AFDC recipients make recommendations for welfare reform.

              lH 3000.8 A288f 1994 c.1
AFDC Recipients Make Recommendations
'0:-
For Welfare Reform
Rolanda Cole
AFDC RECIPIENTS MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR WELFARE REFORM
by
Rolanda Cole
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Master of Science in Behavioral Sciences degree
Cameron University
July 1994
AFDC RECIPIENTS MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS
Lawrence Weinstein
Chairperson
Ralph Alexander
Betty Harris
Ray Tumer
FOR WELFARE REFORM
A THESIS
by
ROLANDA COLE
THESIS COMMITTEE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Completing this thesis, has without a doubt, been an enlightening and challenging
experience. T would like to acknowledge and express my gratitude to the following
individuals who were instrumental in helping me turn my idea into a reality.
My family was tolerant, patient, and understanding. My task would have been
much harder without their love and support.
Dr. Lawrence Weinstein was my thesis advisor. His continuous encouragement,
advice, and assistance are very much appreciated.
Dr. Ralph Alexander, Dr. Betty Harris, and Dr. Ray Turner willingly agreed to be
on my thesis committee, attended committee meetings, offered suggestions and were
supportive.
Ms. Janelle Arden, Programs Administrator for the Research, Evaluation and
Statistics Department at the Department of Human Services in Oklahoma City, arranged
for DHS to randomly select my sample, assemble my survey packet, and be financially
responsible for mailing it.
Ms. Marguerete Keesee, Research and Development Specialist at the Department
of Human Services in Oklahoma City, worked with me from the developing stages of
my survey to the mailing of my survey packet. I appreciate her willing participation.
Mr. Bill Brown, Director of the Comanche County Department of Human
Services gave me a copy of Welfare Reform for the 21st Century. Without this manual,
my research would have taken another course.
And finally, very special thanks are extended to AFDC recipients in Comanche
County who responded to my survey. Without their participation, this project could not
have been completed.
Copyright © 1994 by Rolanda Cole
All rights reserved
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES Vll
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
ABBREVIATIONS x
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION................................ 1
AFDC in the United States 2
Need Standards 4
Poverty and Government Spending 7
Quality Control 7
AFDC in Oklahoma 7
AFDC in Comanche County 12
Federal Welfare Reform 14
State Welfare Reform 19
Oklahoma Welfare Reform 22
II. LITERATURE REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23
Purpose of Study 26
III. METHODOLOGy............................... 28
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Page
Subjects 28
Instruments 28
Procedure 30
IV. RESULTS 31
V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 69
REFERENCES 74
APPENDIX A 78
APPENDIX B 79
VI
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Need Standards and Typical AFDC Payments as of
July 1, 1992/ Percent of Individuals in Population
Receiving AFDC Benefits in Fiscal Year 1992 6
2. Oklahoma AFDC in 1937 and in 1993 8
3. AFDC Recipients: Myths Versus Reality II
4. How Oklahoma Compares With the Rest ofthe
Country 12
5. Comanche County AFDC Recipients by
RacelEthnicity, Monthly Average, Fiscal Year 1993 ... 13
6. Comanche County AFDC Cases by RacelEthnicity,
January 1994 14
7. Parent and Non-Parent Age Ranges 32
8. AFDC Recipient Age by RacelEthnicity 33
9. Parent and Non-Parent Years of Schooling 34
10. Educational Attainment Levels of Parents and
Non-Parents by Race/Ethnicity . . .. 35
11. Parent Age When First Child Was Born 36
12. Parent Age When First Child Was Born by
RacelEthnicity 37
13. Gender of Respondents and of AFDC Recipients in
Comanche County 38
VII
LIST OF TABLES (cont.)
Table Page
14. Number of Children Under 18Living in the Home ..... 39
15. Number of Children Under 18Living in the Home by
RacelEthnicity 40
16. RacelEthnicity of AFDCRecipients and Survey
Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
17. Percentage of AFDC Recipients Represented by
RacelEthnicity 43
18. Marital Status of Respondents 44
19. Marital Status by Race/Ethnicity 45
20. What Does Welfare Mean? - by RacelEthnicity 46
21. What Would You Do If You Ran DHS? - by
RacelEthnicity 48
22. Changes Needed in AFDC Payments by RacelEthnicity . 52
23. Changes Needed in the ET&E Program by
RacelEthnicity 54
24. Changes Needed in Child Care by RacelEthnicity ..... 57
25. Changes Needed in Child Support Enforcement by
RacelEthnicity 59
26. Changes Needed in Medicaid by Race/Ethnicity 61
27. Changes Needed in Food Stamp Program by
RacelEthnicity 63
28. AFDC Programs Ranked in Order ofImportance 65
29. Responses and Respondents by RacelEthnicity 66
V11I
ABSTRACT
AFDC RECIPIENTS MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR WELFARE REFORM
ROLANDA COLE
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
CAlvIERON UNIVERSITY
This study collected demographic information and welfare reform recommendations
from AFDC recipients. Sixty-four Comanche County, Oklahoma AFDC adult recipients
(62 women and 2 men, ranging in age from 18 to 54) participated. Recipients were
randomly selected and mailed surveys with postage paid envelopes included. To insure
anonymity, they were instructed not to put their names or case numbers on the survey .
. The greatest number of surveys was received from African Americans and Whites. Data
.analyses were performed to compare responses received from these two groups. Except
for one issue, there were no significant differences in the way African Americans or
Whites answered the questions. Hispanics and Native Americans comprise a smaller
percentage of AFDC recipients, therefore, fewer surveys were received from them.
AFDC recipient's recommendations for welfare reform placed heavy emphasis on job
training and help finding employment.
