>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 13:34:04 -0400 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: Bob Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Wisconsin Workfare not working for the poor >Mime-Version: 1.0 > > > > children are much worse off than six years ago > > One result has been the growth in homelessness > > > >Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:40:06 -0700 (PDT) >From: MichaelP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: child welfare menu > > >============= >WSWS : News & Analysis : North America > >New study shows the results of US welfare "reform" > >One third of Milwaukee, Wisconsin children growing up in working poor >families > >By Paul Scherrer 5 July 2000 >http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jul2000/milw-j05.shtml > >The number of Milwaukee County children living in working poor families is >growing rapidly, according to a study conducted by the University of >Wisconsin. Fifty-nine thousand Milwaukee children grow up in working >families with earnings below the poverty level. Another 54,000 children >live in families where the parents' income falls below 185 percent of the >poverty level; the number is growing steadily each year. This means one >third of Milwaukee County children live in poverty, despite the fact that >at least one of their parents is working. > >The report found that the number of working single parent families living >in poverty grew by 38 percent over the past six years as the Midwestern US >state drastically reduced the number of poor people receiving welfare >benefits. One third of working single-parent families live in poverty and >another third live in near poverty. > >The findings are part of the latest study conducted by the Employment and >Training Institute at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, entitled >Economic Status of Milwaukee County. The institute has conducted a number >of studies on the wages and living standards of low-income workers since >the implementation of welfare �reform.� > >Wisconsin has one of the most restrictive welfare policies in the country. >Even before cuts were made in the national welfare program in 1996, the >Clinton administration granted Wisconsin's Republican Governor Tommy >Thompson a waiver from national entitlement standards, allowing Wisconsin >to dramatically reduce benefits. > >Wisconsin's program, Wisconsin Works, dubbed W-2, goes far beyond the >federal guidelines in gutting welfare benefits. Federal guidelines require >that 30 percent of welfare recipients must work, and that states may >exempt parents with children under one year of age. W-2 requires that all >persons work, even those with children as young as 12 weeks of age. > >The federal guidelines also allow states to grant recipients a 24-month >period before having to meet the work requirement. Wisconsin's law >requires recipients to begin work immediately. Wisconsin also refused to >allow recipients to attend school in place of work, a requirement that >forced thousands to drop out of college and other technical programs. > >"Welfare reform was never designed to improve the lives of the people on >welfare," said John Pawasarat, director of the Employment and Training >Institute. "It has never been the economic well-being of the families that >were on welfare that is of concern. It was often presented that way, that >having a job would be an improvement. But welfare reform was designed to >get people off of welfare and that is what it did." > >Wisconsin has had one of the largest drops in welfare caseloads in the >country. Since 1993, caseloads in Wisconsin have declined by 89 percent, >second only to Wyoming, which has seen a 91 percent drop. > >In Milwaukee, an industrial city on Lake Michigan, fewer than 5,000 >families are still receiving benefits, a drop from 35,000 to 40,000 in the >years before the cuts were implemented. > >The proponents of welfare reform claimed that ending �dependency� would >allow former recipients to become self-sufficient and lead to improved >living standards. In reality, thousands of people thrown off the welfare >rolls moved into low-paying jobs, with few or any benefits, and were >saddled with higher transportation, child care and other costs. > >"For the most part these families have joined the working poor," Pawasarat >said. The state has refused repeated requests to provide income data on >former welfare recipients. "That is because they know the results; they >are the same results that we found,� Pawasarat commented. �About one third >are not working, one third are working but not making it and one third are >working and slightly above the poverty level. This is about the same >results that people are finding all across the country." > >If fact, an earlier study of wages shows that only 17 percent of former >welfare recipients are earning above the poverty level. Another 22 percent >earn below poverty but above the equivalent of a year-round full-time job >at minimum wage. And another 22 percent earn below the minimum wage. > >This leaves four out of every ten former welfare recipients with no income >whatsoever. > >"By and large, children are much worse off than six years ago," said Joyce >Mallow, director of Smart Start, an organization dedicated to improving >the lives of children under six and one of the backers of the University >of Wisconsin study. "Families have left welfare and even though a person >is working they are not making enough to support their children." > >One result has been the growth in homelessness, Mallow says. "Homelessness >is becoming a real problem. We had 12,000 evictions last year and are >seeing a real increase in the number of women and children using shelters. >Because of the hard winter weather in Wisconsin, in addition to the >regular shelters, there is a network of emergency shelters that take the >overflow during cold nights.� Mallow continued, �For the past two years, >these emergency shelters have been operating all year round.