Book Review
by Kathryn J. Edin and H. Luke Shaefer
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
240 pp.
$28
[From review]
The authors conclude that welfare reform, long pointed to by Bill Clinton and conservative Republicans as a policy success because it greatly reduced the number of people on welfare without many apparent ill effects, has in fact been a failure.
[. . .]
Equally puzzling is the account of Modonna Harris. We are told that when she became unemployed “she managed to submit dozens upon dozens of job applications, pounding the pavement week after week.” Only after she and her daughter ended up in a homeless shelter did a “deeply reluctant” Harris agree to go downtown to apply for welfare. After waiting in line more than an hour—part of the time in the rain—she was told to come back the next day because there were no more open appointments with case workers available. This is an egregious example of bureaucratic ineptitude, but one is surprised when, apparently, Harris doesn’t come back. The reader is left feeling compassion for Harris, but also bewilderment. What is going on here?
[. . .]
states may deliberately surround welfare applications with yards of red tape in order to frustrate potential applicants and drive welfare rolls down. No doubt such deterrence is at work here. As the authors point out, the federal government gives states TANF money as a block grant with considerable discretion on how to spend it. Thus, if states can drive down the welfare rolls, TANF money can be spent on other, more politically popular, programs.
[From review]
The authors conclude that welfare reform, long pointed to by Bill Clinton and conservative Republicans as a policy success because it greatly reduced the number of people on welfare without many apparent ill effects, has in fact been a failure.
[. . .]
Equally puzzling is the account of Modonna Harris. We are told that when she became unemployed “she managed to submit dozens upon dozens of job applications, pounding the pavement week after week.” Only after she and her daughter ended up in a homeless shelter did a “deeply reluctant” Harris agree to go downtown to apply for welfare. After waiting in line more than an hour—part of the time in the rain—she was told to come back the next day because there were no more open appointments with case workers available. This is an egregious example of bureaucratic ineptitude, but one is surprised when, apparently, Harris doesn’t come back. The reader is left feeling compassion for Harris, but also bewilderment. What is going on here?
[. . .]
states may deliberately surround welfare applications with yards of red tape in order to frustrate potential applicants and drive welfare rolls down. No doubt such deterrence is at work here. As the authors point out, the federal government gives states TANF money as a block grant with considerable discretion on how to spend it. Thus, if states can drive down the welfare rolls, TANF money can be spent on other, more politically popular, programs.
http://www.city-journal.org/2015/bc1207tm.html
THOMAS MAIN
Welfare Isn’t Dead
Many eligible and truly needy families don’t apply for TANF, as a new book inadvertently demonstrates.
December 7, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment