Reducing welfare: 'Steady' but slow, progress

With the total number of welfare cases dropping just 2 percent since May 1997, the state could soon be penalized for not meeting federal requiements.

By CHRISTOPHER ROWLAND Journal State House Bureau, Providence Journal

PROVIDENCE -- With the state's help, Pamela Burkett completed courses she needed for a Bryant College degree and joyously weaned herself from a decade-long dependence on the state welfare system.

"The sense of independence is really wonderful," she said the other day at her $10-an-hour job as child-care director for a local Boys and Girls Club. "I was so happy to say "Yes, I want my case closed.'"

Burkett, who left the welfare rolls last December, was cited as a model by state officials, who are two years into an expensive and ambitious program to remake the state welfare system.

But her achievement is only part of Rhode Island's welfare story.

Beneath the rosy tone of a new state welfare report -- stamped "Steady Progress" by Governor Almond's administration -- lurk signs that liberal Rhode Island is moving slower than state and federal lawmakers anticipated when they passed sweeping welfare overhaul laws in 1996.

The state trumpets a two-fold increase in the number of welfare mothers who are earning real pay from real jobs. But for every example of a mother using the program as a springboard, there are three stories of women mired in the old, hopeless system, sitting at home and collecting a check.

As of December, 44 percent of the welfare recipients who are eligible for work plans had not even been evaluated.

The state's total number of welfare cases remains stubbornly high, dropping just 2 percent since Rhode Island adopted its welfare-to-work program in May 1997. (The federal government recently ranked Rhode Island 49th among states for welfare caseload reduction.)

The state is facing a $300,000 sanction from the federal government because not enough of its two-parent welfare families are putting in sufficient hours in jobs.

Although that sanction is relatively small, sanctions could climb to $4.75 million and more in future years if the state fails to meet the federal government's increasingly stringent work requirements for all welfare families.

When it adopted a national welfare overhaul, Congress set a five-year clock ticking on benefits for individual welfare families. As Rhode Island hits the halfway point on that clock, it is appearing ever more likely that it will have to make good on a promise to pay the benefits for thousands of families when the federal benefits run out.

That means Rhode Island taxpayers could face hefty new expenses on top of the high costs it has already incurred for child care, medical benefits, education and enhanced supervision.

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY passed its welfare law in August 1996, the same month that Congress and President Clinton passed the national welfare overhaul. It took effect in May 1997.

From the start, it appeared that Rhode Island would be known as the little state with the big heart.

State officials said their approach is a kinder, gentler alternative to the "work first" programs that have been launched in other states. It is supposed to get women ready for jobs that are more rewarding than flipping burgers. The state takes care of their children while they train, attend school or work. It gives them free health care, so they do not have to worry about medical expenses.

There have been some savings in cash benefits. The state (using state and federal dollars) is paying a few million dollars less each year because of a slight caseload reduction and because women who are working receive a smaller monthly benefits check.

But costs have risen sharply in other areas. The state is spending $42 million a year on child care (to take care of 3,500 children from welfare families and 4,400 from families considered "working poor"). It spends $115 million a year on health care for welfare families. Welfare administration costs have jumped from $9 million to $15 million. Work program costs have risen to $7 million.

In addition to costing more, the more comprehensive, humane approach to welfare change takes a lot longer than say, Wisconsin's tougher program, which reduced welfare caseloads by 87 percent over the last five years.

Tired of being contrasted with states like Wisconsin, Governor Almond and DHS officials have taken recently to saying that you can't measure Rhode Island's program in the standard ways, by case reduction and work participation rates.

They say the proof of Rhode Island's success will be in women who stay in the work force and in children who are protected from the severe risks and disadvantages of severe poverty.

"What we were trying to achieve is a series of supports for the children, not to be in a worse situation than they were under the previous system," said Jane Hayward, DHS associate director for operations.

Hayward cited a study of foster care in Wisconsin's Milwaukee County, which suggested more children faced homelessness with the advent of tough new welfare rules.

"We chose a very different approach than Wisconsin did," Hayward said. ``We're not seeing a bulge in another part of the system."

Advocate Nancy Gewirtz, of Rhode Island College's Poverty Institute, also says Rhode Island's welfare efforts are sound. She and other advocates were among the principal voices that fought off stricter welfare reforms during the 1996 State House battle.

"We never said we were going to measure welfare reform by the reduction in the rolls," Gewirtz said. "The idea always was that people were going to have to have years to get the training and education they need. It wasn't about getting off welfare, it was about getting out of poverty."

Most troublesome, said Gewirtz, is the state's delays in effectively ``engaging the caseload,'' getting social workers in touch with mothers who need to be evaluated for their work potential.

"It's not that they're not beginning to engage the families, but it's being done in a haphazard fashion," said Gewirtz. "They have all this clerical stuff to do -- Xeroxing, filing papers. It's crazy. That's a secretarial function."

General Assembly members received the Department of Human Services report and began reviewing it this week. Without more information, key legislators qualified their observations.

"They do seem to be behind," said Rep. Nancy Benoit, D-Woonsocket, chairwoman of the House Health, Education and Welfare Committee.

Benoit has introduced a bill that would require 36 new social-work jobs at the DHS to help it catch up with its caseload. The cost would be $1.6 million.

Rep. Paul Sherlock, D-Warwick, who chairs the social services subcommittee of the House Finance Committee, said the report raises significant questions that will be discussed as part of the DHS budget deliberations.

SEVERAL WOMEN who have benefited from the state's approach say it is the correct one, even if it takes time or costs more.

Edwina Deyampert, 31, works as a receptionist at Church Community Housing in Newport, a nonprofit agency that manages dozens of apartments for low-income families. She is much more than a secretary. She is keeper of the keys for the rental units, ad-hoc counselor to younger women, coordinator of countless meetings. At home, she has four daughters.

"Some days, I want to quit and just be with my kids," she said, "and other days, I want to set a good example for them."

With state-supported education and volunteer work at Newport Hospital, Deyampert worked her way into her first full-time job at the hospital. But she recently had to quit when the hospital merged with Lifespan and her job was moved to Providence. She found the job at Church Community Housing in the newspaper.

If Deyampert had been living in a state without child care, medical and cash benefits, she said she probably would not have succeeded in weaning herself off welfare.

"I probably would have packed my bags," she said, "and gone home to my mother."

back to welfare

LR/RI home