I place this question before the group in this forum (principles and personal philosophy) rather than domestic issues, because it is not a question limited to the U.S. I believe your answer is largely based on your personal set of values, principles, and philosophy.

Here are the questions in their entirety:

What level of social welfare is the state responsible for providing?
What level of state-provided welfare provides the best overall Return on Investment?
What level of social welfare are we, as fellow human beings, responsible for providing?


Here are my answers:
I believe the state is responsible for providing the basics: Food, Shelter, Clothing. I don't mean steak dinners, and I don't mean your own apartment, and I don't mean the latest fashions.

I believe that it's worth the states money to attempt to educate welfare recipients, in an attempt to enable them to provide for themselves. Likewise I think it's econonomically worthwile to ensure a quality primary education for each child, regardless of income. As a practical matter, a certain level of carefully regulated medical care is necessary as well.

I believe we, as fellow human beings, are responsible for the basics, food, shelter & clothing. See a pattern here?

What level of social welfare is the state responsible for providing?

Responsible for? Well, none really- but what is philosophy and what is practical for a state to survive are two different things. Since the states only true responsibility is safety for it's citizens, social welfare figures into that to some degree, if you have a huge problem with poverty, you have a huge problem with crime, period. Social welfare is a way to combat crime. Even the ones that decry social welfare in thier campaign speeches realize this, and IMO- is why they talk about getting rid of it, but really can't, because that poverty would eventually start robbing thier constituents houses!

What level of state-provided welfare provides the best overall Return on Investment?

That is easy- education. Educated poeple earn too much money on average to qualify for social welfare LOL

What level of social welfare are we, as fellow human beings, responsible for providing?

Well, as charity begins at home, so does social welfare. As human beings, we are responsible for making sure OUR families don't need it. Outside of that, it is moral for human beings to help others. Those callous poeple that help no ones but themselves are not moral, period.

I believe that taxing an individual and giving the proceeds of those taxes to other individuals is both immoral and unconstitutional. The social safety net should consist of family, friends and private charity.

Public charity actually subsidizes criminal activity. Let us just say you are on welfare, if you get a job you lose those benefits, if you sell drugs, or engage in prostitution, you do not. Now let us consider private charity. Friends and family will know if you are down on your luck or simply irresponsible. Private charities usually also take some time to know who they are assisting.

I believe that exploiting someone's labor is immoral.

The state shouldn't be responsible for distrubuting wealth, when workers themselves own industry.

In a capitalist economy, it's an absolute neccessity. No we shouldn't make them rich, but give enough to survive, and education, to be sucessful in the workplace...


And yet: Tufts University Study


Imagine with no safety net....

Hugo- I am pretty libertarian leaning- but I think anwers like that are the reason that the libertarian party will never really accomplish anything- they are all philosophy and no practical application or real world common sense. MOST poeple that recieve social welfare don't want to be in that situation- don't have family or any other resources.

IT IS NOT a redistribution of wealth, but rather, the cost of living in a society that maintains a certain level of civility and culture. Countries with no safety net are not in the G-8 and never will be, because poverty begats poverty.

Saying the social welfare system creates criminal behavior is silly-it is a very small minority of poeple that will apply too- the rest are just down on thier luck or coming out of a bad situation, like abusive relationships etc.

To me, the question is, not if to have a social welfare net at all, but to what level is best for everyone, and the best for society in general, and at what point it helps biz vs hurts biz.

It should be noted here that Hugo seems to think we are still living in the AFDC welfare state. We are not. Bone up on your TANF, mate!

There is nothing immoral or anticapitalist about taxation, particularly progressive taxation. Conservatives often hark back to the utopian fifties - but that was when the taxation rate on the most wealthy Americans was over 90%.

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state... as Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to 'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.'"
That, my friends was Adam Smith, from The Wealth of Nations.

As for private charities - perhaps hugo could answer a question for me: before public welfare was instituted in this country, all the poor had in the way of help was private charity. Since then, our population has grown. If there was not enough private charity to help prevent people from starving then, what makes you think it will happen today? Your proposal is utopian fantasy.

Easy question...Before public welfare was initiated in this country our per capita wealth was much less. Population has grown...not as near as fast as GNP. We are a much wealthier country, per capita, today. We have had 40 years of capital accumulation. We don't need legalized theft to feed the poor. To pretend that social programs reduce poverty is a socialist fantasy.