IX
AB
ACF
ADC
AFDC
AFDC - UP
APTD
DHS
ET&E
FAP
FIP
GA
GAIN
GED
HHS
JOBS
LEAP
NASW
OAA
ABBREVIATIONS
Aid to the Blind
Administration for Children and Families
Aid to Dependent Children
Aid to Families with Dependent Children
AFDC - Unemployed Parent Program
Aid to the Permanently and Totally Disabled
Department of Human Services
Education, Training & Employment
Family Assistance Plan
Family Independence Project
General Assistance
Greater Avenues for Independence
General Education Development
Department of Health and Human Services
Job Opportunity and Basic Skills Training
Learning, Earning and Parenting
National Association of Social Workers
Old Age Assistance
x
ABBREVIA TrONS (cont.)
ODHS Oklahoma Department of Human Services
PAR Personal Accountability and Responsibility Project
PL
QC
SSI
WES
WIN
WRTF
Public Law
Quality Control
Supplementary Security Income
Women for Economic Security
Work Incentive Program
Welfare Reform Task Force
Xl
AFDC RECIPIENTS MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR WELFARE REFORM
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Welfare reform is not a new concept. On the contrary, it is an idea pondered and
discussed for years. Recommendations have been made, and some implemented, in an
attempt to rectify problems in the public welfare system.
Discussion of welfare focuses primarily on the Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC) program (Cottingham, 1989). Consequently, the terms AFDC and
welfare, along with public assistance, are used interchangeably. The welfare system
encompasses other programs: Old Age Assistance (OAA), Aid to the Blind (AB), Aid to
the Permanently and Totally Disabled (APTD) (these three programs were retitled
Supplementary Security Income (SSI) in 1974), General Assistance (GA), and AFDC
(Rein, 1982).
The public welfare system was devised to assist those in poverty. However, "the
focus of the welfare "problem" has shifted in the past 20 years from alleviating poverty to
alleviating dependency" (O'Donnell, 1993, p. 629). Legislative testimony on welfare
reform that led to the Family Support Act of 1988, "placed increased responsibilities on
1
poor people to get off welfare, on the one hand, and excluded these same people from
policy discussions about how they can best exercise those responsibilities, on the other"
(O'Donnell, 1993, p. 629). Nevertheless, welfare reform is currently one of the nation's
top priorities. It must be remembered, however, that welfare reform is a complicated
issue, one for which there are no immediate remedies.
It would be a mistake to imply that solutions to the problems of poverty or
welfare are simple. We might like to think that having welfare reform on the national
agenda will provide immediate relief to the states or to the Federal government.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. No legislation or recommendation is likely to
provide instantaneous results. Atherton (1992) cautioned that "the country's expectations
of welfare reform must be realistic" (p. 197). This is not to suggest, however, that there
is no hope. In 1976, Senator Ribicoff (D-Conn.) stated, "I don't think this country is so
incompetent that we can't devise a form, or a system, to take care of the person who's
really poor, and hungry, and homeless, and uneducated" (American Enterprise Institute
[AEI], 1976, p. 16).
The state of the public welfare system is problematic and practical programs with
realistically attainable goals must be implemented. Senator Ribicoff understood this
when he noted, "Everything looks good on paper, but when you're dealing with human
beings, it's altogether different" (AEl, 1976, p. 21).
AFDC in the United States
Title IV of the Social Security Act established Aid to Dependent Children (ADC)
in 1935. Its purpose was to provide aid to children, aged 16 and under, who were
2
"deprived of parental support or care by reason of the death, continued absence from the
home, or physical or mental incapacity of a parent" (Department of Health and Human
Services [HHS], 1993, p. 25). In 1962, the program became Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) under Part A, Title IV of the Social Security Act (HHS,
1993).
AFDC is the largest cash assistance program serving needy families with children
in this country. It is managed by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). AFDC has two primary
objectives. The first is to provide monetary assistance to families with children so their
immediate financial needs can be met. The second goal is to help parents in these
families become economically self-sufficient (Department of Health and Human Services
[HHS] Fact Sheet, 1993 April).
In addition to cash assistance, AFDC includes a food stamp (coupons used to buy
groceries) and Medicaid (health care coverage) component. The program operates in all
50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. As a
condition of receiving Federal funds, states must provide the Federal government with a
plan that describes how the AFDC program will be operated. State plans must include
provisions for statewide operation and state financial participation (Department of
Health and Human Services [HHS], 1990-91).
Currently, to qualify for AFDC benefits, federal guidelines stipulate that there
must be a dependent child, who is a United States citizen living in the home, and a
resident of the state where application is being made. The child has to be under the age
of 18 (age 19 under certain circumstances) and be deprived of parental support; or if in a
3
two-parent family, the principal wage earner has to be unemployed. Although the
Federal government mandates that certain rules and regulations be adhered to, AFDC
program requirements are generally very broad. This leaves the primary responsibility
for administering the program with the states. Consequently, program configuration and
benefit specifications vary greatly from state-to-state. For instance, an individual
applying for AFDC benefits can expect some action to be taken on hislher application
within 45,30, or 15 days, depending on the state that person lives in. Similarly, if an
applicant or recipient wants a hearing, the request mayor may not have to be in writing.
In some states, step-parents must be included in the assistance unit; in others they do not.
Further, in some states, AFDC recipients are required to complete a monthly report. In
others, it is required only from specified categories of recipients. In still others, a report
is not required at all (HHS, 1990-91). These are but a few examples and serve only to
provide some notion of the diversity and complexity of the AFDC program.
Need Standards
The term "need standard" refers to the amount of money needed by a particular
size family to live on (HHS Fact Sheet, 1993 April). It includes basic needs and in some
states, special needs as well. Basic needs are those that the states recognize as essential
for all applicants or recipients (HHS, 1990-9 I). They include such items as food, shelter,
clothing, and utilities. Special needs are those that the states recognize as essential for
some persons, but not all (HHS, 1990-91). They include such items as additional costs of
shelter, fuel or utilities, school and/or educational expenses, pregnancy allowances, or
special diets.
