How the New System Offers Hope for the Underclass
President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, he
ended welfare, as most Americans have understood it.
While a host of related federal programs Medicaid,
food stamps, Social Security Disability Insurance,
Supplemental Security Insurance, and subsidized housing
remain untouched, the legislation essentially
repealed Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC),
the cash assistance entitlement established UNDER Franklin
D. Roosevelt. In place of AFDC, the legislation created
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), a new
program that eliminates AFDC's entitlement scheme that
has been blamed by scholars for everything from the rise
in urban crime and illegitimacy to teen pregnancy and
Among its many features, the 1996 legislation conditions
TANF benefits upon employment for the able-bodied poor,
while increasing funding for support services like
childcare and transportation to help needy people secure
and retain employment. The reforms further establish rules,
guidelines, and targets for each of the fifty states,
disbursing block grants conditioned on state
performance in moving welfare recipients into jobs
to underwrite new, state-customized welfare programs. For
example, states were supposed to move 25 percent of all
families receiving TANF into the workforce in 1997; the
target for 1999 is 35 percent. These new arrangements
surely represent an improvement over AFDC, which, by sending
additional money to states with the highest caseloads,
basically rewarded states for keeping residents on the
The federal reform law also makes available new resources
for strengthening families and decreasing illegitimacy. The
statute provides funds for abstinence-only sex education
programs and initiatives that encourage the formation and
maintenance of two-parent families. It even includes an
illegitimacy reduction fund that provides a $20 million
annual bonus to each of the five states with the greatest
success in reducing out-of-wedlock births without increasing
abortions. It permits states to adopt a "family cap"
that would deny assistance to additional children born to a
TANF-enrolled parent. It also requires teenage parents on
TANF to participate in educational activities directed toward
achieving a high school degree or a general education diploma.
Unlike AFDC, TANF allows states to deny aid to teenage parents
who refuse to live at home or in an approved, adult-supervised
setting. At a minimum, these new rules and programs fix some
glaring deficiencies of the old system and point the
disadvantaged in a more promising direction.
The legislation, though, has two potential drawbacks. As
much as it has moved many AFDC-enrolled women into the
workforce, welfare reform has not led to similar results
with a troubled segment of the underclass: unemployed black
men, ages sixteen to twenty-four. The labor force
participation rate by this group stood at only 23 percent
in 1997. To what degree welfare reform solve this problem
remains to be seen. In the long run, this glaring deficiency
may work against the legislation's intention of strengthening
marriage and the two-parent family a key to overcoming
poverty among the underclass.
Secondly, some long-term welfare recipients most of
whom are single mothers may need far more handholding
than originally thought in order to comply with the new
system's time lines. In the old system, recipients were
largely passive: clients attended a few meetings per
year with caseworkers, filled out forms, and answered
questions; month after month, they received an aid check.
Under the new system, recipients must be active: they
must pay close attention to a variety of sometimes-confusing
rules and expectations or be sanctioned for
noncompliance. These expectations are laudable, but some
of the disadvantaged will need extra time and assistance to
accomplish what the new system demands of them. Consider the
unmarried mother of three children who lives in a high-crime
public housing project, has never worked, reads at the
fifth-grade level, has no telephone and limited access to
transportation, has never kept an appointment book, and has
a bit of a drinking problem. Without help, her ability to
connect effectively with the new welfare bureaucracy
much less meet the demands of the work-a-day world is
This reality does not negate the legitimacy of mandating
work in return for welfare benefits, but it raises the
question of whether the legislation's work emphasis or
its time limits should take priority, as many social
workers claim the latter may need to be extended in order
to accomplish the former. "It's not about babying
people, it's about being realistic," says Deborah
Darden, a Milwaukee woman who pulled herself off of welfare
years ago and since then has been helping others to do the
same. Her program, Right Alternatives, received rave reviews
from Marvin Olasky, author of The Tragedy of American
Compassion. Darden is no liberal, big government,
"let's-go-back-to-the-old-system" advocate. Her
no-excuses program demands personal responsibility. She
knows more about people on welfare than any politician from
either party. But she believes the new system should grant
highly dysfunctional people more time than two years to
achieve independence from aid.
Aside from the potential drawbacks, an assessment of
welfare reform must begin with what it has accomplished
in the lives of welfare recipients. Recent studies,
focusing on the economic status of individuals who have
left the welfare system, represent a good place to start.
These include the "leaver" interviews with
individuals who have exited the welfare system that have
been conducted by seventeen states and by the Manpower
Demonstration Research Corporation in Baltimore, Cleveland,
Los Angeles, Miami, and Philadelphia. In addition, the Urban
Institute has published a report, Families Who Left
Welfare: Who are They and How are They Doing? heralded
by the Washington Post as "the first thorough
national assessment of welfare reform." Put together,
these assessments reveal the following:
- Most states have met or exceeded Washington's employment
targets for individuals still receiving welfare. Data from
the Department of Health and Human Services indicate that
in 1998, states counted an average of 35 percent of TANF
recipients working at least half time (5 percentage points
more than required by Washington); some reported more than
55 percent in the work force. Nonetheless, these numbers
show that the nation has a long way to go to reach the goal
of getting all able-bodied recipients into a "work
experience" program or job.
- The welfare rolls have shrunken dramatically. Today,
about 7.3 million families receive aid through TANF, down
from 12.2 million when welfare reform was passed a
stunning 40 percent drop. In several states, the drop has
been 70 percent or higher.
- Most individuals no longer receiving federal cash
assistance are working. Nationally, 60 percent of leavers
were employed when interviewed by the Urban Institute.
Leavers are typically employed in the service industry,
earning an average of $5.50 to $7.50 per hour; one-third
receives health insurance benefits. Not surprisingly, many
still worry about their bills and lean on family and friends
to make ends meet. Critics have therefore proclaimed the new
system to be a sham that has merely turned the welfare poor
into the working poor. This tedious perspective erroneously
assumes that the welfare poor could miraculously reach the
middle class without a stopover in the ranks of the working
poor; it further fails to realize that the working poor are,
in fact, better off than the welfare poor. The working poor
are almost always better off materially, and, importantly,
their self-respect rises, their children's self-esteem
improves, and they are better positioned to receive help
from charitable institutions who view them as the
- Although the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
claims that the poorest 10 percent of families headed by
single mothers actually lost about $860 in annual income
between 1995 and 1997, poverty has not increased for most
segments of the low-income
Office of Management and Budget has found that single
mothers in the poorest 40 percent of households received
a total of $4 billion less in welfare income in 1997 than
in 1993. But their earned income rose $4.3 billion
and they received an additional $2.1 billion from the earned
income tax credit.
As welfare expert Larry Mead of New York University boasted
at a recent Washington conference, "In the last few
years, work levels by poor adults are up, income levels are
up, and poverty is down especially the black poverty
rate, which is in free
interviewed by the Manpower Research and Development
Corporation in several cities said they were better off
working than they were on welfare. Most recipients liked
the reforms and felt good about working, though they also
expressed fears about "making it" when they hit
their time limits.
While the Urban Institute and the Manpower Research
Demonstration Corporation reports indicate how former
welfare recipients are faring independent of aid, they
do not say much about the effectiveness of welfare reform
programs per se. How leavers are faring, and whether welfare
reforms have succeeded, are two related but distinct queries.
For instance, the Urban Institute surveyed women who had left
the welfare rolls between January 1995 and November 1997.
Although federal welfare reform legislation passed in August
1996, most states did not implement new programs until mid-
to late-1997, suggesting that most participants in the study
could not have been affected significantly by welfare reform.
They either left the rolls before the law was signed, before
the states actually implemented change, or were in the new
system only a few months.
Any fair evaluation of the new state programs must observe
leavers who were part of the old AFDC system but then
after participating in the new system for at least a year
exited the welfare rolls. A large, national study of
such leavers, conducted at least one year since their exit,
would better gauge to what extent welfare reform is working.
Until more targeted studies of this nature are conducted,
only tentative conclusions about the effectiveness of welfare
reform are possible. In the interim, accumulated anecdotal
evidence based upon my research in Milwaukee, Richmond, and
Birmingham, provides clues to how the new state programs are
faring, particularly among welfare recipients.
According to every poverty worker I interviewed in the
last three years, welfare reform has succeeded in
transitioning many capable, but unemployed individuals
who were dependent upon AFDC into employment. The reason:
new state welfare programs significantly increase the
hassle factor of receiving public assistance. To continue
receiving aid under TANF, former AFDC recipients were
required to attend orientations about the new policies,
complete job readiness courses, and submit reports on
their mandatory job search activities. After discovering
these new requirements, some capable, but unemployed
individuals decided to avoid the rigmarole, closed their
aid cases, and found jobs. While official statistics are
not available, every poverty worker I interviewed had known
of at least a few of these cases and were not surprised by
the immediate plunge in the caseload following the reforms.
"When welfare reform first started, I knew that 10 to
15 percent [of the caseload] was going to drop off the top,
because I knew that at least that many on welfare could get
a job. And they did," observed Bill Locke, executive
director of Community Enterprises of Greater Milwaukee, who
has been working with low-income men and women for more than
Some of these "Capable Marys" chose welfare over
employment in order to complete high school or attend
college. Reform critics complain that the new welfare rules
may curtail efforts to acquire an education that could pave
the way to stable jobs with benefits. But the new rules do
not require a Capable Mary to quit school; they only
require twenty to thirty-five hours of work per week. While
this may pose a hardship for those wishing to stay in school,
some low-income, single mothers not on welfare have
done this all along. Before the 1996 reforms, some low-income
mothers signed up for the dole and attended school while
others eschewed public assistance, worked full-time, and
attended school at night. The new system requires the former
group to walk the path of the latter.
Criticisms of welfare reform's work-first emphasis would
make sense only if the education and training programs of
the old system actually lifted families out of poverty. But
according to the Economist, that rarely happened:
In a growing body of research, economists have compared
groups of unemployed people who enter government-training
schemes with similar groups who do not. In almost every
case, these studies have found that the schemes have failed
to improve either the earnings or the employment prospects
of their clients. After surveying the results of various
training programs for unemployed adults, the training-friendly
[Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] was
forced to conclude in 1994 that there is "remarkably
meager support for the hypothesis that such programs are
The old welfare system was woefully inadequate when a
low-income, working person who struggled along
independent of public assistance hit a major financial
bump whether a car accident, a daycare crisis,
or a child's prolonged illness. Whatever the misfortune,
when a "Crisis Mary" confronted a significant
financial need she could not meet, her only option was to
quit working and sign up for monthly cash assistance. If
she needed $1200 for car repairs and if her welfare check
were $300 monthly, Crisis Mary had no hope of ever saving
enough for the repairs. Her exigency, and the old system's
inability to help her overcome it, meant that working Mary
became welfare-reliant Mary, a position she never really
wanted. To address the situation, Virginia Governor George
Allen's welfare reform designers created a "diversionary
assistance" fund. Under its rules, a Crisis Mary can
access an up-front cash grant, worth up to six months of
public aid, to enable her to fix her problem and remain
employed. In return, she must sign an agreement pledging
not to apply for further state aid for six months. Under
federal reforms, other states have imitated Virginia.
While the new system has been most effective in dealing
with the Capable Marys and the Crisis Marys, its
achievements with "Struggling Marys"
recipients who repeatedly move between employment and
welfare have been more modest. This third and
largest segment of the welfare caseload confronts
personal and structural obstacles to self-sufficiency;
many Struggling Marys lack the life skills or basic work
skills necessary to retain employment and make ends meet.
They may not know how to balance their job and family or
may not possess the skills necessary to cope with stress
at work. Some of these women may have learning
disabilities or are functionally illiterate. Or they
struggle with depression or alcohol and drug abuse.
Others are victims of a family member's or neighbor's
sin; some have seen their lives shattered by domestic or
Struggling Marys also face structural barriers. Public
transportation between their homes and viable jobs may
be poor or nonexistent. Lack of affordable housing is
a problem as well as the decline in factory jobs for
hard-working but poorly educated people. The new welfare
system has not solved all these problems, but it stands
a better chance of addressing them than did the old one.
Under the reforms, states enjoy wide latitude to create
new and more flexible programs; they have more money to
spend on the biggest structural barriers: daycare and
transportation. Most states also have policies by which
caseworkers help recipients design personal responsibility
plans, tailored to identify and overcome the particular
obstacles they face in securing steady employment. Most
importantly, the new system recognizes that individual
behavior and attitudes do matter, that government's
ability to address these personal barriers is limited,
and that civil society can make a difference. In many
states, government welfare agencies are looking to the
business, nonprofit, and faith communities for help in
providing welfare recipients with life skills training,
employment opportunities, and post-employment mentoring.