In 1997 this article was written decrying the social net had been destroyed. Let me quote the first two paragraphs.

Welfare Reform:" Clinton Kills Safety Net
by Mark Dunlea, Green Party of New York State


The two main legacies from Bill Clinton's first term as President will be passage of the various international trade agreements and the repeal of the welfare safety net that existed since the Great Depression. Both issues would likely have been defeated under a Republican President.
While the politicians who repealed the federal welfare system frequently repeated the mantra of the need to move participants from welfare to work, there are no jobs created by the recent legislation. The repeal of the welfare system is merely the latest manifestation of the class warfare that the Democrats and Republicans have waged on behalf of their corporate financial backers since Ronald Reagan's election. The principal victims are poor women, children, minorities, and immigrants, but its impact will be concretely felt by many low and moderate income workers. (end of quotes)


What has happened to the percentage of Americans living under the poverty line?

Why, then, has the period since public welfare began also marked the period of reducing poverty? On what possible basis do you make your statement, other than you want it to be so? Your last statement is really weird. Social programs do reduce poverty. If you're going to simply say that is a socialist fantasy, offer some proof!

In the year 1997 (a pretty good year economically) the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line was at 13.3%. This was the year Greenie boy, see my previous post, decried the social net had been destroyed. What happened? By the year 2000, those under the poverty line was down to a 26 year low of 11.3%. In the year 2001 (despite a recession) the poverty rate was 11.7%. Too bad the safety net had not been more thoroughly destroyed.



It hasn't. Not sure where you got that from. In 1975 (a period of stagflation, bad year economically) the percentage of people living under poverty was 12.3%. After 22 years, before Greenie boy's complaint that the safety net had been destroyed, the poverty rate was 13.3%. The safety net never reduced poverty. In fact, it can be argued, sadly the socialists never gave us a chance to proove it, that the safety net prohibited capital accumulation ,through the power of the free market, from reducing poverty.

Let me add the stats come from infoplease.com

Would have been nice if you had done two things here Hugo: (1) cite your sources; (2) included 2002.

2002 Poverty Rate Increases to 12.1 percent



Mind you, from 1993 through 2000, the poverty rate dropped each year. In the past two years, it's gone up.

I'm not sure, though, what all these numbers prove or disprove about your argument, because you cite numbers, but no real argument.

Something awful to contemplate in the meantime: 12.1 percent of our citizens make less than they need to live a normal life. How sad.

What's a normal life life? Yes, the 12.1 %, in the middle of a recession, is still below the 13.3%, before the safety net was destroyed, in 1997. People that behave irresponsibly, people who are just young, may not live a "normal" life by your definition. Between the ages of 18 and 22 I probably lived below the poverty line, always had a cold beer in the fridge. If I had not had to work for the same "abnormal" level of living, I may never had gone on to live a "normal" life.

That's a bogus correlation and you know it. Looking further at the census site, for example, we can see that from 1959 (around 23%) until 1979 (around 11%), the poverty rate dropped sharply. It went up during Reagan's terms, peaking in around '83 at 15%, dipping slightly, but hovering near there until Clinton's term, when it dropped again. It has, under Bush, been once again rising.

So, yes, it's true that since welfare reform in 1996, the rate went down for a few more years; it is now rising. Did it take a few years to catch up? Who knows? You continue to take numbers and then make bold statements - but those numbers don't really connect to the subject in such direct ways as you try to make it sound.

If one is going to draw random corrolaries, then the fundamentalist market conservatives, represented by Reagan/Bush/Bush were horrible for the poor.

* excuse my 'abouts'. I am looking at a census graph in a pdf document - I can't see the exact numbers for given years, so I am estimating.

So explain the drop in the poverty rate from 1959 to the late seventies, hugo.

Hugo, the recession only lasted through the end of 2001.

Again, a source: GDP and its Components

So, in 2002, the economy was expanding. But so was poverty. A typical pattern when you cut taxes for the top end, but provide no relief elsewhere.

Another easy one, capital accumulation and increased productivity. Also Johnson's Great Society did not start until 1965. These things are always debateable because nothing occurs in a vacuum. There are certain things that are almost universally accepted in economics, one is that if you subsidize something you get more of it. Pay people not to work, you get more people who don't work. Them government benefits aren't enough to make up for a persons failure to build human capital while on the public dole.

Private charity, a bit from this link



Now, even if the money was assured to add to the government benefits to the poor, I don't think too many would write that check.



