RALEIGH – It bears repeating: the 1996 welfare reform bill enacted by a Republican Congress and (eventually) signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton has been one of the most successful pieces of federal legislation ever enacted.
Forecast to cause massive amounts of poverty and suffering, the bill’s demand for time limits, work requirements, and other policies at the state level resulted in a dramatic decline in welfare caseloads across the country, continuing even during the 2000-01 recession when one would have expected a rising unemployment rate to reverse it. The decline since 1996 has averaged 52 percent, with several states breaking the three-quarter mark. Wyoming has led the way with a mind-boggling 90 percent decline, best appreciated by looking at the actual numbers: about 5,000 households getting cash welfare in 1996, just 332 households getting it in 2004.
There is less evident progress in another important goal, reducing the out-of-wedlock birth rate and removing the disincentives to marriage. Still, the trend lines are modestly positive, with the out-of-wedlock birth rate leveling off in the general population and improving a bit among black families.
On poverty, the news is primarily what didn’t happen. There was no massive increase in destitution and misery, contrary to the predictions of some Democratic politicians and activist groups. Poverty declined in the late 1990s, then rose a bit during the recession. The net change comes to millions of fewer Americans in poverty than when the bill was enacted, with particularly impressive results for black families. In any event, the careful interpretation of poverty statistics is recommended.
In North Carolina, our Work First model isn’t exceptional by national standards, though our rate of decline in dependency ranks fourth among Southern states. One approach the General Assembly did take, back during a brief period of fresh thinking in the mid-1990s, was to devolve some power to counties to come up with their own welfare-reform strategies, which appears to have generated some useful ideas. Overall, the Cato Institute’s recent report card on welfare reform gave North Carolina a “C.” We are neither a leader nor a laggard.
Where to go next? I’d like to see state policymakers consider several options. First, we need to tighten up the definition of “work” to ensure that cash-welfare recipients are moving as quickly as possible into permanent employment. That’s more determinant of their future prospects, and those of their children, than completing various government job-training programs with, let’s face it, dubious records of achievement. Second, we need to extend the model for reforming cash welfare (time limits, work requirements, etc.) to the much-larger array of non-cash welfare programs that are far more costly to taxpayers, perpetuate the cycle of dependency, and discourage the family and social sector from playing their important and irreplaceable role in addressing the unwise decisions and unhealthy behaviors that are the main causal factor in long-term poverty. The Charlotte Housing Authority is reportedly considering a time limit for tenancy in public housing. That would be a good start.
If public-assistance programs can be justified at all in a free society with limited and economical government, their function is to preserve public order and safety by alleviating emergencies and short-term destitution, as the eminent John Locke himself proposed in the late 17th century. It cannot be allowed to become a way of life.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation and publisher of Carolina Journal.