Welfare Dependency: Questioning Common Assumptions
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Welfare Dependency: Questioning Common Assumptions by Michael French Smith, Ph.D. There is wide agreement that the welfare system sumed by the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) pro- (means-tested cash and in-kind assistance programs, gram in the 1970s. 'I'he Social Security Act was a chiefly Aid to Families with Dependent Children) is response to political unrest and a burgeoning need for replete with problems.' Mainstream periodicals - such as assistance caused by the Great Depression. It was made Time, Newsweek, Business Week, the New Republic, and politically possible, in part, because prevailing attitudes The Atlantic Monthly - routinely refer to the problems toward poverty changed as a result of the widesprexl of "welfare dependency," the "culture of poverty," or the hardship caused by the 1)eprt:ssion. Thc economist "culture of welfare dependency." The subject of this Bradley Schiller writes: paper is the commonly held assumption that a large per- centage of welfare recipients become dependent on It was not until the depression of the 1890s that m:my public assistance. Related assumptions are that welfare people seriously began to question the proposition that recipients are seduced by the system into a self-perpetu- poverty resulted from sin and slovenliness ....13111 it \vas not until 15 n~illionAmericans simultaneously rxperi- ating culture of dependence, and that the system inad- enced unemployment in the depths of the Great Ikprcs- vertantly increases poverty by swelling the ranks of the sion that a really new perspcctivc on poverty took hold. idle and fostering families headed by single women Only as millions of otherwise re>ponsihle and industri- unable to provide for their children. A review of ous individuals fell abruptly into joblessness :md povcrt) research on welfare dependency and related questions, did the American public begin lo speak of poverty as being outside the control of the individual. Awareness however, finds little support for these contentions. grew that poverty might be the consequence of soci;~l and economic forces rather than of immorality :und L vi~e.~ SHIFTING ATTITUDES ABOUT POVERTY Seeing themselves and others like them plunged into Before the 1030s, assistance to the needy in the poverty or near poverty, middle-class Americans could IJnited States was largely the province of private charity, understand that poverty was not the fault of the poor but with some help from local governments. The current of larger, uncontrollable economic circumstances. They system of public assistance began with passage of the could then accept, even welcome, the use of public Social Security Act of 1035. This act initiated Aid to Fam- funds to assist the poor. However, Schiller also notes that ilies with Dependent Children (AFDC), Unemployment as economic conditions improved there was a tendency Insurance, and the Old Age Assistance program sub- to return to explaining poverty in terms of "the ambi- tions, motivations, ability, and the entire cultural orien- tation of [the] poor."' 'Means-tested cash assistance programs for the poor make up only The welfare system that grew out of a feeling that a small portion of all federally financed transfer payment programs - that is, programs that redistribute income by paying out federal reve- poverty can happen to anybody is still with us. As n~my nues to particular categories of persons. Nonmeans-tested transfer as 25 percent of the U.S. population are estimated to live payments that go in large part to the nonpoor - for example, Social in families that receive or have recieved food stamps or Security, Medicare, and agricultural subsidies - make up most of fed- eral transfer payments. Sar Levitan of George Washington University's benefits from AFDC, SSI, General Assistance (GA), or Center for Social Policy points out that means-tested aid makes up only about one-sixth of federal transfkr payments and AFDC alone accounts for only about 2 percent of all federal transfer payments (see "The Evolving Welfare System," Society, vol. 23, no. 2,Jan./Feh. 1986, LBradley K. Schiller, The Bcorzomics of lhz~ertyand 11i.scriminu- p. 5). Nevertheless, people seldom refer to nonmeans-tested transfer tion (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 19'3). pp. 5-4 payments as welfare. That term is usually reserved for means-tested programs for the poor. -11 IWmPublic Sector Consultants, Inc Knapp's Centre 300 S. Washington Square Suite 401 Lansing, MI 48933 (517)484-4954 other cash assistance programs.' Some remain on the study.' Only 2 percent received more than half their farn- welfare rolls for long periods; much of the criticism of ily income from welfare for eight or more years.' It is this the welfare system centers on these long-term welfare last group - 2 percent of the total population, making up recipients. about 8 percent of all welfare recipients - who should be