4
There are 32 basic need items. Not all states use the same items to determine
their need standard, however. Some use as few as five items; some states use as many as
20. No state uses all 32. There are 25 special need items. Similarly, not all states use
the same items to decide their need standard. Twenty-two states do not use special need
items at all. Of the states that do consider special needs, some use only one item; one
state uses 19. No state uses all 25. This use of varied need items accounts for very
diverse need standards being established by the states. AFDC benefits are paid based on
these need standards. Methods used to determine AFDC payments are also considerably
different among the states. A demonstration of need standard and typical payment
variations is illustrated in Table 1. Each of the 50 states along with the District of
Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands is listed. The percentage of
individuals receiving AFDC benefits in each state is also shown.
In 1969, the states were required to adjust their need standards to reflect changes
in living cost. Since then, however, there has been no federal requirement to update the
figures (HHS, 1990-91). Amounts used to calculate need items do not have to be current.
Some states continually adjust their AFDC payments to match their need standards, but
many do not.
In 1978, the average national need standard was $308.06. The typical AFDC
payment was $281.18. This payment represents 9l.3% of the need standard.
Percentages have continually declined. In 1992, the average national need standard was
$613.11. The typical AFDC payment was $418.55. Only 68% of the need standard was
being paid by that time (HHS, 1993).
5
Table 1
Monthly Need Standards and Typical AFDC Payments as of July 1, 1992
Percent ofIndividuals in Population Receiving AFDC Benefits in Fiscal Year 1992
Three-penon Family % Receiving Arne
Monthly Typical
Need Standard Monthly Payment Benefits
AIab3m> S 637 S 149 3.4
Alaska 923 923 5.6
Arizona 964 347 H
Mansas 705 20-1 3.1
C3lifornia 694 663 7.6
Colorado 421 356 3.6
Connecticut 581 581 4.8
Delaware 338 338 3.9
District of Columbia 712 409 10.4
Florid> 928 303 4.8
Georgia 424 280 5.8
Guam 663 663
Hawaii 1109 693 4.5
Idaho 554 .115 I.K
Illinois 844 367 5.9
1ndi3n.1 :UO 288 3.6
Iowa 849 426 3.6
Kansas 403 403 3.4
Kentucky 526 228 6.1
Louisiana 658 190 6.3
Moine 553 453 5.4
Maryland 522 377 4.5
~husens 579 579 5.2
Michigan 551 459 7.0
Minnesota 532 532 4.3
Mississippi 368 120 6.7
Missouri 312 292 4.8
Montana 497 405 3.9
Nebraska 364 364 3.0
Nevada 620 348 2.5
New Hampshire 516 516 2.6
New Jersey 985 424 4.5
New Mexico 324 324 5.7
New York 5n 577 6.2
Nonh Caro1in3 S44 272 4.6
North Dakota 401 401 2.9
Ohio 853 334 6.7
0I<1aII0m0 471 341 4.3
Oregon 460 460 3.8
Pennsylvania 587 403 5.0
Puerto Rico 360 180
Rhode Wand 554 554 6.0
South Carolina 440 210 3.9
South Dakota 476 404 2.8
Tennessee 426 185 5.4
Texas 574 184 ~.3
Ubh 537 402 2.K
Vermont 1122 659 5.0
VirginLo;Jands 300 240
Virginia 322 291 3.0
Washington 1014 531 5.3
West Virginia 497 249 6.5 Wisconsin 647 517 U
Wyoming 674 360 ~.1
Note. Three-person family includes one needy adult and two children.
Source: Department of Health and Hwnan Services, Overview of the AFDC Program, 1993.
6
Poverty and Government Spending
In 1940, approximately one million individuals were receiving AFDC benefits
(Congressional Quarterly, '1977). By 1992, that figure had climbed to over 13 million
(I-llIS, 1993). Government expenditures for this program have continued to rise as well.
In' 1992, annual AFDC payments amounted to almost 22 billion dollars (I-llIS, 1993).
This increase in government spending has not lowered the percentage of people living
below the poverty level. The poverty percentage has remained relatively constant over
the past twenty five years. In 1966, it was 14.7 % and in 1991, 14.2% (Department of
Commerce, 1993). Appropriately, former secretary of HEW, Wilbur J. Cohen stated,
"The present system is not only inadequate, but it has been built up over the years in such
a way that it fails to benefit all the poor equitably" (AEI, 1976, p. 3).
Quality Control
The AFDC Quality Control (QC) system was designed to ensure that taxpayer's
dollars were used properly. Careful monitoring of AFDC payments has resulted in fewer
payment errors being made. In 1973, 16.5 percent of all AFDC payments were
inaccurate. By 1990, this error rate had dropped to 5.98 percent (HHS Fact Sheet, 1993
April). Common erroneous payment errors include, (1) payments made that are more
than the amount a family is entitled to and, (2)payments made to individuals who are
not entitled to AFDC benefits at all.
AFDC in Oklahoma
An amendment to the State Constitution in 1936 established the Department of
Public Welfare. In 1980, the name was changed to the Department of Human Services
7
(DHS) (Oklahoma Department of Human Services [ODHS], 1991). Like Federal AFDC
expenditures, Oklahoma annual payments for this program have also spiraled since the
program's inception (see Table 2).
Table 2
Oklahoma AFDC in 1937 and in 1993
Category Fiscal Year, 1937 Fiscal Year, 1993
AFDC total payments $789,056 $172,517,528
Average monthly payment $8.52 $301.32
Number of AFDC cases 10,285 47,712
Number of AFDC recipients 35,464 135,692
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services, FY 1993 Annual Report
DHS employs the Education, Training and Employment (ET &E) program to help
those on welfare get jobs. Every AFDC recipient must participate unless he or she is
exempt (ODHS, 1993 May). AFDC recipients include, not only those receiving basic
AFDC, but also two-parent families who are a part of the AFDC - Unemployed Parent
Program (AFDC - UP) (ODHS, 1993 May). One AFDC - UP parent is required to
participate in ET&E.