The new system's greatest challenge lies with long-term
aid recipients, who might be called "Trapped
Marys." Success in these instances probably will
consist in getting a Trapped Mary into a "work
experience" placement, then into a minimum wage
job. Hopefully, she will then graduate into full-time
employment that brings her at least into the ranks of
the working poor, with help from the earned income tax
credit. Some women in this category have progressed
further than this in three years. But most of the former
Trapped Marys I have known needed five to seven years to
position themselves solidly in the working class. Every
one of them was enmeshed in a web of supportive friendships
that enabled them to climb to self-sufficiency even after
they had stumbled. Consequently, welfare reform programs
should encourage women in this category to connect with
local institutions, including churches and nonprofits,
that can provide supportive relationships when public
assistance runs out.
While social welfare policies primarily affect the various
kinds of individual aid recipients, they also affect the
families of the working poor, the governmental agencies
administering welfare programs, and institutions of civil
society, including social service nonprofit organizations.
Welfare reform's most profound influence is seen here.
Experience in Wisconsin indicates that welfare reform may
have set in motion a positive reshaping of family life in
some low-income households. Put simply, welfare reform is
encouraging the development of a more structured lifestyle
through the discipline of employment. The comments of
welfare observers in Milwaukee are illustrative. "Home
life is getting more structured. 'It's 8:30 P.M.
time to go to bed. It's morning time to get up,'"
reports Vicky Hill, director of the King Day Care Center.
Anthony Taylor of the city's Westside Housing Cooperative
concurs. "Before, there were lots of people walking
the streets at 11 or 12. Now, you see a thrust of people
between 6 A.M. and 8 A.M. and again between 3:30 and 6 P.M.
The kids seem better behaved, and there's less nuisance and
truancy in the area."
Reform is also making parents into responsible role models.
"It's positive for the kids to see their parents have
a work ethic, to see Mom going out and being productive,"
comments social worker Maxine Winston of Keefe Avenue
Elementary School. This modeling may instill healthy
work habits into the next generation, as many individuals
who are finding the transition from welfare to work most
difficult grew up in welfare-reliant homes.
Former welfare recipients I interviewed understand the
importance of their example to their children. Jennifer
Lockett of Greenville, Mississippi, was on welfare for nine
years before welfare reform. She accepted a job at the
Greenville Clinic and has earned two promotions in three
years. "I want my children to see Mom doing right,"
Lockett stresses. "I don't want them to come back and
say, 'Momma, you fussin' at me about this, but everything
I'm doing, I'm doing because you're doing it.' I want them
to be able to say, 'My momma raised me well.'" But
children are not the only ones affected by a mother's work
fathers and boyfriends are too. In some cases, a
mother's increased economic stability and the boost
that it gives her self-respect motivates her to
throw out a parasitic boyfriend. In other cases, women who
have taken jobs become more insistent that their boyfriends
or their children's fathers start pulling their own weight.
New federal laws under welfare reform now reinforce that
demand. Two new national registries one of all
child support cases and one of "new hires"
help states locate deadbeat fathers. Welfare reform also
insists that states work harder to identify the paternity
of children receiving TANF and permits states to cut off
food stamps for mothers or fathers unwilling to cooperate.
Most importantly, the new law requires states to pass
legislation that withholds, suspends, or restricts driver's
licenses and professional licenses from fathers in arrears
in child-support payments. This procedure for increasing
child support collections has already proven effective;
in those states that implemented similar rules, child
support collections have risen 80 percent, from $8 billion
in 1992 to $14.4 billion in
Less noticeable, but just as real, are the new demands
that welfare reform has placed upon government welfare
agencies. Most state agencies have a new mission
to help poor people become self-sufficient; yesterday's
eligibility workers are today's employment specialists.
This obviously more fulfilling mission has not only boosted
the morale of caseworkers and welfare recipients, but also
has stimulated new pragmatism, creativity, and
the old system focused on process, the new system insists
on performance, judged by objective indicators, while
simultaneously granting states greater freedom and flexibility.
