurance 4 and other fringe benefits offered by employers 9. Low wages compared requirements 10. Poor job performance 11. Substance abuse to job 4 4 4

3 3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1 1

12. Supervisors have poor management 4 skills 13. Tardiness 4

14. Supervisors are TANF recipients

biased

against 4

15. Unrealistic expectations for pay/ job 4 advancement 16. Other, specify 4

160

That was the last question. Thank you for completing this survey. If you have any questions,please call Professor Willie M. Legette (803) 536-8914. Would you like to receive a copy of the survey results? 1. Yes 2. No Please fold the questionnaire and place it in the brown addressed envelope.

161

Appendix B Case Manager and Local Manager Interview Questions


1. Job title and description 2. How would you describe what you are trying to do with your clients? 3. What is the most difficult aspect of your job? 4. What is your overall opinion of the Family Independence Program? 5. What are the major priorities or priority of the program? 6. What do you think are the major strengths and weakness of the Program? a. Do you think training is sufficient? b. Do you have enough time to train clients? c. Have sufficient is diversity in training? 7. What would you like to see changed in the Family Independence Program to improve it or make it more successful? 8. Is there anything you consider especially innovative or unique about your program? 9. Are two years sufficient for clients to make the transition from welfare to work? 10. What do you think about the five-year life time limit? 11. In developing the ISSP what is your role as the case manager? 12. What is most important to communicate to clients regarding the ISSP? 13. How do you encourage clients to meet their individual self-sufficiency plan? How difficult is it to get clients to fulfill their ISSP? 14. Are there often differences between the plan you want to design as the case manager and the client regarding the ISSP? How are those differences resolved? 15. Are there certain vocations or jobs that you encourage your clients to pursue? 16. Generally, is it difficult to get clients to comply or to participate in various components of the program? 17. What are various work participation components of the program in which you can place clients that serve as work participation? Such as education, welfare to work, work experience, etc.

162

18. What percent of your clients participate in each of the programs? 19. What is the most desired and least desired placement? 20. What is your caseload (FI, food stamps)? 21. How do you keep up with the progress of your clients and the extent to which their environment changes? 22. How do you handle clients who want to reject a job because they find it undesirable? 23. How do you deal with the time limits when you have a client who is not prepared to make the transition to work? 24. Under what circumstances do you recommend sanction for a client? 25. What is the most common reason for clients to be sanctioned? 26. How important are sanctions to encourage clients to cooperate with the program? 27. In general, what is your overall opinion of the Family Life Skills Program? 28. Do you recommend Family Life Skills classes to clients? Does this take time away from preparing them for employment? 29. Generally, what support services are provided to clients? 30. How are clients informed of support services? 31. Are clients encouraged to seek support services? If yes, how? 32. What support service is requested most often? 33. Describe how the support services (i.e., transportation, child care, employment, etc.) are provided. 34. Is there a limit to the number of services that you will recommend for a client? 35. Does your agency have a limit on the cost of clients support services? 36. Tell me about transitional services? Are these services provided when they are technical off welfare? How long do they last? Do you have extensions beyond the limit? 37. Can a client get off and back on the system to extend their transitional services? If so, do you encourage this?

163

38. As case manager, do you often authorize the family cap voucher for clients? 39. What is the length of time your agency will support or provide transportation services? 40. What type of educational programs are encouraged, if any? 41. Do you encourage clients to go to college or some trade school? 42. Do you often get the request for relocation support services? If so, what kind of support has been provided? 43. Do you think this agency has sufficient resources to provide the necessary programs (i.e., motivation and work ethic classes, job training, family life skills, technical school assistance) to help clients make the transition from welfare to work? 44. What other programs and services do you think are necessary to help clients make the transition from welfare to work? 45. Are you successful in placing clients in employment? 46. What do you think are the most significant impediments to clients finding employment and obtaining self-sufficiency? 47. Given the 24 month time limit, does your agency encourage immediate employment over vocational training? 48. Is this agency inclined to grant an extension to prepare clients for work, or is that discouraged? 49. Have you encouraged clients to work with the Associated Program for Low-Income Entrepreneurial Development (APLIED) that helps to develop their own business? How successful has this program been? 50. Do all your clients go through the Job Club Program? 51. What do you think about the Job Club Program? 52. Do you have some clients who participate in the Welfare to Work program? What are some of the services in which they participate? How are the clients monitored? 53. Do you recommend clients to participate in a Work Supplementation Program? What employers participate? What percent of your employed clients work in such programs? What is your general assessment of these programs? 54. Do you have general knowledge of where most of your clients are working?

164

55. What problems are your clients having? 56. What successes or goals have they achieved? 57. Are they able to retain employment? 58. What do you expect to happen to most of these people when they are no longer eligible for transitional support services?