The educational component ofET &E provides a way for recipients to learn to
read, improve reading, writing, and math skills, learn to speak English, prepare for the
General Education Development (GED) test, or go to college (ODHS, 1993 May). The
training segment consists of job readiness and job training. Job readiness involves group
meetings where recipients are informed on matters such as resume preparation,
8
interviewing skills, etc. Job training covers the four areas that follow:
(1) The Work Experience Program (WEP) is a three-month program where the
recipient goes to work on an actual job. The recipient is not paid, but does receive an
allowance (ODHS, 1993 May).
(2) Jobs Corps II is a training program offered to people, age 16 to 21 or 16 to 24
(depending on the Job Corps Center) (ODHS, 1993 May).
(3) On-lite-Job Training is available to those who have completed WEP or other
job readiness activities. Individuals who participate in this program are paid a salary
(ODHS, 1993 May).
(4) Vocal ionaf Training is provided at vocational - technical schools or at junior
colleges (ODHS, 1993 May).
The employment portion of this program involves work supplementation where a part of
the recipient's wages is paid by DHS. A recipient must be on AFDC for two years, or for
36 of the last 60 months to participate (ODHS, 1993 May). Another part of the
employment component gives private employers a tax credit if they hire people from
certain groups.
"Myths persist that the poor are poor by choice, that anyone can escape poverty
by hard work and that welfare programs make it easier for people to avoid work" (ODHS,
1991 June, p. 2). Similarly, McKee & Robertson (1975) noted that "Many Americans
regard welfare recipients as chiselers and freeloaders=people who are too lazy to work,
rather than people who are victims of circumstance" (p. 259). A 1964 Gallop poll asked
Americans, "In your opinion, which is more often to blame if a person is poor - lack of
effort on his part, or circumstances beyond his control?" (McKee & Robertson, 1975, p.
9
259). Thirty-three percent ofthe respondents felt that lack of effort was responsible,
29% felt that circumstances were responsible, 32% felt that both factors contributed
equally, and 6% had no opinion (McKee & Robertson, 1975). A 1972 Harris poll asked
a similar question and found that "making people on welfare go to work" was favored by
nine out often Americans (McKee & Robertson, 1975). In 1973, Huber and Form (cited
in Groskind, 1994) "asserted that higher-income Americans feel that poor people work
less hard than rich people, and that success and failure are more a result of personal
factors than of structural ones" (Groskind, 1994, p. 82). In 1986, the National Opinion
Research Center's General Social Survey measured the attitudinal and ideological levels
of American citizens regarding families with incomes near or below the poverty line
(Groskind, 1994). "Citizens tended to believe that welfare has undesirable consequences
for recipients"(Groskind, 1994, p. 88), "that is, that it makes people work less,
encourages childbirth before marriage, and discourages marriage" (p. 83).
Many individuals are on welfare because they have lost their jobs, or have
suffered a serious illness as reported by the 1993 Oklahoma Welfare Reform Task Force
(WRTF) referred to in the literature review. The WRTF asked parents about reasons for
seeking AFDC benefits. Most stated multiple reasons; only 5.3% stated one reason.
Although 66.1% of the survey respondents listed lack of child support from the absent
parent, 66.3% indicated sickness or disability of the adult or a child as the reason. Over
92% listed inadequate job pay, loss of their job, or an inability to find a job as the cause.
According to the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, more than two-thirds
of those receiving AFDC are children (ODHS, 1991 June). In striving to dispel some
fallacies associated with AFDC recipients, DHS published a pamphlet entitled,
10
Myth/Reality. Selected excerpts from its contents have been paraphrased and appear in
Table 3.
Table 3
AFDC Recipients: Myths Versus Reality
Myth Reality
Women on welfare continue to have When a child is born to an AFDC family,
babies to get additional welfare money. the monthly allotment increases about
$65. At the same time, their food stamp
benefit decreases about $20. An overall
increase of about $45 a month is hardly a
reason to have a baby.
Anyone who really wants to work can Many on AFDC lack education, training,
find ajob. or work experience. This make it
especially difficult for them to find jobs.
Most welfare recipients are Black. In Oklahoma, almost 60% of those on
welfare are White.
Many people receive welfare benefits In Oklahoma and elsewhere, less than
fraudulently. one-half of 1% of those on welfare are
receiving benefits fraudulently.
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Myth/Reality, 1991
Oklahoma prides itself on its Quality Control system. During the most recent
federal reporting period, the federally mandated tolerance level for erroneous AFDC
payments was 4% (ODHS, 1993 July). Oklahoma had below this level with an error rate
of2.88% (ODHS, 1993 October). Table 4 makes further comparisons between
Oklahoma and the rest of the country.
II
Table 4
How Oklahoma Compares With the Rest of the Countr
Category United Oklahoma
States
% of population receiving AFDC benefits, FY 1992 5.4% 4.3%
Average AFDC monthly payment per case, FY 1992 $383.49 $301.85
Average AFDC monthly payment per recipient, FY 1992 $134.21 $104.83
Average monthly recipients per case, FY 1991 2.9 2.9
% of recipient cases who are White, FY 1991 38.1% 57.0%
% of recipient cases who are Black, FY 1991 38.8% 30.2%
% of recipient cases who are Hispanic, FY 1991 17.4% 2.1%
% of recipient cases who are Asian, FY 1991 2.8% 0.8%
% of recipient cases who are Native American, FY 1991 1.3% 9.9%
Persons below poverty level, 1989 13.1% 16.7%
Median household income, 19891 A-30,056 A- 23,577
W-31,435 W-24,851
B-19,758 B-15,725
Note. 1 Median household income: A=all races, W=White, B=Black
Sources: Department of Health and Human Services, Overview of the AFDC Program, 1993
U. S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1993
The AFDC program in Oklahoma receives approximately two-thirds of its funds
-from the federal government. The remaining one-third comes from state funds (ODHS,
1991).
