Document 52: "Plank 25: Women, Welfare and Poverty," from National Commission on the Observance of International Women's Year, The Spirit of Houston: The First National Women's Conference (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978), pp. 93-96.
p. 93
PLANK 25
WOMEN, WELFARE, AND POVERTY
The Federal and State governments should assume a role in focusing on welfare and poverty as major women's issues. All welfare reform proposals should be examined specifically for their impact on women. Inequality of opportunity for women must be recognized as a primary factor contributing to the growth of welfare rolls.
Women in poverty, whether young or old, want to be part of the mainstream of American life.
Poverty is a major barrier to equality for women. Millions of women who depend on income transfer programs or low-paying jobs for their basic life support may be subject to the multiple oppression of sexism, racism, and poverty—and they are often old or disabled.
Many other women, because of discriminatory employment practices, social security laws, differential education of men and women, and lack of adequate child care, are just one step away from poverty. Consequently, the elimination of poverty must be a priority of all those working for equal rights for women.
Along with major improvements in the welfare system, elimination of poverty for women must include improvements in social security and retirement systems, universal minimum wage, nontraditional job opportunities, quality child care, comprehensive health insurance, and comprehensive legal services. A concerted effort must be made to educate the public about the realities of welfare, the plight of the blind, the aged, the disabled, and single-parent families and other low-income women.
We support increased Federal funding for income transfer programs (e.g., Social Security, SSI, and AFDC). Congress should approve a Federal floor under payments to provide an adequate standard of living based on each State's cost of living for all those in need. And, just as with other workers, homemakers receiving income transfer payments should be afforded the dignity of having that payment called a wage not welfare.
We oppose the Carter administration proposal for welfare reform (H.R. 9030), which among other things eliminates food stamps, threatens to eliminate CETA training and CETA jobs paying more than minimum wage, and does not guarantee adequate day care. We oppose proposals for "workfare" where welfare mothers would be forced to "work off" their grants, which is work without wage, without fringe benefits or bargaining rights, and without dignity. H.R. 9030 further requires those individuals and families without income to wait weeks, possibly months, before even the inadequate grant is available.
We strongly support a welfare reform program developed from ongoing consultation with persons who will be impacted. This program should: 1) be consistent with the National Academy of Science recommendation that no individual or family living standard should be lower than half the median family income level for substantial periods (after taxes) and that this income should not fall below the Government-defined poverty level of family income even for shorter periods; (2) help sustain the family unit; and (3) insure that women on welfare and other low-income women who choose to work not be forced into jobs paying less than the prevailing wage.
In order to improve the status of women, the following actions should be taken:
a. To insure that welfare and other poor are not discriminated against as an economic class, affirmative action guidelines should be drawn up to provide that all employers who are recipients of Federal and/or State contract monies be required to show that they are hiring recipients.
b. There should be targeting of funds by local CETA advisory boards for the placement and training of women in nontraditional higher paying jobs, consistent with the original mandate.
c. The Department of Labor should make a study of jobs and wages based on a standard of comparable worth and speedily move the implementation of that study in all Government positions.
d. Unions should devote additional energy to the organization of women to upgrade pay and working conditions for women in traditional employment.
Quality child care should be a mandated Title 20 services available to all families on an ability-to-pay basis through training, education, job search, and employment.
Congress should encourage education of women by insuring that Federal and other education grants do not reduce an individual's or family's eligibility for public assistance in AFDC or in any other program.
Comprehensive support services and social services must be provided and adequately funded.
p. 94
Background:
"Substandard income traps a woman and her family in a poverty cycle…that as a general rule causes great physical, psychological, and many times moral damage not only to the woman but also to her children."
Millions of American women live in poverty and either receive assistance or need it. They need direct income assistance so they can meet their day-to-day requirements for food, shelter, and clothing. They need back-up assistance in the form of child care, educational opportunities, job counseling, and training and employment programs to make it possible for them to become self-supporting at better than mere subsistence levels.
The largest number of poor women are the three million women caring for eight million children who make up 90 percent of all families receiving help under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. Another large group are the elderly, blind, or disabled women who receive help under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. Many other women under age 65 and not caring for children receive aid under State General Assistance programs and/or receive food stamps.
Poverty among American women is a shifting condition. Although the majority of poor women are white, the condition of minority women is deteriorating. In its study, The State of Black America 1978, the National Urban League reported: "The number of poor families headed by black women increased sharply from 1.0 to 1.1 million between 1975 and 1976, raising the proportion of families headed by black women that were poor from 50 to 52 percent. But the number and proportion of poor families headed by white women fell sharply over the same period."
