Focus 580; Just What The Nation Needed: The Welfare Reform Law of 1996

Good morning and welcome to focus 580 This is our morning talk program My name's David Inge. Glad to have you with us in the first hour of the show today will be talking about welfare reform and look back a bit to the law that was enacted in 1996 at the time when a lot of people were saying that welfare as we knew it didn't work and it needed to be changed. Certainly the president at the time Mr. Clinton said that there were a lot of people in Congress that agreed this law was enacted and it brought a number of very important and fundamental changes to the way welfare. That is the financial assistance that was provided to families who needed it the way that that was provided and among the basic changes it required people receiving benefits to work. And it also placed a time limit on the total amount of time that a person could receive benefits. It was the time controversial there were some people who weren't sure that was the right way to go but it did indeed pass at this point here. We can look back and talk a little bit about just what the result of these reforms have been. And our guest this morning. It makes the argument that in fact they have been positive. His name is Ron Haskins He's a senior fellow in the Economic Studies Program at the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C. and also as

someone who has been around Washington for a long time in various capacities including serving as the adviser senior adviser to the president for welfare policy at the White House. He is here visiting the campus. He is taking part in a program that's being sponsored by the Center for Advanced Study. The same folks that are responsible for the Miller come series and we've had a lot of those speakers here on this program. It's their initiative for 2003 2004 they're calling who gets what the interactions of health policy and social welfare policy. And the idea is they have a number of people here all exploring the same topic that is the connections between health and social welfare policies. He was that is Mr. Haskins was scheduled to talk yesterday and had some travel problems but he is here now and his talk has been rescheduled. So it will be taking place this afternoon at 3:00 o'clock at the Levasseur center on the campus O same place. A slightly different time questions certainly

welcome if you will would like to be have involved in the conversation. The only thing we ask of people is their brief when they call and we do that to keep the program moving we elect try to get as many different people as possible but anybody is interested in calling is welcome to do that. 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. Well thanks very much. I'm glad to be here. Driving in filing. Well yeah indeed I'm glad I did find myself wondering what with yesterday's weather where you're going to get in here. Oh yeah I did a lovely tour of the nation's airports and especially the wonderful Baltimore Washington International. I got to spend about six hours. Well we're glad to have you here. Do I have it right that you were involved in crafting the reform of 1996. I was the staff director of the ways and means well first subcommittee that wrote the original draft of the legislation. Clay Shaw who secure men from Florida and still is on the Ways and Means Committee and Bill Archer who was the chairman of the entire Ways and Means Committee

participated directly as well and then people tend to have forgotten this but the the actual bill that was signed by President Clinton on August 22nd 1906 was extremely broad and there were major changes in Medicaid food stamps child nutrition. So a whole range of programs. So there were other committees involved as well and then all of those various bills that came from the committees the Congress were put together into one monster bill and that was the bill that passed so the parts that had to do with cash welfare Supplemental Security Income aid for non-citizens and several other parts I worked on. So I was directly involved in the drafting and working with Clay Shaw and Bill Archer for what seemed that as I think about it the part that people really focused on was with this thing that we used to call Aid to Families with Dependent Children with which then morphed into something else right with that had a different set of initials right. And that did indeed have these these important fundamental basic changes in the way that the whole program was structured.

So and this was and I think people do need to recall that this was. A bipartisan effort that it was President Reagan Now don't go too quickly Well I thought it was President Clinton who said he would have Clinton do plan when is she to debate. Do you have to reaction with this very popular phrase in fact you may remember this a lot of Republicans were extremely jealous of Clinton because he ran on many issues that Republicans often run on not just Wall for reform but crime balanced budgets I mean he really stole the Republican Thunder not Democrat so to speak. But Clinton did not do anything the first two years. So I mean he had a tax force but there was never even brought to the committee level. And then by an astounding coincidence Republicans took over the house for the first time in 40 years and won back the Senate. So Clinton was president and Republican controlled House and Senate. The battle in the House especially was extremely partisan. It's one of the most partisan debates that I've seen in 20 years in Washington. And the

accusations against Republicans and against the bill were really enormous the frequent comparisons to Nazi Germany. I mean it was really really a nasty debate in the Senate bill and the bread was different by degrees. The debate was very quite friendly. Senator Moynihan who almost everybody regarded now unfortunately has died. But almost everybody regarded him as the greatest expert on welfare that has ever been in the House or the Senate and it's true he had to Bill and his rhetoric was really very strong in fact against the president as well because he was afraid the president would eventually sign a bill. But still the bill passed the Senate by an overwhelming majority. So you know when Clinton said he would sign a bill that what happened is we sent him the bill. He vetoed it. We sent it back again. He vetoed it again. And then the third time we sent it in July of 1996 he signed it. So at that point that last bill that went through half the Democrats on the

