PERSPECTIVE ON WELFARE : The Importance of Having a Real Job : Reform requires providing constructive work for those already receiving ‘income’ from government programs.
President Clinton in a recent press conference spoke eloquently of the importance of having a job, both to the individual and to the fabric of our society. Without the structure and opportunity to contribute meaningfully to society--features of almost all jobs--people deteriorate mentally and physically, their families disintegrate or become dysfunctional, their children become disadvantaged and often delinquent and their communities become dilapidated.
Virtually every governmental agency that impacts our lives, however, is so strapped for resources that even essential services are not being adequately funded. Our cities are filthy, our libraries are closing or drastically cutting hours, our schools are overcrowded, law-enforcement agencies are understaffed. At the same time, government at almost every level is spending billions in welfare, subsidizing millions of people to be idle. As a result, one essential component of a job--income--is provided, at least minimally, through our nation’s welfare systems. What is missing is constructive work.
Our nation does not need a massive infusion of new governmental spending to provide new jobs. What is needed is increased work opportunity for those already receiving income through various welfare programs.
If the same money being spent now were paid in the same amounts to the same persons in “the form of payments for work performed,†as federal law once authorized, rather than in the form of welfare checks, tens of thousands of persons in Los Angeles alone could be gainfully employed. Moreover, we can convert our welfare programs into job programs with modest no-cost or low-cost changes in federal, state and local laws.
This proposal is not pie-in-the-sky social engineering or wishful thinking. Already in Los Angeles County, approximately 17,000 of the 55,000 employable persons on general relief work eight or more days a month to “work off†their grants. These men and women clean our beaches and highways, work in hospitals, clean police stations and wash patrol cars, repair street lights, maintain public parks and assist in juvenile facilities. But they could do even more if our public and nonprofit agencies made more and better use of this resource. Instead of competing with each other for scarce taxpayer dollars, agencies could compete for this source of labor, without cost to any governmental agency or nonprofit organization that will provide supervision and workers’ compensation insurance.
To facilitate the transformation from welfare to jobs, two further developments are crucial, and neither is beyond the means or the will of this community. First, more work opportunities are needed. When more governmental agencies and nonprofit organizations become aware of the success other agencies are experiencing, the number of job opportunities should increase substantially. Four to 10 people on general relief could be assigned to an agency, to be supervised by that organization’s front-line workers. No regular employee would lose a job and the agency’s budget would be little affected, but the services provided to the community would be measurably expanded.
Second, work opportunities provided should be made more job-like by tying the amount of money received more closely to the amount of work performed. For example, after the first grant, entitlement to additional grants could be tied directly to work. If a worker missed an hour of work that was not made up, the worker would lose $4.25, just as in a regular job, rather than risking a 30-day or 60-day sanction as at present. If work opportunities were available and required for all employable persons on general relief, it would not be necessary to impose upon them, as we do now, the demeaning and often fruitless requirement of securing a certain number of rejections for regular employment as a condition of continuing eligibility.
Other modifications--such as permitting workers to retain all or most of supplemental earnings and to accumulate up to $1,500 in assets for deposits on apartments to break out of the welfare system--also are worth experimenting with.
Many of these proposals are being considered now on a pilot basis in Los Angeles County. By restructuring general relief and providing work to all employable people receiving it, this county can stop subsidizing destructive idleness and assist the government and nonprofit agencies in providing additional services. And, the county could demonstrate that using the resources of welfare programs themselves to fund jobs is one of the most cost-effective ways to eliminate welfare.
If the demonstration works for general relief, it could become a model for reforming the federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. In each case, the same money could be paid for work performed, thus reinforcing work habits and rekindling pride. Or, we can continue to pay welfare stipends. Is there really any choice?
