Reforming welfare reform

There is a humane alternative

The Cellucci administration is proudly trumpeting the fact that Massachusetts's welfare caseload is at its lowest level in 24 years. Since the state's sweeping welfare reform of 1995, 27,000 recipients have left the rolls.

But what looks good in a press release isn't so pretty in real life. (Doubters should read "On the Edge," our report on five families struggling near the welfare line.) As welfare reform has kicked in, emergency shelters and food banks have been reporting sharp increases in the number of people seeking their help because they can no longer turn to the state. And as two-year time limits on benefits expire, social services will be strained even further.

According to human-services workers, today's welfare-reform success will breed tomorrow's swollen underclass. While the state is indeed moving people off welfare, it could do far more to help them stay off. Right now, the state is giving welfare recipients a swift kick rather than a jump-start, relegating all but the luckiest to the kinds of lives that prompted the introduction of welfare 60 years ago.

It is possible to achieve welfare reform in a more humane way. In some cases, improvements are just a legislative okay away. Here are some suggestions for how Massachusetts can give people a ladder to climb out of dependency and into self-sufficient lives -- with their dignity intact.

Count education toward work requirements. Education, which brings better jobs at higher wages, is one of the surest escape routes from welfare. But perversely, welfare reform has blocked educational opportunities for thousands of recipients. By cutting off benefits after two years, the law doesn't allow most people enough time to complete even a community-college education. And for those recipients with school-age children, requirements that they earn benefits through work, or by performing 20 hours of community service a week, make education even harder to attain. Right now, education and vocational training are not counted toward that 20 hours. A bill to correct that has gone nowhere. The legislature should pass it into law.

Reward grandparents for raising their children's children. Politicians complain about the decline of "family values," but they haven't put their votes where their rhetoric is. Relatives raising the children of parents who are either unable or unwilling to care for their own kids now receive only a third of the benefits provided to foster parents. A bill to give grandparents parity is currently stalled in committee. One concern is cost, but nobody has even bothered to figure out how many grandparents are raising their grandchildren.

Expand health care benefits. Last year, Massachusetts expanded Medicaid benefits to cover families living at 133 percent of poverty level ($21,000 per year for a family of four). That's a good start, but it doesn't go far enough. A plan to expand Medicaid again -- to cover families living at 200 percent of poverty level ($32,000 for a family of four) -- is currently stuck in the State House. Holding it up is Acting Governor Cellucci's desire to charge parents earning between $21,000 and $32,000 a monthly premium of $10 per child (to a maximum of $30). This is not unreasonable, and perhaps a compromise can be struck -- say, by setting the cap at $20. In the interests of providing this state's children with basic health care, all parties should bend a little. Reaching a deal would take care of just about every child in this state. But it would still leave many poor single people and childless couples without insurance. They too, deserve a second look.

Make emergency shelter more accessible. The state hasn't adjusted the income level that determines eligibility for emergency shelter since 1986. Right now, a family of four made homeless by eviction, domestic violence, fire, or other crises must make less than $1235 a month to qualify for emergency shelter. Homeless parents who buy into welfare reform and get jobs often find themselves thrown out of shelters because, based on this woefully outdated threshold, they suddenly earn too much. The income guidelines must be revised. Massachusetts should also reinstate a rule it abandoned three years ago, mandating that homeless people be placed in an emergency shelter within a 20-mile radius of their home community.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com.