Hill supported it so it was a highly bipartisan bill in the end but it started out being extremely partisan. Well you do you think then then this is the man who said we were going to change welfare as we know it. If it had not been for the Republican victories in 94 when they get control of the house do you think then in fact that this wouldn't that would not have happened it would have had there's a Democratic Congress that would have it would not have it now. I am not trying to take anything away from Clinton. Clinton on welfare is a great president in my opinion and he initiated his debate on most of the major issues we agreed with Clinton or he agreed with us are we want to put it there were some differences. So he deserves a great deal of credit but the problem he was in is that he could not have passed the kind of bill that he said he favored that he ran for president on and was elected in a Democratic Congress. He might have been able to get some through the Senate but the house was too dominated by liberals to pass the kind of bill and they were the committee

chairman Gephardt was you know was the senior would have been the senior Democrat. So he would have had a hard time pass a bill is an irony that he was actually unable to develop to deliver on his campaign promise because Republicans were elected to the house in the Senate. Well what from your perspective what do you think about this bill was what was it that Democrats most objected you. There are many things but were fortunate that there was one key idea that I think is really the essence and I think it captures the whole nature of the debate. And incidentally it also captures the nature of the change that we have now going through in this country. And it you can summarize in one word in words and title meant. The idea of policy before the welfare bill passed is that low income people were intitled to benefits and specifically they were entitled to cash to food stamps and to Medicaid.

And that package of benefits was worth about $12000 and the average state and run title I meant if they met the qualifications they got the benefit. It was a legal right. And if they didn't they could go to court and get the benefit. What Republicans want to do was to leave Medicaid there a big debate over Medicaid but in the end Medicaid was left more or less intact. There are some changes and it was left intact food stamps left intact was cut back some of it left intact both still entitlements but welfare the cash part of this was no longer an entitlement. So it was a conventional grant of money to a family that agreed in a reciprocal reciprocal obligation with the state to engage in activities to become independent of welfare so they would look for work. They would train they would educate they would do things specifically prepared for work and in addition. The states had requirements that they had to have a certain percentage of the caseload involved in these activities and if they didn't they would get a sanction and that was a major change in federal policy there were sanctions

cashing ctions on both individuals. They would lose part of the grant and over half States they could lose the entire Grant unless they truly committed themselves to try to leave welfare to prepare to leave welfare and search for jobs and there were cast sanctions on the states if they didn't have an active program and try to help people leave welfare so that that is the biggest change by far. The other one you mention is a time limit and a time limit of course was a completely new idea entered it again it just really underlines the idea that entitlement is gone because it says in five years you have to leave welfare no matter what. And the reason that's in there is that the Republican vision was that when you come to the departments or services and apply for welfare you should hear at that time that this is a timely problem and didn't name the program changed. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. So the idea was you know from the very first time you come that this is a transitional program it's temporary it's to help you get back on your feet but it's your job to find a job. And we're going to help you do that rather than just give you a check.

You know I think for a lot of people that the key idea here was that we that we that is we the United States or the U.S. government are Americans didn't want people to be on welfare forever. That it would be it would be better for people to be working for it be paying taxes and so forth and that was part of the idea of saying look there's two things here we're there we're going to place a cap on the amount of time you can receive benefits and we're going to say what we really want is for you to have a job and right and to work. And indeed what has happened is the welfare rolls the numbers of people on welfare has declined and some people say Well see that's success. The question that seems in some people's minds though to be out there is well what happened did really all of the even the previously we're receiving benefits and we're on the rolls did they go off get jobs. Are they managing to make a living wage to support their families. Or are there people who who simply are are gone they're not on the rolls anymore but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're doing well and that they're working right.