"f' AFDC in Comanche County
In 1993,4.9% of the Comanche County population was receiving AFDC benefits.
That represented 5,500 individuals; 67.6% were children. Table 5 illustrates the
racial/ethnic breakdown of both children and adults who were receiving AFDC benefits
for fiscal year 1993.
12
Table 5
Comanche County AFDC Recipients by RacelEthnicity
Monthl Avera e, Fiscal Year 1993
RacelEthnicity Adults Children Total %ofAFDC
Individuals
White 815 35.9% 1454 64.1% 2269 41.3%
African American 707 29.6% 1680 70.4% 2387 43.4%
Native American 167 30.7% 377 69.3% 544 9.9%
Otherl 94 31.3% 206 68.7% 300 5.5%
# of individuals
% of individuals
Note. 1 Includes Hispanic and Asian
Source: Oklahoma De artment of Human Services, FY 1993 Annual Re ort
According to the 1990 Census of population and housing, 71.4% (79,666
individuals) of Comanche County residents were White; 17.9% (19,908 individuals)
were African American. Table 5 shows that a greater percentage of African Americans
(43.4%) were dependent on AFDC than would be expected, considering that only 17.9%
of the Comanche County population was African American.
As of January 1994, there were 1,983 recipient payees (cases) in Comanche
County. Recipient payees included parents and non-parents (foster parents and
grandparents, for instance). Eighty-five (4.3%) were male; 1,898 (95.7%) were female.
The average age of these payees was 31.34 (Comanche County Department of Human
Services [CCDHS], 1994 January). Table 6 shows these AFDC cases by race/ethnicity.
13
Table 6
Comanche County AFDC Cases by Race/Ethnicity, January 1994
Asian African Hispanic Native White Total
American American
# % # % # % # % # % # %
25 1.3 844 42.6 92 4.6 220 11.1 802 40.4 1983 100
Source: Comanche County Department of Human Services, AFDC Payee Characteristics,
January 1994
Federal Welfare Refonn
Welfare reforrn is not easily or universally defined. Webster's Dictionary defines
welfare as money, food, clothing, etc. given to those in need. Reform means to make
better, alter, or restore to a better condition. Applying a standard definition to the term
welfare reform is not controversial. Describing what that definition means is, however,
quite debatable, as it means many things to different people. To some, it means
developing a system that is easier to access, has less stringent eligibility requirements,
and provides relief to anyone who wants it. To others, it means a total and complete
dismantling of the system and an end to welfare as we know it. A wide range of
opinions and ideas by most people and groups, however, does not place them at either
end of the welfare reform continuum, but instead positions them at some point between
the two extremes.
In response to escalating welfare expenditures, the Federal government has on a
number of occasions, attempted welfare reform. One such attempt occurred in 1967 with
the enactment of legislation for the Work Incentive Program (WIN). The WIN program
stipulated, that to be eligible for AFDC benefits, an individual would have to register for
14
training, employment, and manpower services (HI-IS, 1993). There were a few
exceptions: (1) under age 16 and in school full-time, (2) ill, incapacitated or elderly, (3)
living in a remote area, (4) needed at home to care for an ill or incapacitated family
member, or (5) or having a child at home under the age of six. Optional provisions in
1981, enabled the states to develop alternative or supplemental programs that sometimes
required the participation of individuals with a child over age three (instead of over six)
(HHS, 1993).
In 1969, under increasing pressure from state and local governments to offer
some relief of the welfare burden, President Nixon sent his Family Assistance Plan (FAP)
to Congress. FAP, which was based on recommendations that came out of the
Brookings Institution task force, would be a substitute for the AFDC program. It called
for a two-track system where benefits would be paid to families of the unemployed and
to families of the working poor. In 1970, this proposal passed the House but not the
Senate. FAP was revised and again introduced to the 92nd Congress. It passed the
House but was dropped by the Senate Finance Committee that substituted a "workfare"
program. These proposals were not agreed upon before the end of the session, and in
early 1973, President Nixon decided not to resubmit the plan to the 93rd Congress
(Congressional Quarterly, 1981).
President Carter came into office hoping to elicit the support of Congress in
overhauling the welfare system (Congressional Quarterly, 1981). Carter had devised a
plan (1977) that would do away with AFDC, SSI, and food stamps. These programs
would be replaced by the "Program for Better Jobs and Income," which consisted of a flat
cash grant. About two million additional people would be served under this new
]5
program, which included benefits for the working poor. AFDC recipients would be
expected to work, unless they were unable to because of age, disability, child care
responsibilities, or unemployment problems. This welfare reform bill was unsuccessful
in reaching the floor of the Senate before the end of the 95th Congress in 1978
(Congressional Quarterly, 1981).
In 1979, President Carter decided not to approach welfare reform on such a
massive scale. In November of that year, legislation was approved in the House that
established a national minimum benefit level for all welfare recipients. The Senate,
however, took no action and this measure died at the end of the 96th Congress
(Congressional Quarterly, ]98]).
In 1988, the Family Support Act was passed (Public Law (PL) 100-485). It was
heralded as the "landmark welfare-overhaul legislation" (Congressional Quarterly, 1990,
p. 616). Unlike previous attempts at welfare reform, not only did this bill pass in the
House and the Senate, but it also had the support of both liberals and conservatives.
