|
Making 'Welfare to Work' Really Work
|
|
Education and Training
The Double Message About Education
President Clinton has stressed the importance of education for the nation's workforce and for national well-being-assuring us that his education proposals
will improve access to higher education and reward academic achievement by including tuition tax deductions and tax credits for students who maintain a "B"
average (Clinton reaffirms, 1997). By stark contrast, the new welfare law will drastically limit the number of recipients who can participate in education,
and it specifically mandates a work first policy. Poor women on welfare will be required to take any available jobs, with extremely limited options for job
training and none for higher education. Higher education has been one of the most promising pathways out of poverty. But the double message from policymakers
seems to be that "yes," widely available education and training is critical, but "no," this critical education and training will not be available to those
who need it the most-women on welfare.
Education has long been honored in our society as a route to social mobility and material security. In the past, policymakers gave opportunities for
postsecondary education to such disadvantaged groups as minorities and war veterans. Millions of Americans continue to take advantage of "educational
welfare" in the form of government scholarships, student loans, GI bills, work-study programs, and work-based continuing education programs. Tax benefits
support parents who can set up college trusts for their children, college tuition breaks are available to advantaged families who can lock in tuition costs
by prepaying, and free postsecondary education is available to affluent retirees who as "guest students" on college campuses across the country take
tuition-free college courses. Yet policymakers have continued to ignore the potential education has to help welfare recipients achieve similar goals.
Inadequate preparation and training place women in a revolving door of welfare. They are never able to earn the income necessary to lift themselves and
their families out of poverty or to even match the welfare payment. A head of a family who is a single earner and female faces almost impossible odds of
raising her family out of poverty when it takes two wage earners just to make ends meet. When that single wage earner does not have adequate skills or
education, the odds against her increase. As our economy grows more dependent on technology, a rise out of poverty increasingly depends on technical and
professional skills available only through postsecondary education, be it college, advanced technical training, or both. For example, it is estimated that by
the turn of the century, 50 percent of all new jobs will require a college education (Solomon, 1990).
More welfare recipients may be eligible for postsecondary education than is generally believed (Bane & Ellwood, 1994). About half of welfare recipients
already have a high school education or a General Equivalency Diploma (GED)(Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1993). In fact, many are already involved
in some higher education (Burghardt & Gordon, 1990; Burke-Tatum, 1988).
However, under the new law a student on welfare who wants and needs income must get a job, even if taking a job forces her to leave school. While the
President is sounding the theme that the country needs a better educated workforce, caseworkers are telling welfare recipients to find jobs and drop out of
college. It is estimated that community colleges will lose up to 60 percent of their welfare students as states are mandated to put larger proportions of
their caseloads to work (Ritter, 1997).
The new law restricts the type of education and training that count as work up to 1 year of job training or vocational training, although it is up to the
states to interpret the rules. States can be more restrictive than the federal guidelines require or more open in their interpretation. However, given the
current political mood of the country, states are tending toward a narrow work first interpretation of the provisions of the law. According to the Chronicle
of Higher Education, Illinois, Kansas, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin have limited the access of welfare recipients to
college, some by limiting recipients to short-term training programs or by limiting college attendance to 1 year only (Nine issues affecting higher
education, 1997).
High school graduates make 20 percent higher wages than do dropouts and are more likely to have administrative support jobs and blue collar jobs requiring
skills. However, this by itself does not protect against a return to welfare. Women welfare recipients with a high school education are far more likely than
women with more education to go back on welfare. One study found that only a quarter of high school graduates and 15 percent of high school dropouts left
welfare for a job lasting 18 months or longer (Pavetti, 1992). This is in large part because there are fewer and fewer low-paying jobs requiring minimum
skills. At minimum wage and with no income assistance, a woman must work 60-70 hours a week for 50 weeks a year to squeak above the poverty threshold. Census
data clearly show that earning college credits and attending college for even short periods of time have a positive impact on earned income.
Access to Postsecondary Education Changes Lives
College brings the same advantages to welfare recipients as it does to anyone else-financial independence and security, social status, and mobility. The
work first approach discounts the important studies that document the amazing economic, personal, and familial success of women who, despite enormous odds
and institutional barriers, finish postsecondary advanced training and get jobs providing adequate earnings.