I think we know the answers to these questions from several different sources of information. First of all more than 40 states have done what are called lever studies which means that they filed people once they left the rolls from their studies. We know that at any given moment about half the people who leave the rolls actually have a job they're employed and they're earning money well over a period of time about 80 percent. Either have a job then or have had a job so a pattern it's not unusual is that people get a job they lose a job they get another job they lose a job sometimes they come back on welfare then they go off again. So you have you have that pattern. Now the second thing that we know and this is much more important and it's based on data from the Census Bureau the Census Bureau does random sampling the United States which gives you reliable information about the entire population. And if you look at the bottom 40 percent of female headed families this is all female headed families below roughly twenty one thousand dollars in earnings. And of course this would include every family on welfare

and the overwhelming majority of families that have left welfare. And if you look at that all across the 90's from before welfare reform and after welfare reform you see two very striking things. First starting in roughly 1905 about the time the federal bill passed. Income for female headed families from welfare begins to decline. Sabi cash food stamps and a few other programs runnings Plus a credit called the earned income tax credit that goes to little and can families that have children through the tax code that increased dramatically. And if you start and end in 2001 over the period the combination of the decline in welfare income and the increase in Ernie's post earning an Earned Income Tax Credit the average low income female headed family was better off by about 20 percent in constant dollars on inflation adjusted dollars so they definitely were financially better off. But it is true also what you said. There are some people who have the rules and did not get jobs or get jobs and lost them

in the early days under welfare in the entitlement system. People could stay on welfare for a very long time and many many many families that the average length of stay for people on the rolls in a given time was about 10 years. Now that a lot of people were on and off and all but there people had 15 20 years on welfare. So people who were basically incompetent could go on welfare and stand while for a very long time and they did. But a new system they can't do that. So there are people who are not on welfare because the demanding nature of the new system and the use of sanctions and so forth. And yet they can't hold a job. So that group of people that could be two hundred thousand people or perhaps even more. It's hard to pin down exactly I call them floundering families. Other people have other terms for but they are not in good shape. And it's at least two hundred thousand families with children so we shouldn't lose sight of those people. We should try to help those people do but they are not doing well under the new system. I should introduce Again our guest for anyone who's just tuned in here we're talking with Ron Haskins He's a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C. His

expertise is in a number of areas including welfare reform a subject we're talking about here this morning. He has served as senior adviser to the president for welfare policy at the White House and also before that was part of the Ways and Means Committee in the House particularly that part that was interested in this issue and as we explained the beginning of the program he was one of those people that was involved in the drafting of this welfare reform legislation that passed in 1996. He's here visiting the campus will be giving a talk this afternoon and the questions here are welcome 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. What what more do we know about this. These families these those 200000 those people that. They came to the end of their benefits they came to the point where the law says you're not getting more benefits and yet are not supporting themselves out of what happens to them. Interestingly they'd usually do not come to the end of their benefits to the time limit.

Very very few families reach the five year time limit because of sanctions. The families that would reach the five year time limit usually get a sanction in the first year the first two years because they're not actively looking for jobs or not fulfilling their responsibilities and their families will understand this for a while but there are families that just leave the rolls or don't go on the rolls and they're floundering disorganized you know disconnected whatever term you would like to use. Now we do know something about these families and thankfully Health and Human Services by the way in the legislation 96 we gave health and some human services site over 20 million dollars a year to study welfare its implementation and associated issues like child care and so forth. And HHS has done a really masterful job they've done a lot of very very good studies and we've learned a lot. And one of the studies that they're engaged in now we don't have results yet but they are working with states to identify these families these floundering families that we're talking about here. And to

follow them and to learn about what exactly they're doing what kind of income they have how they support themselves whether the kids are hungry and they have other objective measures maybe they're involved with the department social services because abuse neglect issues and so forth. So we we will be learning a lot more about these families. There's a study in Michigan that has taught us a fair amount already and probably the most interesting thing is this there are a set of barriers that are associated with people not being able to work successfully and often that means they get a job but they lose it or they might get another job in seconds and they lose it too so they're they they don't work more than they work. And the barriers are things like addictions. Depression. Other mental illnesses. Having three or more children having transportation problems having serious housing problems. So there are a whole list of these things. Now it turns out if a family has just one of these barriers to employment they're usually in pretty good shape. They are usually able to make the transition but if they have two or more of these barriers then that

is when you see a the big increase in the chances that they will not be able to see successfully make the transition into employment. So we're learning about how to identify those families so far we haven't figured out programs that are really able to help them. And that's because in many cases our programs for addictions for example are not very successful. It takes a long time to cure someone of a drug addiction or alcoholism. Both it it's often a very long term process. So if that is the problem you're you know you you're in for a long right. But we have learned something about these families. I personally think we should be doing more I wish we would make more research money available and I wish we could make more money available to the states and to other organizations like universities and Catholic charities and other organizations that are committed to helping the poor because this is a this is the toughest part of the problem are these families are disorganized and have a difficult time making a transition to support themselves and their children.

