Reforming the reform

Changes in the welfare law are working better than expected. What's missing is flexibility -- and simple human compassion.

Four years into the game, welfare reform in Massachusetts is working better than reasonable people might reasonably have expected. The welfare rolls have fallen from 103,000 to 48,000 families, and state officials say that drop was mainly the result of welfare recipients' voluntarily seeking work. Despite the enormous problems many of these ex-recipients face, such as balancing medical needs and child care while holding down low-wage jobs, their future is far brighter in the work force than it was outside it.

Nevertheless, it would be an exaggeration to call welfare reform an unqualified success. For one thing, the booming economy has masked the law's punitive aspects. The two-year time limit on benefits, touted by former governor William Weld and his successor, Paul Cellucci, would not appear nearly so wise if it were forcing people into the streets rather than pushing them into jobs. Until the inevitable recession finally arrives, it would be foolhardy to describe welfare reform as anything other than an experiment, and a tenuous one at that.

For another, welfare reform works best for the easiest cases. The hard-core unemployed, many of whom suffer from drug and alcohol problems, physical abuse, or mental or physical illness, are not going to be magically transformed into success stories merely because the two-year deadline for their benefits has passed. Indeed, homeless shelters report an increased demand for their services, and there is evidence that some of this demand comes from poor people who have lost their welfare benefits. It has become unfashionable to say so, but society has an obligation to help those who can't help themselves, even when their incapacity is the result of socially unpopular disabilities such as drug abuse or depression. Then, too, it should be kept in mind that in punishing poor adults, society punishes their children as well.

There is also evidence that the state's Department of Transitional Assistance (formerly the Department of Public Welfare) is doing a poor job of administering welfare reform. Last week, a Suffolk Superior Court judge ruled in a class-action suit filed by the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute that the DTA had improperly denied reinstatement of benefits to more than 200 people. In many cases, people had run afoul of the DTA's formidable bureaucracy: they were denied reinstatement solely for procedural reasons, like having missed a scheduled appointment. Such injustices occur when civil servants have contempt, rather than compassion, for those they are supposed to be serving. It's time for the DTA to administer its own regulations fairly and equitably.

From the time welfare reform became law, progressives and moderates have recognized the ne>

---

Transfer interrupted!

ave been unsuccessful in getting those changes made. Just recently, Cellucci vetoed modest amendments that had been passed by the legislature. These changes included allowing education and job training to count toward the work requirement; strengthening the rights of recipients to appeal when they are denied extensions of their benefits; and requiring the DTA to consider whether a welfare recipient needs more time to complete an educational or job-training program than is currently allowed. These are worthy proposals, and the legislature should keep pushing them. The education provision, in particular, is crucial. Though the DTA champions the slogan "Every job is a good job," the truth is that education is a far surer route out of permanent poverty than a minimum-wage job as a fry cook at the local fast-food joint.

Welfare reform has done an exceedingly good job of moving people who already had the ability to take care of themselves off the dole and onto the path of personal responsibility. Now -- during this moment of great prosperity -- we should concentrate on making welfare reform work for everyone, rather than focusing on phony issues such as billion-dollar tax cuts. We need to meet our obligation to help those who have been left behind. Some can't succeed without more -- and more compassionate -- assistance. Some will never succeed. If we have any remaining pretensions to belonging to a civilized society, we must reach out to these people as if they were members of our own family.

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