Rising unemployment among black women was seen by the National Urban League as directly related to the increasing number of poor black women. "While almost three-fourths (71 percent) of the black families headed by unemployed women were poor in 1976, only one-fourth (26 percent) of the black families headed by employed women were poor." it said.
The human side In the national debate over welfare reform, it is important to remember that the lives, hopes, and well-being of millions of women and their children are at stake. The human side of what happens to women in AFDC programs was described at the Department of Health, Education and Welfare hearings March 10, 1977 by Lupe Anguiano, head of the National Women's Political Caucus Welfare Task Force, who lived in San Antonio, Texas housing projects with families headed by women on AFDC.
"I found that substandard income traps a woman and her family in a poverty cycle," she said, "a living condition that as a general rule causes great physical, psychological, and many times moral damage not only to the woman but also to her children. Healing the damage is very often costly and sometimes impossible.
"I often accompanied the women to a doctor's visit, to a food stamp office, or on a visit to the welfare department. Finding transportation was the first problem; waiting in the welfare office or the doctor's office or in a food stamp line was another problem. Many times it took the complete day. Finding a babysitter to stay with the younger children or having someone stay at home to wait for those who come home from school was another problem. Then to top it all, the hostile attitude or treatment received from employees in these offices or agencies was exasperating. Additionally, all the families I lived with ran out of food in three weeks. In Texas a woman must support a family of four with only a $164 monthly grant….
"Without a doubt women on welfare have serious mental and health problems. In my six-month stay in the housing projects I witnessed six suicide attempts…The basic problem is inadequate income for support of basic family needs."
Although the Carter administration has pledged to provide more equitable and more adequate help for all those in need, its proposed welfare reform plan will not improve life for all these people. In some ways, it will make it worse. In addition, other proposals pending in Congress would cut back on even the limited aid now available.
Welfare reform The administration-backed welfare
reform bill (H.R. 9030/S. 2084) would replace the separate AFDC, SSI, and food
stamp programs with one nationwide Federal program with cash benefits and a
jobs program. The cash benefits would be a universal aid program providing some
benefits to all persons on the basis of their income and not limiting coverage,
as present programs do, to certain groups such as single-parent families with
children, or those over 65, the blind, or disabled. Although the principle of a
universal aid program has been widely applauded, its application in this
legislation has been opposed by women on welfare because it would mean lower
benefits than many now
p. 95
The administration bill separates persons into different categories with different benefit levels and eligibility conditions. The Federal benefits payable under the proposal to families with children would be lower than the combined value of AFDC benefits and food stamp benefits now available in approximately 40 States. For example, the proposed Federal benefit for a family of four "not expected to work" is $4,200 in 1978 dollars; for a family of four "expected to work." it is $2,300, even though the head of this family may not be able to find work. Federal benefits payable to the elderly, blind, or disabled would be $2,500 for an individual and $3,750 for a couple. This would be below the combined value of SSI benefits (including State supplements) and food stamps in some States. Benefits for childless couples or individuals who are 18 to 65 and not blind or disabled would be $2,200 and $1,100, respectively. The proposal permits but does not require States to pay additional benefits for supplement Federal benefits. Even if they did provide supplementary benefits, cash payments to families with children in the vast majority of States would be far below the 1978 poverty level of $6,400 for a family of four.
Individuals and families would be able to increase their income through paid employment or receipt of other nonassistance income, since some of that income will be disregarded in determining their eligibility for cash benefits. However, since welfare recipients are not guaranteed jobs, there can be no assurance that even everyone who is able and willing to work outside the home will be able to increase her income in this way. In addition, this factor offers no help to those who are wholly dependent upon the basic benefit for any length of time and to women who choose to stay home to care for their children.
Jobs for poor women Although women in AFDC programs must have the option of staying home, job opportunities are a key element in pulling women out of poverty. The administration proposal is supposed to assist women who are heads of families to become self-supporting if they are able to work outside the home. However, although the bill provides for public service jobs under a new Title 9 of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) if no private employment is available, these jobs would apparently replace rather than expand existing CETA commitments. Furthermore, the proposal does not even guarantee a public service job to all those who qualify. Moreover, despite the lack of a job guarantee, some families with children—two-parent families and single-parent families with children over 14—as well as single individuals and childless couples would be classified as "expected to work" and would received lower benefits than others even though they are unemployed and actively seeking work.