There were other factors involved that should of made the percentages higher in 2002 than in 1997. Are liberals here trying to tell me that Bush's economy in 2002 was better than Clinton's in 1997? Also employment numbers always trail other positive economic numbers and there is a strong positive correlation between unemployment (which a social net subsidizes) and poverty.

EVen all that debate aside- are you proposing NO goverment safety net at all Hugo- or a reduced one? Are you telling us that with NO goverment social programs at all, that poverty will go down, everyone that wants to work will be able too, and the country will be better off financially and that we will all be safer as well from hordes of starving poeple?

The question is:

That being said, what level are you proposing?

To be honest, I don't mind short term unemployment insurance and even educational assistance for the unemployed. I recognize that unemployment is part of capitalist economies as resources shift from one area to another and that educational assistance may help mobilize labor into the proper economic sphere. Not a pure libertarian.

Now, once again, as an 80% libertarian, or as I call myself "a real world libertarian"- I understand where you stand on principle Hugo- but many times the real world intrudes very harshly into fantasy.

Let's talk about your more than average (numbers wise, last I looked, this person I describe pertains to over 80% of welfare recipients) welfare mom. A mother just got out of an abusive relationship, has one child, no job skills or experiance, because she was staying home raising the child while abusive dad went to work- okay, she get's away, for her sake and the sake of the child- should she just be forced to rely on the charity of private individuals? In reality, this has never worked well, it is a great idea and a good supplement, but in the numbers in a country of over 300million, impossible. Should she be allowed to starve, or go to prostitution or drug sales? Is it a bad thing for the goverment to help her- even if to just educate her, help her with child care while she pulls herself into the workforce?

NO country in the world that has a succesful economy lives by the creed- and there doesn't need to be a runaway socialist state either- those economies don't do well either- but there has to be a fairly large and extensive safety net just to allow business to do business.

The problem we have is the transition period between public and private charity. Let me just say this any close friend or family of mine will not go unfed or unsheltered. My guess is 90+% of the population would have families or friends who would assist them as they go job hunting. There are private charities for the rest. England in the mid-1800's had hundreds of charities assisting the poor. Most of them disappeared as government took over their role in society. Yes, you cannot eliminate the safety net overnight. I have suggested on another thread being able to deduct a large portion of any charitable contributions from your taxes. The fact most industrialized societies do have a safety net is not because the safety net allows wealthy industrial soceties to grow but because growing industrial societies allow a safety net to be legislated without placing too great a burden on the societies ability to produce. This does not mean that a safety increases production, far from it. When this safety net undermines the two parent family and discourages work it is particularly counterproductive.

Hugo- you have GOT to know or have read something about those "fantastic" charities of the 1800s- if you don't, I can tell you what there were like here in Alaska prior to the "great society" programs- they were a place where physical and sexual abuse happened nearly daily, the conditions squalid, and they were all about social engineering for the church. They beat children for speaking thier native tongues, and it is hard to find a single unaffected native today. There is alot of "good ol' days" thinking about those old "1800s" programs, but they were just plain hell. Thank God the goverment took over (pun intended LOL)- like I said, charities are great as a supplement to a gov't social safety net, but it is just dreaming to believe they can replace it.

And "social welfare" is more than just a food stamp and welfare check + a subsidized rental.

I work at a mental hospital. No private industry wants it, we actually have tried to privatize this throughout the country, there is no profit in it and no one wants the responsibility. Church's have a horrendous record in this area, with torture and attempted brainwashing the order of the day.

CR, a lot of things have changed in the last 150 years. Do you believe most of today's public charities engage in sordid activities with those they give assistance to? There are many church based charities that have done a great job of providing services to the poor.

Of course anything positive that has occurred since the initiation of the Great Society the Great Society programs are given credit for. While the tripling of illegitimate births, and the resulting social ills, are mere coincidence.

I don't think any of that would have changed without gov't intervention however- I don't think social programs have any real impact whatsoever on social ills in a negative way, in fact just the opposite, desperation makes very dangerous poeple- about 90% of all poeple on welfare have babies and such BEFORE partaking of social programs- I suggest you type in "myths of welfare" on about any search engine and you will find about 10,000 sites refuting most of what you think about social programs- but it is so far off topic it is not even funny

The gov't does not have a inalienable duty to provide social welfare- with this I agree with the libertarian- but once again, there is absolutely no way that private and church organization can do the work the goverment does- howwever, they do provide a good supplement.