You know what happened when the economic downturn of. Well I suppose this was started in 2000 2001 certainly before 9/11 and that just made the thing that much worse things that the economy was doing pretty well imagine it would have been much easier before that to find work particularly if you were someone who had who was perhaps had some deficits and skills and work history and education. I think a lot of people when that when things started to get turned sour were starting to think that the people who had the most to lose would be the people who were kind of on the bottom of what happened at that point. If you think about this is a very interesting question because the goal of welfare reform in many respects was to encourage entice force if necessary low income families that had become dependent on welfare. To become like the rest of America that is dependent on labor and on the labor market. And when you're dependent on labor market then you are subject to these disruptions economic disruptions especially during recessions. So one of the criticisms of the bill way back in

95 and 96 when it passed was there needed to be more provisions in the legislation that would help people during recessions. And there were provisions that were put in legislation but they're criticized now. We have now had a recession fortunately was a fairly mild recession. And the results I think are really that this has been a mild recession so maybe this won't extend to more serious recessions in the future. But in a word the impacts have been moderate to words very moderate surprisingly moderate. I did not mention when I was summarizing results two things that we know from national data is a dramatic completely on parallelled increase in low income mothers having families that got a job. In a 40 year period the most disadvantaged of those mothers the ones that have never been married so they're less likely to completed high school less likely to have a work history. And in the past they were the ones who were likely to go on welfare and stay for many years. They had a 40 percent increase in employment and they now are almost as likely

as married mothers to have a job. So what huge impact on these mothers and most people thought would not be able to support themselves and their families. And as a result of that we've got the lowest poverty level by 1998 and then again in 99 2000 the lowest child poverty level for kids who live in single parent families in history a country. And by the way the lowest poverty level for African-American children in history the country when the recession came there was a slight impact. And these mothers were slightly less likely to be employed. About two percentage points. And there was a slight increase in child poverty but it wasn't even significant. So there has been a very very modest impact. But it's not a major impact by any means it wasn't the terrible crisis that people thought might happen and could happen in the future in a in a really serious recession so that has been very very good news. And I think what it tells us is that this recession perhaps more than previous recessions and by the way the

decline in child poverty in the two years following the recession in 2001 is about half of the decline in child I'm sorry the increase in child poverty is less than half of what it had been in the average of the previous three recessions. So I went up but it was not as bad as it was before absolutely So it's very moderate as I was saying before. What about if you take a look at people first time applicants for benefits. Was there a significant noticeable increase in those people knowing factors of degrees people are you would expect. That it's the message that welfare is only for people who are really in trouble. That you are expected to work and to support your family you would expected over a period of years the applications for welfare would go down and there has been somewhat of a decline in applications for welfare but what has really happened is that states have changed their program so that when people apply for welfare they walk in the office and then it isn't a welfare office anymore where their main goal is to get the mom of the check right. Yes an employment office

and we say we're going to help you find a job and often they help people find a job and indeed they require people to actually look for jobs before they can get welfare. So many people never go on welfare because they get a job. We have a couple callers here and we'd certainly welcome people into the conversation we're already at our midpoint. The number here in Champaign Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. We do also have a toll free line that's good anywhere that you can hear us around Illinois Indiana. Anywhere the signal travels also if you happen to be listening on the internet as long as you're in the United States use the toll free line 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. Our first caller is in Chicago on our line for Hello. Do you think if you're already doing this but the government program Aid to Dependent Children was focused on making sure the children were not in poverty and it hadn't title meant for the child which allowed the family to stay on welfare I believe until the child either 16 or 18.