The failure to guarantee a job together with the imposition of the work requirement and accompanying lower benefits would probably result in great pressure to give available jobs first to adults in families classified as "expected to work." This could mean that women heading single-parent families with younger children would be served last, if at all, by the jobs program even though they are theoretically eligible on the same basis as anyone else.
Women in two-parent families would also be largely disqualified from public service jobs because the program provides only one job per family, and the program specifies that the job would go to the "principal wage earner," the adult who had the highest earnings or worked the most hours during the last six months.
Under the administration proposal, persons "expected to work" would be required to accept minimum wage or slightly above minimum wage jobs in the private or regular public sector. Only if no such job was offered to the individual could she qualify for a public service job. That job would pay the minimum wage or slightly above, except that 15 percent of the positions could be classified as "work leaders" and receive up to 125 percent of the otherwise applicable pay rate.
In States that did not supplement the Federal benefits, the total combined gross income of benefits and wages available to a family of four in full-time minimum wage employment in the regular public or private sector at 1978 levels would be $7,432 in 1978 dollars, an among barely above the poverty level and far below the Bureau of Labor Statistics lower living standard of $10,000 in 1976 for a family with an employed member. A family of four in a public service job in a nonsupplementing State would have a total gross income of $6,957.
p. 96
The situation is even more bleak for individuals and childless couples. Their cash benefits under the proposal are so low that they are left in hopeless poverty without outside income. When they are able to get a job, they become eligible for cash benefits at earned income levels of $2,200 and $4,400, respectively, in nonsupplementing States.
At best, the administration proposal offers minimum wage jobs, but it fails to provide any stepping stones to higher paid employment. There is no provision for career education; no provision for ensuring that the jobs created will provide training for higher paying work in the regular economy; no emphasis on providing skills training for jobs other than those in the program; and no assurance that these subsidized jobs have counterparts in the regular labor market at adequate wage levels.
Although the categories of proposed public service jobs will provide needed services in local communities, they are not jobs with pay scales that will eliminate dependency unless some fundamental reappraisal of wage rates occur.
"Workfare' plans Even more disturbing than the administration bill are other "workfare" proposals to force poor women into working off their family's grant as a condition of receiving public assistance. Some States are pushing strongly for authorization to start such programs for women who now receive AFDC payments, and legislation pending in Congress (H.R. 7200) would authorize such programs. Here is how they would operate:
Women would be assigned to unpaid work for public or nonprofit agencies and would work the hours necessary to pay off their family's grant. If a woman was receiving an AFDC check of $300 a month for her family's needs and she was assigned to work valued at $2.65 an hour, she would have to work 113 hours a month, or 26 hours a week, to work off her grant.
Under these programs, a woman would not receive any salary but would simply work as a condition of receiving the cash benefits. She would not be an employee of the agency or organization for which the work was performed and would not have any of the rights of an employee (collective bargaining, grievance procedures, etc.) or any fringe benefits (sick leave, vacation, health insurance). She would not even get social security coverage. She would not be an employee but a second class or "inferior" worker without any of the rewards or rights and benefits that a working woman has a right to expect.
The injustice of such "workfare" proposals is compounded by the fact that women could be assigned to jobs with little or no provision for skill development or training. In effect, they could just be used for whatever labor they were capable of and then later tossed aside without being any better qualified to enter the paid labor market and to support themselves and their families.
The Carter administration proposal does not provide any new funding for support services for those in employment or training. These services, including child care, are supposed to be provided under Title 20, but some States are already spending up to the ceiling in their Title 20 programs and therefore probably would not fund increased child care services.
The proposal does allow working adults to deduct child care expenses from their earnings before these are counted for purposes of determining eligibility for cash benefits. However, this does not apply to women who need child care for educational or training purposes and who do not have earned income sufficient to meet their child care costs.
While Congress ponders welfare reform, immediate action is needed to relieve the desperate poverty of women in the southern States where AFDC grants are indefensibly low as a result of the double race and sex prejudice of State governments. Federalizing AFDC at a decent level of family support must be a priority.
The purpose of welfare reform must be to bring millions of Americans out of poverty. For women in particular, welfare reform must include a comprehensive and multiple attack on the social and family problems that afflict poor women, enable, them to exercise free choice on how they raise their children, and equip them, where possible, to become self-supporting members of a society that will benefit from their skills and participation.
 |
 |
 |
| Previous Document |
Document List |
Next Document |