And once again- I challenge you to show a country that has a good economy that does not have a major investment on riegning in poverty- with or without the help of private or religous organizations- all countries that abandon thier poor to church, suffer.

CR, where'd you get this statistic?

Let me inform you that nearly all Welfare programs are funded under Social Security. And Clinton did not end the Safety net, he simply created the Welfare to work program, and near full employment to go with it, and without which it would have been impossible to reform the welfare system. People can still get AFDC or ADC whatever it is called. Only now they are required to work 20 hours per week. And many get payments called SSI, Refugee aid, and so on. In addition many children once part of AFDC are now on disability if they have learning difficulties or crudely put Retarded.

It is for now anyway the reponsiblity of the government to help provide for people who are without jobs, because the government deliberately creates Unemployment to hold down Inflation. There has always been the myth that people on Welfare were just lazy, but when Clinton created jobs by the millions, people on Welfare also found jobs by the millions, and they got a little help by welfare reform to do so.

Employment is the answer to poverty not charity. Our Constitution says clearly, "Provide for the General Welfare", that includes poor people who need help.

If you are concerned about you tax money helping the poor ,then someone needs to help you at the Church you suggest for others.

Yes, I realize socialist propagandists attempt to label the ill effects caused by welfare as myths. I can find stuff on Atlantis and the illumanata on websites too. Private charity lacks the personal touch that public charity has. The money is spent inefficiently and their is little evaluation of if the money is being spent properly. It is not off topic to argue that the safety net does more harm than good.



Federalist paper #41 clearly stated what the General Welfare clause meant. In my signature you will see a quote by Madison inferring congressional acts of benevolence are unconstitutional. But who cares about that silly constitution?

CR, you are right a large percentage of welfare recepients do have babies before entering welfare, they know that welfare will be there for them after having a baby.

Some information about TANF:

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities



From the Economic Policy Institute




Please provide a source for this information. It seems to me there is more oversight and evaluation of money spent through these programs than through private charities. Can you back up your assertion?

I do not believe this is copyrighted material:

http://www.wroc.org/mythfact.htm

Welfare Myths and Facts
Myth: TANF (formerly known as AFDC) encourages family break up and out of wedlock births.
Fact: Single parent households are on the rise, but it is not due to TANF. While the value of the welfare cash benefit fell during the last twenty years, the number of mother-only households rose. Meanwhile, the number of married couple households in the U.S. fell from 40% in 1980 to 26% in 1990. Of all the women who are eligible for TANF (poor unmarried women with children under age 18) the proportion who actually received cash assistance fell from 60% in 1970 to 45% in 1988.
Comment: Unwed motherhood pre-dated TANF and is on the rise due to divorce, delayed marriage, changing sexual norms, the falling standard for living and other social conditions. Welfare does not cause families to break up, but does give women an alternative to unsafe and insecure marriages. The country would be better serviced by an income support program that served individuals regardless of marital status.

Myth: Women on welfare have "kids for money."
Fact: Despite years of research, studies have found no link between the welfare grant and births outside marriage. In fact, births to parents on assistance are less than births to families in the general public. States provide somewhere between $40 and $65 per month per additional child. In Washington State a two person household receives $440; a three person household receives $546. In contrast the average tax payer receives a $2,500 (about $200 a month) tax deduction for dependents. No one claims that taxpayers have more children just to get a larger tax deduction.
Comment: Neither TANF nor the tax deduction for dependent children are rewards for having children. Rather, these income supplements recognize the value of children to society and the high cost of raising children. The U.S. is the only industrialized nation other than South Africa and Japan that does not provide families with an automatic grant for every child.

Myth: Few Women on welfare are white.
Fact: In Washington state, 75% of welfare recipients are white/Anglo and 25% are black. Of all TANF mothers, in King County, 43% are people of color.
Comment: Women of color are over represented among those on welfare because they are over represented among the poor. The idea that TANF is a program primarily for women of color is used to mask the fact that so many TANF mothers are white, to divide women from each other and to make welfare a tool in the politics of race.