And when you're giving all these statistics I thought that the Census Bureau has said that the growing group the group the fastest falling into poverty are children. So when did the government's focus turn away from protecting children and making sure that they received entitlement to looking at this quote unquote family. OK I think this is I would call this a mistaken way of looking at the problem to think that you could support children without supporting their parents by far in any kind of family at ever at any economic level. The parents are the most important factor in the child's life and the old system it was called a dependent children by the way the name changed over the years to Aid to Families with Dependent Children because the money did go to the parents and the parents are usually a single mother had control of the money. But if you were going to help those kids you needed to help the parents and that's what this program has done. The mothers are

more likely be employed. Therefore their earnings have increased. We subsidize their earnings to their income tax credit they still get food stamps or other benefits that they're eligible for especially childcare and those are financially better off this is very clear from Census Bureau data. So whoever told you the child poverty has gone up is just incorrect. Well I'm tell 2002 child poverty declined. It's the first sustained decline in child poverty we've had since the early 1970s. And child poverty reached almost its low its level ever and for better black children Spanish kid children it did reach its lowest level ever because of earnings not because of government benefits. My second question and I will make this very quick is that it would be Aid to Dependent Children. It allows parents to leave mothers to stay in the home and provide a great deal of labor that's involved in raising children. That's not replace when these women take low income jobs. What has been the result of that has anyone looked at that.

Yes there are numerous studies and let me try to summarize study read a lot more to learn about this and it certainly is a concern. I would say as a philosophy though our nation clearly has left the old. A lot of people use associated this idea with conservatives and Republicans that the mother's place was in a home and the whole society left that and the argument that welfare mothers should be able to stay home to rid their children just did not work in a country where lots of single moms are working and paying taxes so those other mothers could stay home so that argument. Our society just changed dramatically and there is an expectation that even married mothers will work and they do work in huge numbers. So much of the labor that the mother. I understand your question is what happened to the kids as a result of the mothers leaving home. Let me and I say I say we have a lot more to learn for preschool kids. There actually seem to be positive impacts. And the reason probably is that had a lot of those children are in fairly good quality child care settings where they are learning things like their numbers their

colors and so for the kind of things that kids learn in Head Start and other quality preschool programs and as a result when those children go to school they're doing a little better in school. Their teachers rate them as doing a little better and their parents rate them is doing a little better as compared with kids of mothers who are still on welfare and the kids did not go to childcare. The other hand for over kids adolescent kids and particularly for adolescent kids who have younger siblings. There could be. It appears that there are some negative effects there are not huge effects but they are less likely to do well in school so their school performance goes down a little bit and some people think this is because they are carrying additional responsibility at home because their mother is their single mother is now in the labor force. But this is not well understood but I would I would say that this is a caution flag I think this is an issue we need to learn more about it and we should continue this whole line of studies of examining what happens to the children. Thank you. All right and we are as I said we're a little bit past the midpoint that maybe I should introduce Again our

guest and we have some of the callers and we will get right to Ron Haskins is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C. where he's interested and has done research on welfare reform among other things. He also has been senior adviser to the president for welfare policy at the White House and was involved in crafting the welfare reforms that were signed into law by President Clinton back in 1996 he's here visiting the campus taking part in an initiative that's sponsored by the Center for Advanced Study these are the folks that are also responsible for the Miller comm lecture series and many of those people appear on this program. This is a yearlong initiative that looks at the interconnectedness of health and social welfare policies. And he will be talking about the welfare reform law of 1906 on the campus this afternoon at 3:00 and the Levasseur faculty center that's on the Illinois Street in Urbana all of these kinds of programs are also always free and open to the public and anybody who's interested in hearing what he has to say should feel welcome to stop

by. Questions also are welcome on the program 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 and toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. We have some other callers who are standing by next champagne and line one. Hello. Hello. And to your expert yes recount these are rosy statistics about the value of the welfare reform AG in 1906. I am I remember minded of a Supreme Court decision involving employment discrimination where statistics at that time. Wait supreme that is damn lies and statistics. And I'm also familiar with the expression and lawyers often have that the question of what happened what happened it depends on who's answering the question I really have a serious concern about this. I think it was always designed as a safety net knowing how people pay child support that goes to parents. That's also

a safety net for the child to talk about family and who have to take responsibility for the money to make sure they get to the child. I think the distinction has no meaning but my point is I know two people who I feel very credible in this issue. Marian Wright Edelman of the Children's Defense Fund and her husband Peter Edelman who left the Clinton administration in protest and is now a professor at Georgetown University Law School. A Law Center and I wonder if they see this so differently than the guest and the record there grab it. This is in my opinion beyond repair. Reproach and they view this and its contribution to edit poverty among low income people and it poverty among children who need it desperately. The crime heaped upon them by one of the richest nations and will I like for your guest to respond to that. I know Marian Wright Edelman and especially Peter Edelman who's I consider a friend of mine