165

Appendix C Leavers Interview Questions


Q1 When did you first apply for Public Assistance? [Was it before or after 1996?) Q2 Once you applied for public assistance, were you required by DSS to look for a job before receiving benefits? If NO. Go to question 7. If YES. Go to question 3. Q3 Was this your first time looking for employment? Q4 Was it difficult looking for a job? Q5 How did you go about looking for a job in terms of transportation? Q6 Did you receive assistance from DSS or any other agencies? Q7 Did you look for a job before applying for public assistance? Q8 Are you presently employed? If YES. Go to question 9. If NO. Go to Unemployment Questions on Page 4 Q32.

Q9 Is this your first job? Q10 Did the Department of Social Services help you find your present job? Q11 Where are you employed? Q12 How do you get to work? Q13 How far do you have to travel to work? Q14 How long does it take you to get to work? Q15 How many hours do you work a week? Q16 What do you do at work? (Describe what you do)

166

Q17 Do you get paid every week, two weeks, twice a month, or once a month? Q18 How much is your take-home pay each pay period? Q19 Do you think you are paid enough for what you do? Q20 Does the salary you make meet your familys basic needs? Q21 Do you find yourself running out of money between paychecks? If so, what do you do when you run short of money? Q23 What do you like about your job? What do you dislike about your job? Q24 Do you feel that you are asked to do too much at work? Q25 Do you think your job offers you opportunities to advance? Q26 Do you get along with your supervisor? Q27 Do you get along with your co-workers? Q28 Have you had any bad experiences at work? If so, please Explain. Q29 Do you ever feel like quitting your job? Q30 Is the job you have now the kind of job that you would like to keep? If NO, what kind of job would you like to have? If YES, Skip Q31. Q31 How much money would you like to make? 17 Q32 Do you have any plans to obtain your desired job? If NO, why not? If YES, what are your plans? [If employed Skip to Page 8 Question 68] Unemployment Q33 Have you been employed since leaving public assistance?

167

18 If YES, Skip Question 34 and go to Question 35. If NO, Go to Question 34. Q34 Have you ever been employed? If YES, Go to Question 35. If NO, Go to Never Worked Questions, Page 7. 19 Q35 How long have you been unemployed?

Q36 Why did you leave your most recent job? Q37 How often do you look for a job? Q38 Where do you go to find a job? Q39 Do you know why you are not being hired? Q40 Are you being assisted in finding work by DSS? Now I would like to ask you some questions about your past work experience 20 Q41 Where were you last employed? Q42 How did you get to work? Q43 How far did you have to travel to get to work? Q44 How long did it take you to get to work? Q45 How many hours did you work a week? Q46 What did you do at work? (Describe what you did) Q47 Did you get paid every week, two weeks, twice a month, or once a month? Q48 How much was your take-home pay each pay period? Q49 Did you think you were paid enough for what you did? Q50 Did the salary you made meet your familys basic needs? Q51 Did you find yourself running out of money between paychecks? If so, what did you do when you ran short of money?

168

Q52 What did you like about your job? What did you dislike about your job? Q53 Did you feel that you were asked to do too much at work? Q54 Did you your job offered you opportunities to advance? Q55 Did you get along with your supervisor? Q56 Did you get along with your co-workers? Q57 Did you have any bad experiences at work? If so, please Explain. Q58 Did you ever feel like quitting your job? Q59 Was the job that you had the kind of job that you would like to have now? If NO, what kind of job would you like to have? If YES, Go to Question 61. 21 Q60 Do you have any plans to obtain your desired job? If NO, why not? If YES, what are your plans? Q61 How much money would you like to make? Never Worked Questions Q62 Why have you never worked? Q63 Do you think that you are able to work? Q64 How often do you look for a job? Q65 Where do you go to find a job? Q66 Do you know why you are not being hired? Q67 Are you being assisted in finding work by DSS?

169

Welfare Status I would like to ask you some questions about your experience on welfare Q68 What were your feelings and thoughts when you first applied for welfare? Q69 What did you like about receiving public assistance? Q70 What did you dislike about receiving public assistance? Q71 How old were you when you went first on welfare? Q72 When you were younger did you think that one day you would go on public assistance? If, NO. What happened that led you to public assistance? If YES. Why did you think that you would go on public assistance? Q73 When you were younger, what did you think you would be doing at your present age? Q74 Does your mother or anyone else in your family receive public assistance? Q75 How long did you receive public assistance? Q76 How long have you been off public assistance? Q77 Why did you leave public assistance? Q78 What was the amount of your monthly public assistance payments? Q79 Do you now receive food stamps? Q80 Do you or your children receive SSI? Q81 When you hear people on television, politicians, and people in general talk about people who receive welfare, (welfare queens, not wanting to work, etc.) what do you think about what they have to say? How does it make you feel? Q82 What kinds of things have you heard said about people who receive welfare?