Myth: Those who work are not poor.
Fact: Eight million workers, or seven percent of the workforce, work and are poor. Sixty percent of all poor children live with someone who works part or full time. Until the mid-1970's, the minimum wage lifted those who worked full time, year round, out of poverty. In 1992, it left a three person family $3,863 below the poverty line. Average hourly pay rates for non-supervisory workers were lower in 1990 than in any year since 1964. The poverty rate increased faster during the 1980 recovery than during the 1960 recovery, even though low income households increased their employment levels more in the 1980's than in the 1960's. The main reason for this was that in the 1980's, the decline in wages canceled out some of the gains from increased work.
Comment: For a segment of the population, the promise of the American dream, that if you work, you will not be poor, has not been kept for the last 15 years.

Myth: Once on welfare always on welfare.
Fact: While they may return for a period of time within five years, 70% of women receive welfare for less than two years. Research on intergenerational welfare use shows that the greatest indicator of needing public assistance is being poor.
Comment: The biggest cause of welfare seems to be poverty. It is very hard for children of poor women to escape poverty, especially in the current economy with its falling wages. It's hard to work your way out of poverty. People working at minimum wage jobs earn less than $9,000 per year. Employers pay women 65 cents for every dollar earned by men. The federal poverty level for a family of three in 1994 was $12,324 and for a family of four, $14,808.

Myth: Welfare recipients are lazy and do not want to work.
Fact: Of the 14 million TANF recipients, only 4.9 million are adults, 90% of whom are women - many mothers of young children. In nearly half of welfare homes, the youngest child is under six years of age. In Washington state, up to 40% of the parents are working outside the home at least part time or part year. Others combine work and welfare. Some adult women are not able to work due to illness, disability or lack of education and job skills. Still other TANF mothers want to work but cannot find a job (10% of all single mothers are unemployed) or cannot find jobs that pay enough.
Comment: If work paid enough, fewer people would need welfare. Research shows that it takes at least $8.00 an hour for a parent to be able to keep her family off welfare. If taking care of one's own child was defined as "work", all mothers would be considered working. According to recent calculations, their labors would be worth at least $1,990.

Myth: Welfare mothers have it easy.
Fact: The maximum welfare benefit for a family of three in Washington State is $546 a month or $6,552 a year. This is 43% of the state need standard for a family of three. The real (after inflation) value of the grant fell 45% from 1970 to 1993, 27% if food stamps are not counted. In no state in the country do food stamps and welfare benefits together lift a family of three up to the poverty level. Meanwhile, during the 1980's, the average pre-tax income of the richest 20% of families rose 77%, while that of the poorest has declined 9%.
Comment: Instead of helping poor women and children live high on the hog, welfare keeps mother-only families living in poverty. But government programs do not have to keep people poor. Cross-national studies show that U.S. income and support programs lifted less than 5% of single mothers with children out of poverty in the 1980's, compared with 89% in the Netherlands, 81% in Sweden, 75% in the United Kingdom, 50% in France, 33% in Germany, and 18.3% in Canada


Okay, and some more:

http://www.fair.org/extra/9505/welfare-myths.html

1. Poor women have more children because of the "financial incentives" of welfare benefits.
Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women's choice to have children. (See, for example, Urban Institute Policy and Research Report, Fall/93.) States providing relatively higher benefits do not show higher birth rates among recipients.
In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of "incentive": A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) benefits if she has another child.

Furthermore, the real value of AFDC benefits, which do not rise with inflation, has fallen 37 percent during the last two decades (The Nation, 12/12/94). Birth rates among poor women have not dropped correspondingly.

The average family receiving AFDC has 1.9 children -- about the same as the national average.


2. We don't subsidize middle-class families.
Much of the welfare debate has centered around the idea of "family caps"--denying additional benefits to women who have children while receiving aid. This is often presented as simple justice: "A family that works does not get a raise for having a child. Why then should a family that doesn't work?" columnist Ellen Goodman wrote in the Boston Globe (4/16/92).
In fact, of course, families do receive a premium for additional children, in the form of a $2,450 tax deduction. There are also tax credits to partially cover child care expenses, up to a maximum of $2,400 per child. No pundit has suggested that middle-class families base their decision to have children on these "perks."


3. The public is fed up with spending money on the poor.
"The suspicion that poorer people are getting something for nothing is much harder to bear than the visible good fortune of the richer," wrote columnist Mary McGrory (Washington Post, 1/15/95). But contrary to such claims from media pundits, the general public is not so hard-hearted. In a December 1994 poll by the Center for the Study of Policy Attitudes (CSPA), 80 percent of respondents agreed that the government has "a responsibility to try to do away with poverty." (Fighting Poverty in America: A Study of American Attitudes, CSPA)
Support for "welfare" is lower than support for "assistance to the poor," but when CSPA asked people about their support for AFDC, described as "the federal welfare program which provides financial support for unemployed poor single mothers with children," only 21 percent said funding should be cut, while 29 percent said it should be increased.