and Peter and I have appeared at the same forum on many many occasions. I do not think that Peter claims that there has been an increase in child poverty it's very difficult to do that because these are government statistics that are nonpartisan and we've kept them for years and years. There are criticisms of the poverty measure itself but no matter what measure you use to poverty child poverty has clearly declined until the recession and there's been a slight increase during the recession and it is due primarily to the income of the families. So Peter and Marian Wright Edelman both continue to be critical of the bill. And now their criticism is primarily that there should be more money for childcare that we should do a better job of helping these floundering families that I talked about a moment ago that we should do more about transportation that childcare itself needs to be of higher quality and so forth. But I think that they have accommodated themselves at least somewhat to the nature of the new system now. And let me add to this. The new system there is no question is

much more popular with the American people the American people push is part of the brilliance that Clinton had in the election in 92 and part of the reason he was elected was that he was a new Democrat. And the essence of it was in many respects that people were expected to support themselves and he said we are going to end welfare as we know it and we are going to help people find jobs and we're going to change the nature of welfare and eventually that's exactly what happened. And it is very popular with the American public no matter what Peter Edelman and Marian Wright Edelman said I'm not saying the American probably gives me a benchmark for what good public policy. A lot of things have been. But with the American public in the past like slavery it was a human rights policy. My question to you however is irrespective of Clinton who is a with the populace and would do anything to be elected including being a new centrist Democrat and a Democrat. Quite frankly my question to you is why it is this is. Do we continue this country and the people

don't raise outcries about it to have corporate welfare obscene farm subsidies obscene corporate subsidies even war profiteering is going on now in Iraq and nobody seems to have an outcry about. Well then it certainly isn't you that there is an outcry about it we regularly have debates in Washington and Congress and I bet you do right here in the state capital Springfield as well that the wealthy should pay more taxes a corporation should have more taxes. There's a very conservative organization in Washington called the Cato Institute that every year publishes a volume on corporate subsidies that should be ended. And let me tell you that right now the federal budget is in a crisis just as we were in the 90s when Republicans and Democrats finally mean agreement and solve the budget crisis. And as a result of the budget crisis and the huge deficits that we are going to have is far into the future as you can see. There was a renewed emphasis on. What

you called corporate welfare and I predict there will be changes in in the treatment of corporations and possibly individuals. Definitely there will be changes in federal spending programs so that the budget can be brought into balance. I'm not is saying when to Beth it is you and I think you've been very naive Thank you. Alright let's go on to another call here will go to Urbana Lie Number two you know what do you know about Latino welfare and particular illegal alien welfare if you're are you hampered. I mean are you as confident about at all. So are you as confident about your data error as you are and other segments. Because I'm sure you're somewhat hampered in your ability to collect data in a correct. Some rot but not as much as you might think. When we see several things First of all we did not discuss this earlier but one of the most dramatic and controversial changes in the legislation was that the legislation just roughly speaking

made non-citizens legal non-citizens in eligible for welfare benefits. Illegal non-citizens were already ineligible for minutes benefits even though they got them so this was a major change in American social policy. And at that time according to the Census Bureau data non-citizens were actually more likely to have welfare benefits than Citizen households. So the claim that people make that it isn't true that non-citizens or are dependent on welfare is just false. They were actually more likely to have welfare benefit than citizens. And so welfare for non-citizens basically ended. So. Since that time we've had roughly the same kind of impacts at least if you has a have a measure of impacts on Hispanics because the impacts on child poverty for Hispanics have been roughly equivalent to other children so there's been a very substantial decline. Now that's not to say though that especially for spandex and especially

children from Mexico and from other South American countries that the probability that they will be in poverty even though it's declined is still very high and much higher then white children and in some cases even higher than for black children. So this is definitely a problem. And if anything the welfare bill may have intensified it somewhat because many of those families that used to be dependent on welfare no longer qualify for welfare. When you went you broke you broke up the welfare thing and your three part medical. Fruit stand and a direct payment. And when you say that when you say that the non illegal is were or are taking welfare a greater rate than it is. I talk about all of them are not just those three but all other welfare programs as well yes. Not not in one of those but all and they're more likely to have at least one felt one

welfare benefit in the household and especially probably the most notorious programs one that you did not mention and neither have I until this moment and that is Supplemental Security Income which is a cash welfare program that goes to people who are both below roughly below the poverty line but also are either disabled or elderly and there was a huge increase by a factor of 10 in the number of elderly non-citizens who were getting SSI benefits and that came by the way with Medicaid they got Dick SSI cash in and they were automatically qualify for Medicaid. Be you are you saying that the writer no longer qualified but are permanently barred from SSI and from food stamps they are barred for five years after entry from. The early ABC program which is now called can of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and from other programs that states have more control over states can make a decision to give those benefits to the families after five years.