170

Q83 Have you ever felt that you or your children were treated differently or unfairly compared to someone not on welfare (e.g., refused services, made to wait a long time, treated rudely)? Q84 Do you think that AFDC payments should stop after two or three years? Q85 Do you think that woman who have children while on AFDC should have their monthly check stay the same or should it increase? Q86 Whos fault is it if people are poor? Q87 Do you think the government should help poor people If YES, what should the government do? Q88 If you could tell the president, Congress, the governor, and anybody else about woman who receive AFDC, what would you tell them? Education Q89 Did you graduate from high school? If YES, go to question 91 If NO, go to question 90 90 Why did you drop out of high school? Q91 Did you go to college? Q92 Did you graduate from college? If NO why not? Q93 Did you go back to school or a special training program after you were informed that you were going to be terminated from public assistance? Q94 Are you now attending school or some special training program? If SO, what are you going to school for? When do you expect to finish school? Or, what kind of courses are you taking? How long will it take you to finish? Q95 Do you plan to continue your education?

171

If NO, why not? Child care Q96 How many children do you have? Q97 How old are your children? Q98 Do you get help/support from the child (rens) father/mother? Q99 Who provides child care when you are working, in school, or looking for work? Q100 Is child care always available? Q101 Do you need child care after 5:00 P.M. or on weekends? Q102 How much do you pay for child care? Q103 Is it difficult for you to pay child care? Assistance From DSS Q104 Has DSS been a help to you? Explain Q105 What kind of help did you need or want from DSS? Q106 Do you get along well with your case manager? Q107 Do you feel your case manager helped you gain employment? Q108 What kind of advice did your case manager offer in terms of employment, education, training or anything else? Q109 Do you think your case manager understood your situation? Q110 Do you think your case manager cared about your situation? Q111 Did your case manager make helpful referrals, i.e. jobs, training, education, healthcare, child care etc.? Q112 Did you sign an Individual Self-Sufficiency Plan? (A plan that stated what kind of job you wanted or what kind of training you would get to find employment) If YES, was it the plan that you wanted? What was the plan?

172

Were you able to follow the plan and achieve its goals? Explain? Q113 Were you informed of the support services to help you make the transition from welfare to work? (Transportation, child care, education, work income supplementation, etc.) Q114 Did you take Parenting Classes? (Classes to teach you how to take care of your children, make a family budget etc.) If NO, why not? If YES, did the classes help you? Q115 Did you participate in the Job Club or Job Search Program? (A program to help you find a job, how to conduct an interview, and how to develop a resume) If NO, why not? If YES, did it help you in any way? Q116 Did any one at DSS explain the Family Independence Program to you, i.e., time limits and other requirements? (Two years out of ten to receive benefits and five years in a life time to receive benefits) Q117 Generally, what do you think about the Family Independence Program? (Time limits and other requirements) Q118 Do you think two years is sufficient time for most people on AFDC to get training and find a job where they would no longer need public assistance? Q119 Do you think it is fair that the Family Independence Program limits a persons time on welfare to a total of five years in a life time? [This means if a person received assistance for 2 years, from ages 18-20; then for 1 year at the age of 25; and 2 years, from ages 35-37; for a total of five years then they would not be eligible for assistance if they needed assistance at the age of 45.] Do you think this is fair? Q120 Are you still in contact with or have meetings with DSS personnel? If YES, what are they telling you about services available to you? Are they helping you in any way? Q121 Do you get behind on your bills? If so, how do you catch up?

173

Transition To Work Q122 How would you describe your transition from welfare to work? Q123 What financial difficulties have you had since leaving public assistance? Q124 If you compare the times you were on welfare to working which do you prefer and why? Q125 Are you better off now you no longer receive the AFDC payment? Q126 Do you think you and your children have more of the things you need and want? Q127 Have you ever been sanctioned by DSS? (Benefits being terminated or reduced) If YES, please explain? Q128 Has anyone at DSS ever threatened to terminate your public assistance or to take away some of your benefits? Q129 Do you know or have you heard of someone elses benefits being terminated? Coping Q130 Did you or are you having problems while attending school, work, or looking for work? (i.e. with child care, studying, illness, transportation, etc.) If SO, what difficulties? How do/did you manage the difficulties? Q131 Do you feel you get enough help and support from your family? Q132 Have you gone to any agency/church/ etc. for assistance for food, clothing, utility bills, health care or anything that you may have needed, but did not have the money to pay for? Q133 Do you get help from a boyfriend or a close friend? Q134 Do you have health care insurance? Q135 Does your job provide health care insurance? 174

Q136 Do your children have health care insurance? Q137 Are you or your child (ren) taking medication? Q138 Do you have any health problems that make it difficult for you to work? Q139 Are you sometimes sick and do not visit a doctor because you do not have the money? Q140 What do you do if or when one of your children gets sick and needs medical care, and you do not have the money to visit a doctor? Voting Q141 Are you registered to vote? Q142 Did you vote in the last election? Q143 Do you vote in most elections? Q144 Do you think that politicians care about people who are on public assistance or people similar to your self? Housing Q145 Do you live in public housing?

If YES, go to question 147

If NO, go to question 146 Q146 Are you paying lower rent because the federal, state, or local government is paying part of the cost? (Section 8 Housing) Q147 Do you ever get behind on your rent or mortgage? If SO, do you have someone who helps with the payments? Who? Q148 Have you been evicted since leaving Welfare?

175

Q149 Is there anything you would like to add about the Family Independence Program or your experience on Welfare?

176

177

Вам также может понравиться