WASHINGTON – Maryland got a grade of C for its welfare reform efforts, but that was still good enough to make the state 12th-best in the nation, in a report card released by the Cato Institute.
Maryland’s relatively high ranking was due primarily to its significant reduction in welfare rolls: Caseloads have dropped 68 percent from 1996 to 2003. But the report by the libertarian think tank also ranked the state last for the percentage of welfare recipients who were “actually working” jobs as opposed to those taking classes or job training.
Advocates in the state did not challenge the Cato numbers, but said grading the states misses the point of welfare reform, which gave states the freedom to experiment with programs that suit their needs. What is important to Cato — stringent requirements that make it harder for families to participate — might not be to states like Maryland, they said.
“Welfare reform isn’t an exam, things aren’t necessarily right or wrong,” said Lynda Meade of Welfare Advocates.
The report compared 1996, when most states began welfare-reform efforts, to the most recent numbers available in categories ranging from caseloads to teen pregnancy rates.
It compared those numbers to each state’s requirements for welfare recipients, such as job activities, time limits and cutting off funding to families that do not satisfy those requirements.
“The greatest result welfare reform could produce would be the elimination of the system,” said Jenifer Zeigler, a Cato policy analyst who wrote the report.
Cato looked favorably on states that have more restrictive policies, such as shorter time limits, and harsher punishments for families that do not satisfy requirements. By contrast, it gave states fewer points for having education and job training programs, as Maryland does.
But Cato quantified program requirements that should not necessarily have been given the same weight, said Mark Greenberg, director of policy at the Center for Law and Social Policy. He said the institute’s grading system is consistent with its desire to eliminate the system.
“Consistent with that goal, the policies states were rewarded for . . . were the policies that make it more difficult for families to get help,” he said.
The report does not look at whether states are doing the necessary things to keep families off welfare, Greenberg said, like offering parents daycare vouchers, as Maryland does.
Meade said the report oversimplifies a complex system.
“We’re talking about families and children. Giving states a grade doesn’t speak to moving to self-sufficiency,” she said.
But Zeigler said previous reports have proved that stronger penalties and stricter requirements are more effective in moving families off welfare. If recipients are aware of the repercussions, she said, they will be motivated to find work. And while job training and education are helpful, Cato believes actual job experience is the best way toward getting families to work.
While some state officials may not agree, this report can help them see which requirements are working and which need improvements, Zeigler said.
“You need some kind of a tool where they are held accountable for these policies that they make,” she said.
But Norris West, a spokesman for the Maryland Department of Human Resources, said that while the state is proud to have reduced welfare caseloads to the lowest level since the ’60s, it does not necessarily agree with Cato’s welfare guidelines.
“We have to use our own yardstick to measure our success,” West said.
-30- CNS 12-07-04