So in I mean in total you're saying that I hear you saying that to that effect you know the particulars of the illegal alien population of them are what one I mean they may have been hit hard here. I would say the impact on you legal says probably been somewhat less because they already were ineligible for benefits. But at the time that the welfare bill passed 96 legal non-citizens were eligible for benefits and they were very likely to get benefits. Few of them now receive benefits so I would say legal non-citizens have been the hardest hit OK and the illegal non-citizens are people with green cards are mostly but there are other. You don't have to have a green card to be a legal entrant into United States like going to ravines or some.

Yeah. Her All right. Next caller is near Kokomo Indiana. On our line. 1 Hello. Thank you for having me here. Ron Haskins arm this program I used to be a friend of the guy Al and quit donating when it became. So many Miller come very liberal very Democrat programs and so I appreciated hearing a breath of fresh air from once in a while a very well informed conservative president who has the same goals in mind for all of us for the good of the economy and I think for the program and the speaker. Oh all right. Other common questions are certainly welcome whether you want to agree or disagree. Well especially welcome calls like that don't we. I can see that you were I guess in this part of focus. Ron Haskins and he is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C. and his area of expertise among his area of expertise

the welfare reform and that's where we're talking about this morning that's what he has here on the campus and in fact to discuss. I'll be giving a talk later this afternoon. This is one that had been scheduled for yesterday. Same place the levels set are different time three o'clock. If you're interested in there it's free and open to the public. Questions are welcome 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. Well in addition to the changes that that happened in 96 that you would argue were positive. Are there other things about the way that the welfare system is structured that you would still argue should be changed. Well yes there are. There are many things I've already pointed out that we have a lot to learn about how to help these VONDEREN families to me that is one of the most important issues. The second thing is that I think this. I'm not I don't have an answer for this but it's something that I'm

concerned about and that is that we in the old days under welfare many female headed families lived on a package of benefits worth roughly $12000 which is incredibly skimpy. Now those families because of their own efforts and because of the Earned Income Tax Credit which by the way can give them up to $4000 a year and food stamps which could be another fifteen hundred or so and other benefit programs. Many states have tax credits for example those families may now be at say 17 or 18 thousand a few cases even 20000 but that's still quite low. And the mother's wages tend to be around 750 an hour. There is some evidence that the longer they stay in labor force their income increases slightly but not greatly. So we have a huge number of mothers who are supporting children who are working for $750 an hour. And this I mean it's not a very great living. So if. I could figure out an effective way to help these families

increase their skills at the same time that they're already increasing their work experience and move to jobs that would pay 10 and 14 and a thousand dollars an hour I think we would all be better off in their children would be better off so that's another very challenging situation and finally I would mention child support enforcement. There were huge reforms in child support enforcement in 1906 as well and we did reform that program. The results are much better but there still are far too many children who do not receive child support payments. And that's another big problem we have now less than 10 minutes we have some other callers who are trying to get in. And as many as we can call us will help us if they can be brief. We'll go next to a champagne county line number one. Hello. How do we send our all these figures and I do the other thing about that is you talk about our recession being over but if there hasn't been any job production and we have a lot growing list of discouraged workers who are normally regarded as people there are even candidates for welfare. I just seems to me

that there can't be an expansion of people on the lower levels getting jobs and and I think that we do this another couple years from now depending on why. It goes with the economy. You may be shocked to see what's happening right now on the ground. I just question the spirit of the America and the latest one I seem to publish this from 1999. So I'm just questioning. I could go back to the other callers. Damn lies and statistics. Well I appreciate you give me a chance to give my version of damn lies. First of all the Census Bureau every September publishes the poverty data and income data for the United States as a whole and I think almost all analysts regard these as quite respectable numbers there. In other words they're reliable they're good estimates of what people actually have. And so we now have results for poverty and for family income that I have already mentioned through 2003 in other words two

