'F' or not, Utah is right on track with pioneer welfare-reform

For many years, Utah has been widely recognized for its welfare reform accomplishments. In nominating former Gov. Michael O. Leavitt as the next federal Health and Human Services Secretary, President Bush cited the governor's leadership in welfare reform. However, as the Deseret Morning News has reported, the Washington-based Cato Institute gave Utah an "F" for welfare reform. How did this happen? The answer is simple. For Utah, a key welfare reform goal has been to help people get jobs, increase their incomes, and reach the point where they don't need welfare. For Cato, the goal is to eliminate welfare. Utah's vision is the better one.

We began hearing about Utah's efforts in the early 1990s, when the state was among the first to put forward the goal of transforming welfare into an employment program. Utah's program was guided by the premise that when a family first entered a welfare office, the focus should be on figuring out what the parent needed to do to get stable employment, and what kinds of assistance would help families get and keep jobs. The state pioneered the concept that with a little upfront assistance (e.g., money for repairs to a car that is necessary to get to work), some families could avoid welfare altogether. The state also pioneered the idea that every family should have an individualized self-sufficiency plan.

Under Leavitt, Utah became the first state in the country to completely merge its welfare program into its workforce system, so that any parent needing help goes to an employment center, where workers can get help finding jobs and accessing job training and other services. Creating a single system for all workers -- whether unemployed, employed, on welfare, or not -- is viewed by many as a promising way to help workers and be more responsive to local businesses.

Why did Utah get an "F" from Cato? The main reason is that Cato didn't grade states on innovations or success in promoting employment. Instead, Cato describes its goal by saying, "The greatest result welfare reform could produce would be the elimination of the welfare system." Cato used a grading scale that gave states the most points for having policies that made it hardest for poor families to get help. So, states with shorter welfare time limits got more points than states with longer time limits. Cutting off all assistance to children if a parent misses an appointment got a state more points, but efforts to keep working with the family got fewer points. Including job training in a state's program resulted in fewer points. Having a large welfare caseload decline got more points, even if the caseload fell simply because the state cut off assistance to families needing help.

Utah was also hurt because Cato graded states on how much their poverty levels and teen birth rates fell in recent years. Utah's poverty rate was well below the national average in both 1996 and 2002, but it rose over that period, as unemployment in Utah rose from 3.5 percent to 6.1 percent. The state's teen birth rate was below the national average in both 1998 and 2001, but it didn't fall as much as in other states. There are two problems with this approach. First, many factors affect state poverty and teen birth rates besides welfare policies. Second, states with already-low rates may be less likely to see large declines.

While Utah has been innovative, it certainly does not take a "soft" approach to welfare reform. Its welfare time limits are among the more restrictive in the nation, cutting off assistance to most families after only three years. Utah imposes strong work activity requirements and cuts assistance when families don't meet requirements. Its cash assistance grants are quite low (e.g., a family of three in Utah receives only $474/month, compared to $673/ month in Wisconsin--and Wisconsin received an "A" from Cato).

As with any state, Utah's program could be improved. First, as in the country as a whole, many people in Utah leave welfare for low- wage jobs with few job skills and limited literacy. More could be done to connect families with better jobs and promote career advancement. Second, many states allow short-term exceptions from time limits under specific circumstances--for example, for families who are working but making so little money that they still qualify for cash assistance; are attempting to escape domestic violence situations; or have severe disabilities and health problems. Utah currently does not have any such exemptions. Third, Utah is one of the few states that doesn't commit enough state funds to get all available federal funds for child-care assistance for low-income working families. Providing child care for such families is a crucial way to support work and help children. Finally, Utah, like all states, would do well to better track outcomes of families leaving welfare. Data that track what happens to families based on the services they received (e.g., skills training, substance abuse services) could assist the state in making truly informed decisions about future policy changes.

There's no easy way to "grade" state welfare reform efforts, but Cato's study asked the wrong questions and got the wrong answers. Utah is right to keep its focus on employment, and not just making it hard for families in need to get help.

Mark Greenberg is the director of policy and Nisha Patel is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Law and Social Policy in Washington, D.C.

Copyright C 2004 Deseret News Publishing Co.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.