� > >In addition to the drastic decline in welfare rolls, tens of thousands of >families are eligible but not receiving other benefits such as Food >Stamps, medical insurance and child care benefits. > >Wisconsin has privatized the administration of welfare benefits. In >Milwaukee there are five different agencies that run W-2, including some >for-profit companies. They have instituted what is called "soft touch" >policies, where caseworkers, unless specifically asked, will not tell even >those people denied cash assistance that they may be eligible for other >benefits. > >"There is a bureaucracy which makes it difficult to apply," said Mallow. >"After all, if you are at work, you can't wait in a welfare office all day >filling out forms and then return every month to verify your income. If a >person is not qualified for welfare they assume that they are also not >qualified for Food Stamps and child care, when they are." > >Since the implementation of W-2, there are 23,000 fewer children receiving >Food Stamps and 16,000 fewer children receiving state-sponsored medical >care. > >Only 25 percent of the families that are eligible are receiving child care >subsidies. In many cases obstacles are preventing people from receiving >the benefits that were promised to them, according to Pawasarat. > >"The provisions were written so that child care may only be provided by a >day care center," said Pawasarat. "For many low-income wage earners that >is not very good. Many have jobs in the evening, weekends or only >part-time. Under the new provisions, they can't hire a relative, next door >neighbor or the teenager down the block to watch their children. > >"The rewards that were promised for leaving the welfare rolls are not >forthcoming. By and large, the programs that were promised�Food Stamps, >medical care and child care�are not being used." > >================ > > >Children healthy as never before > >A study shows plenty of positive evidence about U.S. children but also >drug usage that is stuck at "unacceptably high levels" > >OREGOONIAN (Portland) Friday, July 14, 2000 >______________________________________________________________________ > >By Paul Recer of The Associated Press > >WASHINGTON -- By some measures, this is a golden age for America's >children: They are healthier, better fed, less likely to live in poverty >and more likely to survive to adulthood than ever before. > >Here are some findings from the national report on the status of children: > >** More children 19 months to 35 months old have received vaccinations >than ever before. For 1998, the rate was 79 percent, a 3 percentage point >increase from the previous year. > >** Infant mortality -- meaning death before the first birthday -- held >steady from 1997 to 1998. The rate in both years was 7.2 deaths per 1,000 >live births. Worldwide, the United States ranks 25th in infant mortality. > >** Older children and adolescents are now more likely to reach adulthood, >as mortality rates for them have decreased in the past three years. > >** Fewer teen-agers are giving birth, following a declining trend first >noted in 1991. There were 32 births per 1,000 females between ages 15 and >17 in 1997, while the latest data, from 1998, puts the rate at 30. > >** Fewer children are living in below-poverty-level homes than at any time >in the past 20 years. The percentage dropped from 19 percent in 1997 to 18 >percent in 1998, a rate last reached in 1980. The percentage of children >living in poverty peaked at 22 percent in 1993 and has been declining >since. > >** The percentage of low-birth-weight babies (under 5.5 pounds at birth) >continues to go up, increasing from 7.5 percent of newborns in 1997 to 7.6 >percent in 1998. One reason may be an increase in multiple births caused >by more frequent use of fertility drugs and medically assisted conception. > >** Children represent 26 percent of the U.S. population, compared with 36 >percent in 1964, the end of the post-World War II baby boom. > > >But a new government study also shows that U.S. kids drink too much and >smoke too often and more than one-quarter of high school seniors are using >drugs. > >"In some areas, the health and well-being of American children is better >than it has ever been," said Dr. Duane Alexander of the National Institute >of Child Health and Human Development. > >But Alexander added: "There are some things that are not the way they >should be, and even the indicators that are 'best-ever' status have room >for improvement." > >In a statement about the report, U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. >Riley said, "Today is a good news day for America's children." > >The rising prosperity of the past eight years, Riley said, "is making a >real difference for our nation's children." > >He noted that 59 percent of young children are now enrolled in early >education programs. Riley said that 55 percent of high schoolers are now >participating in volunteer activities, a 10 percent increase from 1996. > >The annual report was compiled by the Federal Interagency Forum on Child >and Family Statistics. It uses data from 20 federal agencies on the >health, economic and education trends among America's 70.2 million people >under the age of 18. The report is based on the most recent statistics, >with most of the data from 1999, 1998 or 1997. > >Alexander said health officials are concerned that the rate of drinking, >smoking and drug use among American youngsters remains "stable at >unacceptably high levels despite our efforts to reduce these." > >The report found that the rate of youthful cigarette smokers was >essentially unchanged from 1998 to 1999. The percentage of 12th-graders >who reported smoking daily, for instance, increased by a percentage point, >to 23 percent, during that period. > >Alcohol use was also essentially unchanged, with 31 percent of >12th-graders reporting frequent drinking during 1999, and 32 percent in >1998. > >Illicit drug use among 12th-graders was 27 percent for both years, the >report found. > >Alexander said efforts to combat sudden infant death syndrome by teaching >parents and caregivers to put babies to sleep on their backs instead of on >their stomachs has been a major factor in the reduction of infant >mortality. > >"We have reduced SIDS by about 50 percent with this effort, but we can >achieve an even greater reduction," he said. > >The increase in low-birth-weight babies is a major contributor to the >infant-mortality rate, Alexander said. Babies born prematurely are more >fragile and less apt to survive, although Alexander noted that American >medical workers now "are able to save more and more" such infants. > >Death rates among children ages 1 to 19 "are the lowest they have ever >been," Alexander said. The biggest drop was among adolescents, ages 15 to >19. In 1997, the death rate was 79 per 100,000. The latest figures, from >1998, put it at 75. > >Alexander said the drop in death rates among children can be traced, in >part, to an aggressive campaign to lower deaths from traffic accidents, >but car crashes are still a significant factor in childhood mortality. > >"We made major progress in reducing injuries with car seats and seat >belts," he said, "but two-thirds of children killed in auto accidents were >not using seat belts or car seats." > >====================== > >*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material >is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest >in receiving the included information for research and educational >purposes. Feel free to distribute widely but PLEASE acknowledge the >source. *** > > > > >- -- >For MAI-not (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and >links to other MAI sites please see http://mai.flora.org/ > > > ............................................. > Bob Olsen, Toronto [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ............................................. >