Wisconsin has used its freedom to privatize the welfare
system in several localities. Formerly, county welfare
agencies held a monopoly on the provision of social
services. This amounted to an administrative entitlement,
since the state simply reimbursed counties for expenses
they incurred in operating programs regardless of
Governor Thompson's W-2 program, private agencies were
allowed to bid for the right to deliver welfare services,
motivating county agencies to improve their performance
so as not to lose their state contracts. In New York and
California, welfare reform has increased the state's use
of "pay for performance" contracts between
government agencies, for-profits, and nonprofits seeking
to provide services to welfare recipients. Under these
contracts, the organization receives payment only when it
has attained specified objectives. For example, a
nonprofit organization running a training program that
prepares welfare recipients for clerical jobs might
receive payment for each graduating participant. The
organization would receive an additional payment for each
participant's placement in an unsubsidized job and a final
payment at each participant's three-month anniversary on
Welfare reform has also stimulated a newfound humility
that is resulting in innovative and expanded public-private
partnerships. Government bureaucracies are seeking
cooperation from employers, who can offer training and
jobs to welfare recipients, and from grassroots
organizations that can provide personalized, intensive,
long-term support to welfare recipients who face many
barriers to job and financial stability. For example,
the Welfare to Work partnership boasts twelve thousand
member companies that collectively have hired 410,000
United Airlines, the Marriott Corporation, and United
Parcel Services have established specialized training
programs and offer creative transportation and daycare
assistance programs for welfare recipients. Welfare reform
also appears to be at least partially responsible for
stimulating companies to launch creative, family-friendly
innovations such as flex time and new on-site daycare
centers, as well as on-site literacy,
English-as-a-second-language instruction, and
But even with businesses offering new opportunities,
clients will not succeed if they lack the basic life
and work skills necessary to retain employment. Even
the most motivated government caseworkers have only
limited time to serve the Struggling and Trapped Marys;
caseworkers are, therefore, eager for help from volunteers
and staff at community-based and faith-based organizations
that can provide clients with love, personal attention,
practical helps, and moral accountability. The dramatic
increase in partnerships between welfare bureaucracies and
faith-based organizations and churches attests to the
government's willingness to look outside itself for answers.
Welfare reform is also strengthening private aid
organizations. Unlike the old system, welfare reform
has publicly highlighted the role of civic institutions
in addressing moral-cultural issues. Through the Charitable
Choice section of the legislation, the reforms facilitate
new financial partnerships between government and faith-based
organizations while protecting the organizations' religious
character. Prior to welfare reform, government dollars
almost inevitably brought secularizing influences upon
religiously based social-service providers. Now, faith-based
organizations, partnering with government, can retain a
religious mission, determine their governing board without
state interference, maintain a religious atmosphere in
facilities, and consider religion as a factor in hiring
Welfare reform has also removed the "expectation-less"
public safety net that used to hinder the efforts of
effective nonprofit organizations that insisted the poor
take initiative, improve their skills, or change their
habits in order to prosper. "With W-2 compared to
AFDC, there's a night and day difference for the better,"
says Barbara Vanderburgh, executive director of Joy House,
Wisconsin's second largest homeless shelter for women.
"The old system was horrible. We'd have these programs,
classes parenting, filling out applications, talking
about jobs. And the women's response was usually, 'Hey yeah,
that's nice but it's not for me. My check's coming.'"
Now the women are motivated. Vanderburgh explains:
"There isn't a choice [to remain dependent] anymore.
Frankly, it took an extraordinary individual under AFDC to
pull herself up and out."
Welfare reform has not only cleared the way for effective
religious groups to flourish, but the rancorous public
debate over welfare policy has challenged some church
leaders to turn their ineffective programs around. Program
leaders have realized that they often made the same
mistakes as government: offering material goods and money
when personal engagement, instruction, and mentoring were
needed; engendering dependency; and enabling irresponsibility
by well-intentioned but misguided charity. Now these churches
are engaged in a healthy remodeling of their benevolence
Welfare reform clearly has sought to put the United
States on a road to ending destructive multi-generational
dependency by the able-bodied, the subsidizing of teen
pregnancy, the monopoly of government bureaucracies over
welfare administration, and the cheap and harmful
"benevolence" of misguided private charities.
Yet welfare reform may also achieve something less
noticeable but equally important; it may help desegregate
the underclass from the rest of society. In two directions,
welfare reform is helping to connect the disadvantaged with
the successful for the first time in a generation. First,
welfare reform has encouraged the welfare-reliant poor to
enter the mainstream economy. As Wisconsin Governor Tommy
Separating families in poverty from other economic classes
isolates recipients from their communities. W-2 creates a
true melting pot of job seekers from all economic levels
and unites former welfare recipients with the rest of the
As one of W-2's architects, Jason Turner, put it,
"Work connects poor people to the larger society."