President Reagan had also vowed to make welfare reform one of his priorities. During
his 1986 State of the Union address, he called for "real welfare reform -- reform that will
lead to lasting emancipation from welfare dependency" (Congressional Quarterly, 1990,
p. 616). In addition, the nation's governors had issued a statement in 1987 making
welfare reform their top priority (Congressional Quarterly, 1990). They recommended
that "we turn what is now primarily a payments system with a minor work component
into a system that is first and foremost a jobs system, backed up by an income assistance
component" (U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News [US Code], 1989,
p.2784).
16
The Fami Iy Support Act amended Title IV or the Social Security Act. The goal
of this legislation was eventual independence of AFDC recipients from the public
welfare system. Under this Act, persons on welfare were required to either aggressively
look for jobs, participate in job training programs, or continue their educations. It was
federally mandated that, "During 1990 and 1991, states would have to enroll at least 7
percent of AFDC parents in workfare; by 1995, the enrollment would rise to 20 percent"
(Stoesz & Karger, 1993, p. 623). Five major provisions were instituted to accomplish
this (US Code, 1989). The provisions were as follows:
(l) Child support enforcement. - The child support enforcement system was
strengthened through wage withholding and the setting of child support awards.
(2) Education, employment and training. - A new program, Job Opportunity and
Basic Skills Training (JOBS) replaced WIN. Its purpose was to require and help welfare
recipients gain independence from welfare through education, employment and training.
(3) Transitional assistance. - Subsidized child care and extended Medicaid
coverage would be provided for families leaving welfare for work.
(4) Assistance to families of unemployed parents. - Assistance would be provided
for two-parent families in which the principal wage earner was unemployed.
(5) Budget neutral legislation. - The cost of this new legislation would be offset
by the collection of debts owed the Federal government.
With the passage of the 1988 Family Support Act, the Federal government's
ideology of welfare shifted to one of providing services to help families become
independent of the welfare system and move permanently into the economic mainstream.
Previously it had been to merely provide cash assistance to families to meet their basic
17
needs (HHS Fact Sheet, 1993 April).
Because of the recession, many states were not able to benefit from their full
allotment of Federal funds because they were not able to match them. Subsequently, in
1992, a bill was introduced that would make it easier for the states to access welfare-to-work
program funds. This bill did not become law, however. It was pocket-vetoed by
President Bush on November 4, 1992 (Congressional Quarterly, 1993).
Welfare reform has gained national attention this year, 1994. On February 28,
the administration's welfare reform working group drafted a plan of recommendations.
According to the May, 1994 issue of the NASW News, some recommendations in their
latest draft were as follows:
(l) There would be a two-year limit on cash assistance payments to individuals
who can work. Occasionally extensions would be granted.
(2) A personal responsibility contract would be signed and the recipient would be
helped to gain employment as quickly as possible.
(3) Those individuals receiving assistance would have to do something to help
themselves or their community.
(4) Child care subsidies would be made available to low-income working
families who were not on welfare.
(5) Community service jobs or work in the private or public sector would be
required of individuals not able to find their own employment within two years.
One of the biggest problems confronting welfare reform efforts is the question of
how to finance proposed projects ("Welfare limits," 1994).
18
State Wdlim~ Reform
In response to the welfare dilemma, the states have devised their own unique
ways of attempting to deal with the problem. Some states have requested waivers from
the Federal government to help them accomplish this. Section 1115 of the Social
Security Act authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to grant waivers
that allow the states to develop alternative programs that are better suited to specific
state needs. As of December, 1993, HHS had approved waivers for welfare
demonstration projects in seven states: Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Vermont, Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Requests from 15 other states were pending (I-n-IS Fact Sheet,
1993 December). Welfare reform efforts for selected states are presented below.
California. - The California JOBS program, Greater Avenues for Independence
(GAIN) experienced a decrease in welfare spending after its first year of operation. This
program emphasizes education, job-seeking activities and attempts to require AFDC
recipient participation (ODHS, 1994). The city of Los Angeles has requested and
received a waiver to require fingerprinting of AFDC recipients. This program has not
been implemented because money is not available for it ("Welfare Fraud," 1994).
Connecticut. - Job Connection operates in Connecticut, providing education,
training, support, and employment services to AFDC recipients. Additional welfare
reform strategy is being proposed by the governor (ODHS, 1994).
Georgia. - The Georgia program, Personal Accountabilitv and Responsibilitv
Project (PAR) is being initiated as the result of a Federal waiver granted on November I,
1993. Under PAR, Georgia can deny aid to anyone who does not have a child under the
age of 14 and either willfully refuses to work or who leaves work without good cause
19
Furthermore, additional AFDC benefits do not have to be provided to a family for any
children conceived while that family is on welfare; if the family has been on welfare for
at least two years (HHS Fact Sheet, 1993 December).
Illinois. - The Illinois waiver, granted on November 23, 1993, added the Work
Emcomponent to the previously approved Project Fresh Start. This program allows
welfare recipients to keep a larger percentage of their earnings before it affects their
AFDC benefits (HHS Fact Sheet, 1993 December).
Iowa. - Individual Development Accounts was implemented as a result of the
Iowa waiver being granted on August 13, 1993. Welfare recipients are encouraged to
take jobs and accumulate assets. Funds must be deposited into an account. They can
only be withdrawn for training, an emergency, educational purposes, starting a business,
or buying a home. Previously, AFDC families were allowed to have only $1,000 in
assets. The new program allows each applicant to have up to $2,000 in assets and each
AFDC family to have assets of up to $5,000. The automobile asset ceiling also rose
from $1,500 to $3,000. In addition, most AFDC recipients are required to participate in
a newly created Family Investment Program that provides training and support services
(HHS Fact Sheet, 1993 December).
Ohio. - The Ohio Learning, Earning and Parenting (LEAP) program concentrates
on pregnant women under the age of 20 who are receiving AFDC benefits. These
women are required to stay in school and attend regularly. Those who have dropped out
are forced to either return to school or enter a GED program (ODHS, 1994).