While education does not eliminate gender and racial discrimination in the job market, the persistent gap between the pay of women and men decreases with
more education. In 1990, a woman with a master's degree earned 69 percent of the average male salary, whereas a woman with a high school diploma or less
education earned less than half the wage of a man employed at a comparable level (Greenberg, 1993). The median weekly earnings of women with college degrees
was $453, compared with a median $308 in weekly earnings of women with high school diplomas. Both, of course, were considerably less than the $548 weekly
median earning of men with high school diplomas. A woman who is head of a household, in particular, needs a college degree to earn a living family wage that
approaches that of a man with a high school diploma (Blank, 1995). Although every year of additional education brings an increase in earnings, it is still
difficult for a woman head of household without a college degree to find a stable job that pays enough to support a family on that one income alone. Only
women with bachelor's degrees earn enough ($19,404) to raise a family of three much above the poverty threshold, which was $11,890 for a family of three in
1993 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1993).
Follow-up studies of minority recipients who have attended college show significant improvement in their jobs, salaries, finances, family life, and
self-esteem (Gittell, Gross, & Holdaway, 1993; Gittell, Schehl, & Facri, 1990; Johnson, 1991; Kates, 1991). Most telling, research has found that only 21
percent of families headed by African American women with at least 1 year of postsecondary education were at the poverty level versus the much larger 51
percent for those families headed by African American women whose formal education ended with a high school degree. Thus, the poverty rate for African
American women heads of household was cut in half with only 1 year of postsecondary schooling. Similarly, 41 percent of families headed by Latina high school
graduates lived in poverty, but that number dropped to 18.5 percent when the mother had 1 year of postsecondary education. For White women, the number
dropped from 22 percent to 13 percent (Sherman, 1990).
National survey data show that 40 percent to 50 percent of women who exited welfare returned within 2 years. Five years after leaving welfare, nearly 80
percent of women remained poor or near poor. However, women who had more postsecondary education were more likely to consistently escape poverty (Meyer &
Cancian, 1997). Similarly, in a 1990 survey in New York state by Gittell and Associates, 88 percent of welfare respondents who returned to college and
graduated had been employed since graduation; 45 percent were earning more than $20,000, and 7 percent were earning, over $30,000. All who had degrees were
off welfare. Those with a 4-year degree began earning an average income of $23,017, and those with an associate's degree, $19,738. Over half had gone on to
undertake additional training, and 22 percent were in graduate school. Most significantly, only 13 percent of the respondents were still on public
assistance, and all of these individuals had young children (Gittell et al., 1990).
Almost the same results were found in a replication of the survey in five other widely varying states (Illinois, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Washington, and
Wyoming). Across these states, 81 percent of female AFDC recipient college graduates had been continuously employed since graduation. When asked about what
most helped them complete college, 90 percent listed financial aid as the single most important factor. The great majority of women were convinced that they
could not have left welfare without their college degree, and it was college that enabled them to secure their present jobs (Gittell et al., 1993). Those who
had completed a 4-year degree were the most likely to have left welfare for stable employment and adequate earnings to support a family.
One college counselor noted, given the great obstacles-personal, medical, and familial-and the institutional barriers these students face, "it is almost
miraculous that any of our students graduate." Students who are on welfare may not be able to work or attend school because they cannot afford or find
adequate child care or transportation or may be ill or disabled. Lack of money, time, or child care; sexual victimization; abusive relationships; substance
abuse; and responsibility for sick and disabled relatives are common sources of stress among these students. Coping with family members who have been shot or
killed or have AIDS is not uncommon (Hamilton, Brock, & Vargas, 1994; Polakow, 1993a; Raphael, 1996).
Special programs can greatly help women on public assistance succeed in postsecondary programs.
The City University of New York (CUNY) is one of the largest providers of higher education for people on public assistance. In 1993, 17 percent, or some
27,000 CUNY students, were on welfare or in families receiving welfare. For some of the CUNY colleges, up to 40 percent of their students were on welfare or
from families on welfare. About 80 percent of these students were people of color, and 63 percent were women of color. Gittell et al. evaluated several
special programs that were designed specifically for welfare recipients and that provided a mix of counseling, academic support, and financial aid. The
students who were in programs that combined more rigorous requirements with more extensive services targeted to student needs did better than any other group
of students. Students on welfare in all of these programs made above-average progress toward their degrees, which was not the case with welfare students not
in programs.
Regardless of whether they participated in a special program, students on welfare accumulated credits toward their degrees at the same rate as students
not on welfare, demonstrating their potential for success in college. Focus interviews on 13 campuses in 22 programs with hundreds of students turned up a
clear consensus: They were eager to leave public assistance, and they were convinced that only higher education would ensure them stable employment and
economic independence (Gittell, Vandersall, Holdaway, & Newman, 1996).
Empowering poor women through higher education not only improves their income and job prospects, but also positively affects their
children.