4. We've spent over $5 trillion on welfare since the '60s and it hasn't worked.
Conservatives and liberals alike use this claim as proof that federal poverty programs don't work, since after all that "lavish" spending, people are still poor. But spending on AFDC, the program normally referred to as welfare, totaled less than $500 billion from 1964 to 1994--less than 1.5 percent of federal outlays for that period, and about what the Pentagon spends in two years.
To get the $5 trillion figure, "welfare spending" must be defined to include all means-tested programs, including Medicaid, food stamps, student lunches, scholarship aid and many other programs. Medicaid, which is by far the largest component of the $5 trillion, goes mostly to the elderly and disabled; only about 16 percent of Medicaid spending goes to health care for AFDC recipients. ("What Do We Spend on 'Welfare'?," Center for Budget and Policy Priorities)

Furthermore, the poverty rate did fall between 1964 and 1973, from 19 percent to 11 percent, with the advent of "Great Society" programs. Since the 1970s, economic forces like declining real wages as well as reduced benefit levels have contributed to rising poverty rates.


5. Anyone who wants to get off welfare can just get a job.
Many welfare recipients do work to supplement meager benefits (Harper's, 4/94). But workforce discrimination and the lack of affordable child care make working outside the home difficult for single mothers. And the low-wage, no-benefit jobs available to most AFDC recipients simply do not pay enough to lift a family out of poverty.
Although it is almost never mentioned in conjunction with the welfare debate, the U.S. Federal Reserve has an official policy of raising interest rates whenever unemployment falls below a certain point--now about 6.2 percent (Extra!, 9-10/94). In other words, if all the unemployed women on welfare were to find jobs, currently employed people would have to be thrown out of work to keep the economy from "overheating."

And even more- from a gov site:
http://wtw.doleta.gov/resources/myths.asp

A Report of the U.S. Department of Labor

February, 1998

WELFARE MYTHS:

Myth #1. More and More People are on Welfare...

Jan. 1993 5.5% of the total population on welfare

Jan. 1997 3.9% of the total population on welfare

Source: U.S. Dept. Of Health and Human Services,

Administration for Children and Families: U.S. Census Bureau

Myth #2. Welfare Grants are Too High...

The Poverty Gap: Average Monthly Income for a household of three:

Welfare Income: $ 499

Federal Poverty Level $1,043

Source: U.S. Dept. Of Health and Human Services, ACF

"Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of AFDC Recipients"

1996, U.S. Census Bureau

Myth #3. Most Welfare Parents are Teenagers...

Age of Parents in Welfare Families

6% 19 years and under

21% 20-24 years

21% 25-29 years

35% 30-39 years

17% 40 years and over

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, ACF

"Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of AFDC Recipients"

1996, U.S. Census Bureau

WELFARE FACTS

Actually Welfare Families are Much Like Other Families...

Fact #1. Most Welfare Families are Small...

Number of Children in Welfare Families General Population

One Child 43.9% 41.1%

Two Children 29.9% 38.6%

Three Children 15.0% 20.3% (three or more)

Four or More Children 9.2%

Source: U.S. Dept. Of Health and Human Services, ACF

"Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of AFDC Recipients"

1996, U.S. Census Bureau

Fact #2. Welfare Families are Diverse...

36.9% African American

35.9% White

20.8% Hispanic

6.4% Other

. Source: U.S. Dept. Of Health and Human Services, ACF

"Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of AFDC Recipients"

1996, U.S. Census Bureau

Fact #3. Over One-Third of Welfare Families Have Stayed on Welfare for One Year or Less...

Time on Welfare:

1 year or under 34.3%

1-2 years 16.3%

2-3 years 11.9%

3-4 years 8.7%

4-5 years 6.4%

5 or more years 22.1%

Source: U.S. Dept. Of Health and Human Services, ACF

"Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of AFDC Recipients"

1996, U.S. Census Bureau

Fact #4. Most Welfare Mothers have Some Work Experience...

61% Prior Work Experience

39% No Prior Work Experience

Source: Indicators of Welfare Dependence and Well-Being

Interim Report to Congress, HHS, October 1996.


WELFARE CHALLENGES

Welfare Families Often Face Greater Challenges to Independence...