Vermont. - Vermont's waiver request was granted on August 13, 1993. The
resulting Family Independence Project (FIP) allows AFDC recipients to retain more of
20
their earnings and accumulate more assets than previously. A limit is also placed on the
time (30 months for most families) a family receives benefits before the recipient must
take a community or public service job (HHS Fact Sheet, 1993 December).
Virginia. - The Welfare Reform Project identifies employers that will hire AfDC
recipients and pay them between $15,000 and $18,000 a year. Additional months of
transitional child care and health care are provided. Another statewide project allows
families to accumulate up to $5,000 to be used for educational purposes or for home
purchases (HHS Fact Sheet, 1993 December).
Wisconsin. - The Wisconsin Learnfare Program requires AFDC recipients, who
are between the ages of 13 and 19, to attend school if they have not yet received either a
high school diploma or a GED. Failure to comply with this requirement results in a
reduction in the family's AFDC payment (ODHS, 1994). A waiver granted on November
1, 1993 instituted Work Not Welfare. This program requires most AFDC recipients
either to work, or look for work. Furthermore, AFDC benefits are limited to 24 months
in a four-year period. Children that are born while a family is on welfare, will not
usually be included in the AFDC grant (HHS Fact Sheet, 1993 December).
Wyoming. - The Wyoming waiver, granted on September 7, 1993, allowed for
the application of stiff monetary penalties for non-compliance to the state's AFDC
regulations. In addition, Wyoming's reform plan also made it possible to order
unemployed non-custodial parents of AFDC children into the JOBS program, if they
were not currently paying child support (HHS Fact Sheet, 1993 December).
21
Oklahoma Welfare Reform
Oklahoma's Department of Human Services (DHS) placed approximately 7,000
adults from AFDC families in unsubsidized full-time employment each year between FY
1983 and FY 1992 (ODHS, 1994). Despite state efforts to serve low-income families
while attempting to make them self-sufficient, however, there was a 48% increase in
Oklahoma's AFDC cases during that ten-year period (ODHS, 1994). Subsequently, in
April, 1993, the Commission for Human Services asked Benjamin Demps, Jr., the DHS
Director for the State of Oklahoma, to organize a task force. Its purpose would be to
study the AFDC program and make recommendations that would improve the
functioning and quality of the program. The Welfare Reform Task Force met from April,
1993 to September, 1993. At its conclusion, recommendations were presented to the
Commission for Human Services Committee on Welfare Reform.
Welfare reform is on the national agenda and states continue to work toward
solving their own welfare problems. The National Association of Social Workers
(NASW) suggests that this be accomplished through policies that "reduce poverty and
promote economic self-sufficiency and security for families in need" (Health, 1994, p.S).
22
CHAPTER 11
LITERA TURE REVIEW
Since the passage of the ADC/AFDC portion of the Social Security Act in 1935,
an abundance of legislation has been enacted and there have been many attempts at
welfare reform by both the Federal and state governments.
Social experiments have been aimed at informing policy-making (Greenberg &
Mandell, 1991) and welfare policy has been primarily in the hands of the "experts"
(O'Donnell, 1993). There have not been many efforts to involve AFDC recipients in the
policy-making process or to seek their opinion regarding how the system can assist them
more effectively. Only recently has the idea of directly involving AFDC recipients in
policy-making been employed.
To learn how welfare recipients experienced the system and what could be done
to improve it, the State of Illinois made bryantmoney available to study this issue. State
sponsored studies (cited in O'Donnell, 1993) collected data from various sources to
compare and contrast responses from welfare and non-welfare recipients. "Two
academic studies interviewed randomly sampled welfare recipients" (O'Donnell, 1993, p.
631). Women for Economic Security (WES) is an organization consisting primarily of
long-term welfare recipients. They interviewed a convenience sample of 300 friends
and neighbors. In addition, ten men who were receiving General Assistance were
23
trained by the Westside Holistic Family Center (Chicago, IL) to become "client experts."
These men interviewed more than 100 young fathers on General Assistance. Further,
members of the Work, Welfare and Families Coalition surveyed its members. Finally,
public meetings sponsored by both the private sector and the State were held, inviting
testimony from welfare recipients. These State-sponsored studies found that most
welfare recipients would rather work than be on welfare, even if welfare was an
economically viable option. Low-income individuals were also given the opportunity to
make contributions to State policy development.
Another study (cited in Landers, 1994) was conducted in the Washington, D.C.
area by Hagen and Davis. They met with AFDC recipients during February and March,
1994. Recipients were presented with questionnaires to elicit their reactions to
proposals being presented on welfare reform. Both teenage mothers and older women
participated. Most were involved in the JOBS program. AFDC recipients who met with
Hagan and Davis said, "they would prefer to work rather than receive welfare, valued the
health and child-care benefits they receive more than the cash, thought benefits should be
tailored to fit individual families, and believed that schools should provide better sex
education" (Landers, 1994, p. 8).
In an Oklahoma study, the Welfare Reform Task Force (WRTF) met from April,
1993 through September, 1993 to study issues and make recommendations for welfare
reform. They had been appointed by the Director of the Oklahoma Department of
Human Services (DHS) in response to the welfare problem in Oklahoma. The WRTF
consisted of sixteen members. They presented their findings in a report entitled, Welfare
Reform for the 21 st Century.
24
The task force collected five types of information: (1) a review of the literature,
(2) demographic data, (3) economic trends, (4) social worker recommendations, and (5) a
survey of AFDC participants.
The State of Oklahoma has six DHS areas. Social workers who participated in
the WRTF study, had to be experienced in working with AFDC, child support and/or
employment and training. County Directors selected one experienced social worker from
their county. A total of 84 social workers statewide gathered in focus f,TfOUpS in their
respective DHS areas. Teams of two or three WRTF members facilitated the meetings in
each DHS area and talked individually with social workers. They asked each social
worker five questions. The questions had been given to the social workers prior to the
date of the focus groups so that they could confer with colleagues and obtain their input.
