Welfare Reform Means Choosing Between Food and Kids' Shoes

Food stamps barely cover a family's meal costs, if that. Yet poor women in Hartford, Connecticut are trading their food stamp benefits, at a discount, for cash because it's the only way they can get money for other necessities -- the gas bill, soap, shoes for the kids.

That's what journalist Seth Wessler found when he investigated the impacts of welfare reform and the recession. His long article in ColorLines tracing the hardships and survival strategies of an Hispanic woman he has named Eva is worth reading in full because there's a lot more there than food stamp trades.

In some ways, the situation in Hartford is especially dire. Connecticut, the second wealthiest state, puts a 21-month limit on participation in its TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) program. Like the five-year maximum established by federal law, this is a lifetime limit. So many poor women like Eva are barred from the program and have no source of cash assistance -- no matter what.

And Hartford was in a recession even before the recession began. Manufacturing jobs had dried up, leaving few opportunities for low-skilled workers without at least some college education. Still, Eva, a high school dropout, found jobs with low pay, grueling work, long commutes. Now nothing.

If her very ill mother dies, she and her daughter will be out on the streets because the roof over their heads is paid for in part by her mother's housing voucher. Waiting lists just to become eligible for a voucher in Connecticut are reportedly five to seven years long.

It's easy to put the blame on Connecticut, our changing economy and the recession. But the roots of the problem are in the federal TANF statute, the related regulations and the federal government's egregiously low contributions to state-level programs.

For example, states have an incentive to reduce their caseloads -- as if the unshared cost burdens weren't enough. These have led to a pared-down "work first" approach. Get TANF participants into unsubsidized jobs as quickly as possible, no matter what their needs and goals. So Eva, who wanted a GED and needed help with a learning disability, got only some advice on how to dress for work and the like. Not even help with finding a job, she says.

Consider too that federal appropriations for TANF haven't increased since the program was established 13 years ago. Cash benefits were low then. Inflation has since eroded their value.

As of July 2008, the median average cash benefit for a family of three was enough to bring the family to 29 percent of the federal poverty line. That's $5,104 for all expenses except food, some medical care and, if the family is very lucky, housing. (To see how TANF families in your state fare, check out the table in this Legal Momentum report.)

Finally, the roots of the problem are deeper than TANF. When Congress established the program, it was responding to a widespread view that "welfare mothers" were just living easy at taxpayers' expense. They didn't want to work and wouldn't try unless they knew they'd be up against deeper poverty.

Views like these are still common. Just last year, a Pew Research Center poll found that 72 percent of Americans thought that poor people had become too dependent on government assistance programs. This is a higher percentage than before the recession began. And you should see some of the blog comments I've read! As nasty (though sometimes more profane) than the South Carolina Lt. Governor's recent statements on feeding stray animals.

TANF was supposed to be reauthorized this year. Looks now as if Congress will probably kick the issue forward into the next session. This gives those who want to see reforms a wider window of opportunity to advocate. Grassroots organizing will be very important here. As will stories like Eva's.

Photo credit: herval