Challenge #1. Most Welfare Mothers are Single Parents...

Marital Status of Welfare Mothers

13% Married Husband Present

48% Never Married

23% Widowed or Divorced

17% Married, Husband Absent

Source: Census Brief, March, 1995

Challenge #2. Some of the Most Powerful Predictors of Long-Term Stays on Welfare are Marital Status and Education Level

Percent of Long-Term Welfare Recipients with Given Characteristics

72% Never Married when Starting on Welfare

64% Under Age 25 when Starting on Welfare

63% High School Dropout/No GED

50% No Prior Work Experience

Long-Term: > 60 months

Source: National Longitudinal Study for Youth, 1979-1993

Challenge #3. Most Welfare Children Need Reliable Child Care in Order for the Mother to Work...

Ages of Welfare Children

43.8% 5 years and under

37.5% 6-12 years

18.3% 13-18 years

The average age of recipient children is 7.6 years.

Source: U.S. Dept. Of Health and Human Services, ACF

"Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of AFDC Recipients"

1996, U.S. Census Bureau


Challenge #4. Nearly Half of Welfare Mothers have Less than a High School Education...

Education at Time of Initial Receipt of Welfare

47% High School Dropout (No GED)

53% High School Graduate (or GED) or More Education

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Blue Book to Congress, October 1996

Challenge #5. Many Welfare Mothers have only Worked in Low-Wage/Low-Skill Jobs...

Food Service Occupations

Other Sales Occupations

Administrative Support Occupations

Cleaning and Building Service Occupations

Health Service Occupations

WELFARE SOLUTIONS

A Call to Action..

In crafting solutions for reforming welfare, clearly, government has a key role to play. This past year, President Clinton proposed and Congress adopted a $3 billion program to help move welfare recipients into work. This program is targeted at the hardest-to-employ welfare recipients: people who have been on welfare for a long period, have limited reading and math skills and poor work histories, and, in some cases, are struggling to overcome substance abuse problems.

Our program will help fund innovative and creative solutions in communities across the country. The money doesn't go to distant bureaucracies. Mayors and local workforce development councils will decide how best to move people into work.

While $3 billion sounds like a lot of money, it is not nearly enough to get this difficult job done. Local and state governments will also have to come forward with transportation, child care, training, and job retention services. And in some cases, state and local governments may also have to hire some new workers.

But moving people from the welfare rolls to payrolls will require the help of more than federal, state, and local governments. In fact, I am issuing a call to action in which everyone has a role to play.

Employers -- thousands of employers in every part of our country -- must offer real work at decent wages to the hundreds of thousands of welfare recipients who are looking for a job. Providing the first job is crucial, but providing the skills for a second or third job is no less important. Workers need not one job, but a career.

In our booming economy, it should be possible for employers to provide jobs and fair wages, skills development and supportive services to new workers. But in 3 years or 5 years or 10, when the economy isn't as strong, labor markets aren't so tight, and profits aren't setting records, employers will need to sustain their commitment to hiring welfare recipients.

Churches, synagogues, and mosques have roles to play. They must continue their long tradition, founded on scriptural dictates, of helping those struggling to help themselves. Every congregant in every house of worship in every part of this country should ask his or her cleric how the congregation can help fulfill the obligation to move people from welfare to work.

If you can't hire a new worker, you can help give them interview skills so that someone else will. If your community does not have adequate public transportation, you can organize a car pool. If your child care or senior care center can make room for a few more participants, why not offer that service to a new worker.

Welfare recipients seeking jobs -- I prefer to call them "new workers" -- have the most at stake and the toughest obstacles to overcome. These new workers must struggle each and every day to achieve the dignity that comes with work; it will not be handed to them.

But even in the face of obstacles, I have learned as I've met with new workers around the country that they will struggle mightily to achieve success. Because people on welfare are just like you and me. They have the same basic hopes and fears. They want a job that brings self-worth and validation. They want to support their families and contribute to their communities. They want pride and dignity, just like those of us who have been lucky enough never to need public assistance.

As a nation, we have a long way to go to move thousands from welfare to work and to a lifetime of economic security and self-sufficiency. But ending welfare as we know it is not enough. We must assure that every family has the opportunity to make a fair claim on our nation's prosperity. I believe we can succeed in this difficult task, and assure a broadly shared prosperity for all Americans.

Alexis M. Herman

Secretary

U.S. Department of Labor

February, 1998