Kates's (1991) study of welfare recipients in 28 states found that the college experience of the mothers has a profound effect on their children and that
their own educational experiences helped to raise their children's desire and aspiration for college. Other studies in several states have consistently found
similar results: that students on welfare report that their college experience has a significant and beneficial impact on the educational attitudes and
aspirations of their own children and that the mother's level of education is a significant predictor of children's overall development and performance in
school (Gittell et al., 1996; Kates, 1991; Quint, Musick, & Ladner, 1994; Zill, Moore, & Smith, 1991).
We have long understood that education is a powerful and dependable way to interrupt the intergenerational transmission of poverty. Individual mothers
tell how that happens. Ninety-five percent of the students in one study said that the college experience had made them feel proud of themselves; they became
more confident (90 percent), developed new insights into their abilities (85 percent), found their children were prouder of them (81 percent), and learned to
better meet their children's needs (75 percent). They reported that they were better able to help their children with their homework, gave their children a
more secure and safe home environment, and modeled reading and studying for their children. The children saw and experienced the direct results of their
mother's motivation and work in school when she graduated and later found and kept a good job. The report concluded that-
"Without exception, every woman interviewed had a significant influence on at least one other person's education, ambition, or achievement, and
the women with younger children [were] the most determined that their children [would] also go to college "(Gittell et al., 1990).
Low educational goals and low academic achievement are also positively associated with early initiation of sexual activity at a younger age, among both African American and White adolescents.
However, contrary to popular stereotype, no relationship has been documented between welfare per se and pregnancy; 77 poverty researchers signed a
statement asserting that accumulated research indicates that "welfare has not played a major role in the rise of out-of-wedlock childbearing." Teenage
pregnancy is, however, closely related to the absence of a future, of hope for anything beyond producing a child.
Job Training
Job training, remediation, and educational services are critical to ensure the success of the welfare-to-work transition for women on welfare.
The current labor market requires advanced technical skills, but welfare recipients are largely unskilled and therefore unable to secure jobs that will
allow them to successfully support their families (Danziger & Danziger, 1995). They also often lack sufficient work experience and training. This is
particularly true for longer term welfare recipients. Recent research indicates that among women who have been on welfare for 5 or more years, 50 percent
have no work experience, and 63 percent have less than a high school degree (Pavetti, 1995).
Without job training and education, welfare mothers are often forced to work in jobs that require nontraditional work hours, a situation that further
limits their child care options and taxes resources to pay for child care (Danziger & Danziger, 1995). Typically, welfare mothers are most likely to be
employed as child care providers, waitresses, cleaners, orderlies, and attendants (U.S. Department of Labor, 1993). Single mothers are at high risk for being
able to secure only part-time, minimum wage jobs, with poor opportunities for advancement, and the work options for women of color who are single are the
most limited (Institute for Women's Policy Research [IWPR], 1995).
Middle-aged and older women and displaced homemakers face other work barriers. Most federal and state job training programs appear to overlook them
(Butler & Weatherley, 1992). Older women have the additional disadvantage of having been bypassed by the computer age, and this technical illiteracy is a
significant barrier to employment (Marsh, Pollan, McFadden, & Price, 1990). Therefore, many older, as well as younger, welfare recipients are likely to
benefit from specific technical job training and reading instruction that is specific to targeted jobs and that promotes technical literacy.
Over the last 30 years, three strategies have been used to boost the employability of welfare recipients: financial incentives, requirements to search for
and take jobs, and education and training programs. These three strategies, however, can only be successful when complemented by medical health insurance and
earned income tax credits (Lerman, 1995), as well as quality child care.
The Institute on Women's Policy Research has shown that most mothers on welfare work, but they are unable to earn enough money to escape poverty, as their
jobs are low paying, unstable, and do not offer health insurance and other benefits that would increase retention. For these families to escape poverty, they
must be able to secure higher paying jobs with more benefits (Institute for Women's Policy Research, 1995).
More than 70 percent of mothers receiving assistance spend some time in the workforce, and those individuals not working are typically involved in the job
search process. IWPR found that the most critical variables predicting successful work transition were the physical and emotional ability to work; living in
states with good job availability and low unemployment; not having toddlers or infants (lower child care costs and reduced role strain); receiving child
support and financial resources from other family members; and possessing the human capital of job training, that is previous labor force participation, and
a high school education. IWPR concludes that job training and work incentives are beneficial and necessary, but not sufficient. Short-sighted attempts to
lower welfare costs by placing restrictive time limits on food stamps, insurance, and financial resources will not successfully move mothers on welfare to
work.
Previous Section
Table of Contents
Continue This Section
|