Observers have begun to notice. "The AFDC world was
very insular. I don't think people left their neighborhoods
much," said Nancy Nestler of Milwaukee's Multicultural
High School in an interview with the Journal Sentinel.
"Now we're seeing a lot of mobility, people getting out
more, families having a lot more exposure to services like
counseling and parenting
Moreover, welfare reform has made it easier for strivers in
the underclass to pursue this integration by undercutting
the pernicious "crayfish syndrome." Folk wisdom
claims that when a crayfish attempts to climb out of a
bucket, other crayfish will pull him down. Welfare
recipients who sought to improve themselves sometimes
experienced a similar phenomenon. When Richmond public
housing resident and welfare recipient Clarissa Crews set
out to get her general education diploma in the early
1990s, her neighbors harassed her: "Who do you
think you are? You think you're better than we?"
Today's work requirements make the crayfish syndrome
moot. The new system insists that all welfare
recipients better themselves; strivers like Crews cannot
be singled out for ridicule.
Second, welfare reform is promoting new kinds of private
charitable activity that nudge the non-poor toward the
poor. According to Jason Turner, a commissioner of the
New York City Human Resources Administration, the general
prosperity of the American economy, as well as the
practice of warehousing the poor in public housing projects
far removed from the privileged classes, has permitted the
middle and upper classes to engage in essentially anonymous
however, welfare reform forces recognition that
"commodity-based" mercy is inadequate. Some cash
and an interview outfit might help a Struggling Mary,
but what she really needs is someone to watch her kids,
coach her for that job interview, and help her arrange
transportation if she receives a job offer. That
requires the American people to live out the kind of mercy
offered by a father of the ancient Christian church, Gregory
of Nyssa: "Mercy is a voluntary sorrow that joins itself
to the suffering of another." Through welfare-to-work
mentoring programs, upper-middle class suburbanites can build
bridges to impoverished inner-city residents. By putting a
particular name to and face on "the poor,"
relational ministries move the successful Americans beyond
the attitude of "it's their problem, not my problem."
By encouraging the prosperous to join in the struggles of the
poor, welfare reform may help rescue American society from
the unmitigated self-indulgence and crass commercialism of
the age. Recapturing a commitment to others beyond a small
inner circle of friends and family may prove an essential
step in avoiding the traps of self-centeredness, materialism,
alienation, and despair. Put differently, welfare reform may
help the poor escape material poverty while helping the rich
escape spiritual poverty.
Dr. Sherman, an adjunct fellow of the Center for Civic
Innovation at the Manhattan Institute, is director of urban
ministries for Trinity Presbyterian Church in Charlottesville,
Virginia. She earned a Ph.D. in economic development and
foreign affairs at the University of Virginia.
Judith Haveman, "Most Adults
Find Jobs After Leaving Welfare," The Washington
Post, May 27, 1999, p. A26.
Ron Haskins, "Welfare Reform
is Working," The American Enterprise,
January-February 1999, p. 65.
Larry Mead, in an address delivered
at the "Next Steps in Welfare Reform" conference
sponsored by the Center for Civic Innovation of the
Manhattan Institute, Washington, D.C., April 14, 1999.
"Why Training Rarely Works,"
The Economist, April 6, 1996, p. 19.
Cited by Michele Dreyfus,
"Making the Bus to Make a Living on W-2,"
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, June 28, 1998.
"Clinton Announces $150
Million Initiative to Help Fathers Support Their
Children," Fatherhood Today, Spring 1999,
Haskins, "Welfare Reform is
Working," p. 63.
David Dodenhoff, "Privatizing
Welfare in Wisconsin: Ending Administrative Entitlements:
W-2's Untold Story," Wisconsin Policy Research
Institute, January 1998, p. 1.
Hanna Rosin and John F. Harris,
"Welfare Reform is on a Roll," The Washington
Post, August 3, 1999.
Tommy G. Thompson, "Introducing
the End of Welfare," May 28, 1996.
Cited by Michele Dreyfus,
"Making the Bus."
Jason Turner, in an address
delivered at the "Next Steps in Welfare Reform"
conference sponsored by the Center for Civic Innovation
of the Manhattan Institute, Washington, D.C., April 14,
Submitted by: Amy L. Sherman *
Return back to your last page ?