called "dependent."' The PSID finds that for most wel- In times of relative prosperity, it is commonly argued fare recipients welfare is a temporary expedient that that persisting poverty is not caused by the nature of the supplements income from other sources and accounts economy or the structure of society, but by the poor for less than half of total household income. Further, themselves; that long-term welfare recipients are differ- welfare is usually used primarily to supplement income ent from the rest of :society in their mores, values, and from employment, rather than from other sources such ethics. Some argue i.hat recipients of welfare become as alimony or child support."' (Detailed data on welfare dependent on it, unable or unwilling to break free and recipients like that collected by the PSlD are not availa- become self-reliant. Others contend that welfare pro- ble for Michigan alone.) grams themselves are at fault, that they increase the inci- dence of poverty and help create dependence by making idleness attractive, undermining the desire for self-reli- IS THERE A CULTURE OF POVERTY? ance, and encouraging or facilitating the formation of single-parent, femaleheaded families. More generous The idea that there is a "culture of poverty" - a dis- than branding the poor as inherently shiftless and lazy. tinctive way of life and set of values and attitudes that this suggests that the poor are victims of the welfare sys- give poverty its own self-perpetuating momentum, irre- tem, not of their own nature. All such assumptions, how- spective of the structure or condition of the economy - ever, should be examined. has been around for many years. It has attracted diverse adherents. In 1962, the socialist Michael Harrington wrote in his well-known book on poverty, The Other DOES WELFARE ENCOURAGE America, that "poverty in the United States is a culture - DEPENDENCY? a culture that is radically different from the one that dominates society." More recently, Republican Ronald Listening to much {ofthe public debate on the pressing Reagan warned of the creation of "a permanent culture need for welfare reform, one could come to believe that of poverty - a second and separate America." Many a large percentage of those who receive welfare benefits speak of welfare dependency as both a product and a end up relying heavily on them for many years. The breeding ground of a distinct culture. A 1986 article in facts, however, belie the rhetoric. The New Republic, for example, calls compulsory work programs for welfare recipients "the only way to break Some pertinent data can be found in the Panel Study the culture of poverty,"" and Newsweek speaks of "the of Income Dynamics (PSID), conducted by the liniver- widely shared assumption that the current welfare sys- sity of Michigan Survey Research Center.' The ongoing study has been following members of 5,000 U.S. families for almost twenty years. Published findings for ten years of the study reveal patterns of movement into and out of ' This 4.4 percent of the total population amounts to about 18 per- cent of all those who received any welfxe benefits. Ellwood has used welfare programs and poverty." Approximately 25 per- the PSID data as the basis for estimating the incidence of AFDC receipt cent of the individuals in the study lived in families that alone over a 25-year period. He concludes that about 25 percent of received some of their income from welfare programs those who receive any AFDC benefits will receive at least some bene- fits in 10 or more years over 25 years. Ellwood does not, however, from 1969 through 1978. (See Exhibit 1.) A much smaller distinguish those who receive the greater portion of household percentage, 4.4 percent, lived in families that received income from AFDC. See David T. Ellwood, "Targeting 'Would-Be' Long Term Recipients of AFDC," Prepared for the U.S. Department of some welfare assistance in eight or more years of the Health and Human Services (Princeton, N.J.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.). Duncan et al., Years of Poverty, pp. 73-76. "he PSID defines welfare dependence as receipt of more than *Greg J. Duncan et a1 , Years of Poverty, Years of Plenty: The half the combined incomes of the heads of a household from welfare. Changing Economic Wrtunes of American Workers and Families Receiving any welfare income for eight years or more is called "per- (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute for Social Research, University of Michi- sistent" welfare receipt. The combination of these two factors - gan, 1984), p. 75. receiving the larger share of income from welfare for eight years or more - comes closer to the sense in which the term "welfare depen- dence" is usually used. The PSID definitions, however, refer only to 'In this study, welfare income is defined as payments from AFDC, source of income and not psychological or cultural characteristics. <;A, SSI, and other cash assistance programs, including a number that lo Duncan et al., Years of Poverty, p.