years into the recession. And as I say I think those are very reliable data. And what happened is that these families or employment went down slightly and their income went down slightly. Let me also say to you that the employment data that I mentioned that showed these huge changes and increases in females having families especially never married females the most disadvantaged females are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And those percentages. Female heads the denominator is all female heads. So discouraged workers does not enter enter into this at all. I really think that the picture that I have given you here is the most accurate one that we're able to portray given the evidence is available through 2003. Now you mention two years three years into the future you could be right. It may be possible as I've already said that a deeper recession that had a big impact on low income employment might things might be very different but so far this recession appears to be primarily a middle class recession and the loss of jobs has not been at the bottom and the $750 an hour

jobs. But for the working poor not female headed households where I don't know what it is have been one of the cautionary things that people have said about the reform was that it was going to. Women into steering and abusive relationships and I'm not sort of thing I have a feeling that maybe is another factor of it that should be accounted for. Well the con availing claim could be and many people have made this claim that when women are employed and able to support themselves economically they would be less likely to be forced into maintaining a relationship involves domestic violence. I am not aware of any statistics that show that there been increases in domestic violence and by the world or at least two other objective sets of numbers that we have long term historical data and that's hunger and what is called Food insecurity which is a sort of hunger but less severe. And the number of children who are in foster care or or have been adopted I've been become wards of the state because of abuse or neglect

and many people predicted that all of those measures would become worse as a result of welfare reform. And that has not happened in fact. Hunger and food insecurity and the number of kids that are in the foster care system in the various States has actually declined declined slightly over this period. So there has not been that major impact. And I suspect the same thing is true of domestic violence but I'm not aware of the figures when trying to get at least one more caller will go to Forest Illinois this is line 3. Hello. Yes I was wondering about what percentage of that. But it's actually made out of welfare before and after 1990. It depends on how you define welfare the FTC program that was so controversy was less than 1 percent of the federal budget and the program that replaced it has more or less the exact same numbers of dollars but of course the federal budget is now much bigger so be much less than 1 percent. However if you include all the money that goes to low income families.

So that would be their only income tax credit. Supplemental Security Income Medicaid food stamps and a host of other programs education programs health programs and so forth. You could get up to probably somewhere in the area three hundred sixty or three hundred seventy billion dollars for all of these programs. So what percentage of that is that that would be something like a sixth of the federal budget. Less than 1 percent. You know one sixth of the federal budget. So some like 15 percent. And that's always worked outside the home my entire life. Married with three children who are now grown. I do understand not wanting to pay for people to stay at home but I also feel that happens with Social Security payments to people who have never worked outside the home or by choice and I guess I don't you know I'm also in that profession where you see the results of this where people have gone off of welfare

their welfare benefits and gotten a good job gotten and Saran and we all Rob ride with that and now they've been laid off and have absolutely nothing and I mean this is just a small it's just anecdotal. Obviously not percentage but you know I've seen the tragedy of it with my work in health care. Right. And there's no question that that has occurred but let me say two things about it first of all. On average if you look at the nations as a whole that has not occurred that more family headed families are better off financially than they were under the old system where people would stay on welfare essentially. Your average so they are they they are better off the second thing is that many of those families are much better off because they're employed. Their kids are proud of their parents for being employed they're independent from welfare and that's consistent with what the American public wants. So I would say on balance it's clearly a better system even though there are these individual cases that are that are unfortunate.

I mean a large city you've got a lot more to choose from rural areas that can be pretty bleak. Almost all of the studies show that in areas the effects are just about the same as they are in cities. So there's been declines in the real area increases employment and so forth. I'm going to have to jump in here my apologies to the caller but we're simply going to have to stop because we've come to the end of the time but again I want to mention for people who are in and around Champaign-Urbana where we are our guest Ron Haskins will be giving a talk on this subject on welfare reform law. 1096 this afternoon on the campus at 3 o'clock at the Levis faculty center on the Illinois Street in Urbana this is part of an initiative looking at the connections between health and social welfare policies that's being sponsored primarily by the Center for Advanced Study on the U of I campus our guest Ron Haskins is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C. and they do have a website if you're interested in finding out more about him or at the other things that they do there at Brookings. You can go to

WW W. Duck Brookings dot edu and find out more. Thank you very much for being here welcome have greatly enjoyed it.