Welfare Reform Act
of 1996 Starting to Show Results

by the Rev. Phil Wogaman

The welfare reform act of 1996 observed its third birthday this summer. It replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (AFDC) with stringent work requirements, eligibility standards, time limits and diminished federal responsibility. The AFDC and related welfare programs had not been supported with much enthusiasm, but the welfare reform act was highly controversial — praised by many as an end to welfare dependency, condemned by many as a heartless renunciation of public responsibility for the poor.

The returns aren’t all in yet, but studies of the effects of the changes are beginning to accumulate. The most dramatic result has been a sharp decrease in the numbers of people on welfare. The rolls have been cut nearly in half since 1994. If the objective is solely one of getting people off the dole, then it has been a huge success. Of course, it could be an even greater success just by eliminating welfare programs altogether!

To be sure, the returns are not all bad. Many of those who have gotten off welfare and taken jobs have wound up with more, not less, income. They are the success stories. But, as noted by Ron Haskins, staff director of the welfare panel of the House Ways and Means Committee, “there are people who are worse off.” A Ways and Means Committee report indicates that the poorest 20 percent of families headed by single women lost an average of $577 per year, leaving them, on average, with only $8,047 annually. It is also disquieting to learn that large numbers no longer receive food stamps, even though they are still eligible, and that about a fourth of America’s children lack medical insurance.

If such poverty persists even during a period of almost unprecedented national prosperity, what might we expect during an economic downturn? I don’t know anybody who wants to return to the old system as it used to exist, but surely there is room for improvement. Ways must be found to ensure that no child in America goes hungry or lacks medical care. It would be better to risk some receiving benefits they do not “deserve” than to risk some not receiving benefits they really need. In the end, what we do about poverty helps define who we are as a nation.

I am struck by another anomaly in the attitudes of many people toward welfare. There is a national movement, especially among religiously conservative people, to return as many mothers to the home as possible. In part that represents a well-founded recognition that children need a lot more parental attention than they often get when both parents are employed. In part, it may only be nostalgia for a situation that never really existed. And in part, it may represent negative attitudes toward equality for women. But in any case, is it not strange that poor women should be exempted from this? Currently law compels poor mothers to go out and get a job, even if this means serious neglect of children at home.

All in all, it is evident that there is need for still more reform: to assure adequate income for all, to take care of those who cannot realistically be expected to find jobs outside the home, to be sure that everybody has adequate health insurance, and to guarantee real educational opportunity for all. For many of us, examining the yet incomplete welfare reform brings to mind the haunting words, “inasmuch as you have done it to the least of these...”

The Rev. Phil Wogaman served many years as a professor of Christian Ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary and has written several books on the topic.