Wisconsin Pushes Workfare Program

While Washington, D.C., has been preoccupied with balancing the federal budget, state governments and the nonprofit sector are increasingly taking the initiative in welfare reform.

In Wisconsin, a new plan would restructure the welfare system in part by requiring all able-bodied participants to work in order to receive benefits.

With its reputation as an innovator well established, the Wisconsin legislature has drastically cut its general assistance program, while a new format, Wisconsin Works, is expected to overhaul the entire welfare apparatus next year.

Meanwhile, another major player in the welfare equation has been receiving a boost toward an expanded role in welfare reform. The nonprofit sector, including churches, parachurch organizations, and nonsectarian groups, is increasingly seen as an efficient alternative to the federal bureaucracy for delivery of services to the poor and needy.

Robert Rector, senior policy analyst for welfare issues at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., stands behind reform provisions allowing more government use of churches and the nonprofit sector. "Government has failed," Rector says. "We need to let government step aside and let a more viable institution like the church come in and pick up the pieces."

One of the key concepts in the welfare-reform movement has been to enable local solutions to local problems and get federal bureaucracy out of the way.

A welfare-reform bill that cleared Congress in December would have set up a "block grant" system, whereby states would administer a large pool of federal money for programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills program, and subsidized childcare. However, President Clinton vetoed the measure last month because he says it was "at odds with my central goal of moving people from welfare to work."

A secondary area of focus concerns who qualifies for benefits. Welfare reformers hope to give full discretion to the states regarding welfare eligibility.

WISCONSIN'S MODEL: On the state level, Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson plans to use his freedom to its fullest. The Wisconsin Works proposal, nicknamed W-2, would end AFDC, place every applicant into one of four work categories, and impose a one-month waiting period for any benefits.

Thompson's proposals have generated their share of skepticism, even among those fully in favor of revamping the system. "The goal should be getting people out of poverty. What this does is get people off welfare," says Ted Jahn, director of the Milwaukee Regional Office of Catholic Social Services. "The work program in and of itself doesn't have the total answers."

One widespread complaint against W-2 is that it would create a greater number of working poor, already the fastest-growing economic class in many of the state's counties.

W-2's goal is to slot everyone in the system who is able to work into a regular, unsubsidized job. Those who cannot hold a regular job must take state-sponsored employment that pays minimum wage or below. One danger Jahn foresees is that some parents in the program will be forced to work at low-wage jobs and will not have sufficient money or time to care for their children properly. "We do work in child-abuse prevention and early intervention," Jahn says. "There's a lot of stress. It could increase the amount of abuse, [and] it could increase that caseload."

The Heritage Foundation's Rector says people need not fear that the government will sweep welfare back to the pre-New Deal days, but he notes that the present system has made one in four Americans too dependent on some form of government subsidy.

"[The system] basically says, 'If you're not married, we'll give you money when you have kids, and if you're married, we won't,' " Rector says. "Even President Clinton recognizes that this system encourages and subsidizes illegitimacy."

DEPENDING ON THE CHURCH: As Wisconsin has altered its welfare benefits plans, the burden of service has begun to shift to the nonprofit sector. And in some cases, charities are having a hard time coping.

The numbers at the Salvation Army's transitional living center in rural Stevens Point have already climbed noticeably: the shelter served 40 percent more people in 1995 than in the previous year.

Meanwhile, the Salvation Army's Hope Center had been drawing on the state's general assistance fund as reimbursement for housing displaced workers or others looking for a permanent residence. The program provided a maximum of $205 per month for basic living needs and served thousands statewide. Starting this year, the state's counties will administer the program as they see fit, leaving Joe Irvine, director of the Hope Center, wondering what other local funds can be tapped to make up any shortfall.

Irvine notes that he represents just one of 21 local United Way agencies, all of them competing for the same discretionary dollars. "All of our needs have intensified, which means the competition is going to intensify," Irvine says. "Everybody is going to take a hit, everybody's going to have to fundraise more, and harder."

What about churches? Will the effects reach them, even with their mostly private funding base?

Paul Sinclair, minister for social concerns and urban ministry at Elmbrook Church in Brookfield, near Milwaukee, believes churches--even though financed with private donations--will be hit by the fallout.

"Unless the church chooses to be in a position to pick up the slack, it may be facing some hard times on this one," Sinclair says. As evidence, Sinclair pointed to an already-rising number of people on food stamps and Supplemental Security Income visiting his local food pantry.

Others are concerned that welfare reform will push more working poor into the ranks of the homeless. In Milwaukee, Salvation Army officer Lt. Col. Robert Bonifield says, "Our shelter is full, and full on a continual basis. Financially, we're at the saturation level. If they start cutting programs and expect Christian charities to pick up the additional [load], it's not going to happen."

In Appleton, a city of 66,000 near Green Bay, the Salvation Army's Adopt-a-Family program helps the working poor cope. "It was a tremendous help during the Christmas holidays," says Karen F., a divorced mother and an AFDC recipient who asked that her full name not be used.

In the end, the new welfare dynamics at times put recipients into a difficult dilemma that is not easily resolved. In Karen's case, a chronic back condition limits her ability to function. "I can only work four hours a day, four days a week," she says. "For me to go out and get a job, there's no way I'd be able to make a living." Under the new eligibility restrictions, individuals such as Karen may be forced increasingly to rely on private charity, not on government programs.

Copyright © 1996 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.