The following questions were asked:
Question 1: Define "welfare" in terms of designing a new system for assuring
or providing for the welfare of families with children.
Question 2: If you could build a welfare system from base zero, what would
the system include?
Question 3: What changes, no matter how large, small, or costly, in current
AFDC payment; employment, training, and education; social
services for families; child care; child support; Medicaid program
for AFDC recipients, and food stamps program for AFDC
recipients, would you recommend that would fundamentally
change the outcomes of these programs to better address
recipients' needs?
25
Question 4: How would you prioritize the areas you identified in question
three,if because of limited resources, changes had to be made?
Question 5: Following are some welfare reforms used in other states. How
effective do you think these reforms would be in changing the
welfare system in Oklahoma?
The Center for Health Policy Research and Development at The University of
Oklahoma Health Sciences Center conducted the AFDC recipient 1993 survey for the
WRTF study. Six hundred AFDC recipients were randomly selected from the July, 1993
Oklahoma AFDC list. Of these, 280 participated in the study. AFDC recipients were
either interviewed in person or by telephone. They were asked questions, and answers
were used to determine the characteristics of parents and non-parents who receive AFDC
benefits. In addition, they were also asked the following:
Question 1: Why did you first seek AFDC?
Question 2: What characteristics are associated with the length of time you
have received AFDC?
Question 3: What are your goals for the future?
Since there is no available data for Comanche County, Oklahoma dealing with
what AFDC recipients think welfare reform should entail, the present study was
undertaken to provide this information.
Purpose of Studv
The purpose ofthis study is to delineate how AFDC recipients in Comanche
County, Oklahoma perceive the welfare system and what changes they think need to be
26
made. In addition, statistical comparisons using the demographic data are given. Finally,
this study provides information on the relative importance of various program changes
as perceived by AFDC recipients.
Results from this study attempted to answer three research questions. They are as
follows:
(1) Are there significant differences in the way the various race/ethnic groups
perceive the welfare system and any changes that may need to be made?
(2) Do AFDC recipients experience relatively the same difficulties, regardless of
their race or ethnic group?
(3) What obstacles prevent AFDC recipients from becoming independent of the
welfare system?
27
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Subjects
Subjects were AFDC recipients who reside in Comanche County, Oklahoma. In
May, 1994, there were 2,063 active AFDC cases in Comanche County. Active cases
consisted of parents, non-parents, individuals with special medical needs, and those in
the unemployed parent program. Surveys were mailed to each of 500 randomly selected
AFDC recipients. Three surveys were returned, unopened by the post office. Sixty-seven
recipients responded by filling out and mailing in their surveys. Of those 67, three
indicated they were not currently receiving AFDC benefits. Their surveys were
discarded. The remaining surveys (N= 64) included 60 from parents and four from non-parents.
Demographic characteristics of the subjects appear in the results' section.
Instruments
There were two instruments: a letter of introduction (see in Appendix A) and a
two-page survey (see Appendix B). Recipients were instructed not to identify
themselves on the survey.
A letter of introduction introduced the study, asked for the cooperation of
recipients and provided mailing instructions. AFDC recipients were assured that their
28
identities would not be revealed. Accordingly, they were asked not to put their names or
case numbers on the surveys to maintain their anonymity. They were also given the
name and University telephone number of the thesis advisor, Dr. Lawrence Weinstein,
so they could telephone and ask questions if they wanted to. Dr. Weinstein reported that
he heard from two recipients.
All questions on the present survey were similar to the WRTF questions (from the
Oklahoma study cited in the literature review). The WRTF survey asked AFDC
recipients, questions to determine the characteristics of both parents and non-parents who
receive AFDC benefits. From the answers, the Task Force derived demographic
information. Questions two through nine on the present survey provided the same data as
that gathered from the Task Force questions. Demographic information from the present
study was used to determine the extent to which the sample (N = 64) adequately
represented the AFDC recipient population in Comanche County. The divisions in
questions four, eight, and nine of the present survey were the same categorically as those
used by the Task Force. Questions ten and eleven on the present survey were similar to
the first two questions asked the social workers by the WRTF during their focus groups.
The WRTF asked social workers for their recommendations. Their responses
were placed into seven separate categories: AFDC payments; employment, training and
education; social services for families; child care; child support enforcement; Medicaid;
and food stamps. Question twelve of the present survey used these same categories to
ask AFDC recipients for their recommendations.
29
Procedure
Because there would be no follow-up on incomplete surveys, a large number of
surveys were initially sent out. Five-hundred AFDC recipients were randomly chosen
using the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS) May 10, 1994 database that
issues the AFDC benefits checks. Confidentiality necessitated that the randomization
process take place at DHS in Oklahoma City. Randomization was accomplished in the
following manner: All active AFDC cases were computer assigned, random numbers.
Cases were then sorted and placed in numerically descending order. The first 500 cases
were chosen by case identification number.
Survey instruments were forwarded to the Research, Evaluation and Statistics
Department at DHS in Oklahoma City as follows: (1) 500 copies of the letter of
introduction, typed on Cameron University, Department of Psychology and Human
Ecology stationery, (2) one survey, and (3) 500 Cameron University, Research Office,
postage paid envelopes. Personnel at DHS made 500 copies of the survey. They
assembled and mailed 500 survey packets. Each packet included: (1) a letter of
introduction, (2) a two-page survey, and (3) a Cameron University, Research Office,
postage paid envelope. Survey materials were mailed in DHS envelopes from Oklahoma
City.
Completed surveys were returned to the research office at Cameron University
and held there for me to pickup. Idate stamped and numerically coded each survey as it
came in.
30