Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource "Voices That Must Be Heard" Articles Description An account of the resource The Independent Press Association (IPA) translates articles from the ethnic press (when necessary) and distributes them via web and fax newsletter to mainstream and ethnic press, government offices, nonprofits, and interested individuals. Voices That Must be Heard was designed by the Independent Press Association staff in New York City in response to the horrifying events of September 11. After Sept. 11th, Voices focused on the South Asian, Arab and Middle Eastern communities in New York. Since February 2002, the project has expanded, selecting articles from the broad range of ethnic and community newspapers throughout the city. Here, the Archive has preserved the Voices collection from its inception until November 2002. VTMBH Article VTMBH Article: Edition 24 VTMBH Article: Article Order 2 VTMBH Article: Title Hear our voices: Advocates for the poor sound off about welfare reforms shortcomings VTMBH Article: Author Sharon Brooks Hodge VTMBH Article: Publication Amsterdam News VTMBH Article: Original Language English VTMBH Article: Translator VTMBH Article: Section news VTMBH Article: Blurb If elevation from poverty were the measure of welfare reforms success, many recipients of Americas public assistance would declare it an abject failure. Fewer people receive public assistance today than in 1996, when welfare reform was enacted. As the Senate debates further reform, former recipients speak out about what happened to them. VTMBH Article: Keywords VTMBH Article: Body Escaping poverty has been a lifelong ambition for Renea Fields. Five years ago, this New York mom was cautiously optimistic about landing a meaningful job that would pay enough to meet her familys needs. But that was back in 1996, and Congress had just passed sweeping welfare reform laws that among other things promised to end welfare dependency by promoting work. Americans in general enjoyed prosperous times in the late 1990s, and the revelation that welfare rosters were dwindling was taken not only as good news, but also as an indication of the legislations success. Challenging that perception has united Fields with thousands of other activists for poor people, especially as the economy took a turn for the worst last year. Their voices have not been taken into account as the country debates what to do next. In October 2002 only a few months away the law establishing Temporary Assistance for Needy Families expires. For TANF to continue, policy makers must decide what action to take, and President George W. Bush must sign the legislation. We already know what President Bushs party wants: On May 16, the House passed a bill that would increase the number of hours a recipient must work from 30 to 40 hours a week, spend millions to promote marriage, while reducing the ability of people to take classes and train themselves off welfare. Nor does it reinstate immigrants access to welfare cut in 1996. Now New Yorks own Senator, Hillary Clinton, is supporting a slightly less harsh bill in the Senate mandating 37 hours work while providing more child care money. The argument about the future direction of welfare is deeply rooted in perceptions of the programs purpose. For some people, TANFs main objective is to emphasize work while encouraging the maintenance of two-parent families. But for women who must pay rent, buy clothes for children, as well as provide meals nutritious or otherwise that philosophy works better on paper than it does in real life. For them, the purpose of TANF is to help them get out of poverty. If elevation from poverty were the measure of welfare reforms success, many recipients of Americas public assistance would declare it an abject failure. There is no dispute that reform has reduced the rolls (by 60 percent in New York City). Fewer people receive public assistance today than in 1996. But what really happened to them? Studies by the Childrens Defense Fund and other groups indicate that life for former assistance recipients is characterized by a series of low-paying jobs without benefits, reliance on emergency services to provide food for the family or to keep the utilities from being disconnected. In short, many of those leaving welfare have failed to escape poverty. The programs critics contend that if the flaws are not fixed during the legislations reauthorization, poor people will be relegated to homeless shelters and soup kitchens. Its no surprise, then, that Fields optimism about escaping poverty has waned. And as the time limit for her eligibility to receive assistance draws near, her frustration mounts. I thought I was going to get a real education, Fields says. Frowning, she shakes her head in disappointment. I know I should have gotten my education when I was younger, but I didnt. At age 33, Fields has an eighth-grade education, severely limiting the jobs she is qualified to hold. That also paints a bleak picture of her potential earnings in the years to come. I thought the purpose of public assistance was to help people get out of poverty, Fields contends. You have to have an education to get a good job. The type of education allowed under New Yorks reformed public assistance programs fell short of Fields expectations. The states had some flexibility under the 1996 law to support the education of recipients, but many chose not to do so. They would have even less flexibility under the House bill. What the state calls education, I call useless training programs, Fields says. With serious, piercing eyes she leans forward and describes a day of filling out practice job applications, participating in mock interviews and working crossword puzzles to fill time. She has been to three training programs. Although she had expected to acquire skills needed once she got a job, that never happened. Fields disappointment has intensified over recent years. Fields was given a job as a security guard. Although she is a husky woman with a commanding presence, Fields resented the assignment. I am a woman and a mother, and I dont think its appropriate for the state to make me take a job that could be dangerous, she says. Additionally, Fields is paid less per hour than coworkers doing the same job but who are not recipients of public assistance. Companies are making money off of welfare reform because they get their labor cheaper. But for us, the people on assistance, workfare amounts to slavery, Fields says. Hundreds of women with similar experiences have vowed to get policy makers and others to listen to their concerns before the Senate reauthorizes the federal legislation that made such state programs possible. In Atlanta, Laura Jones sees evidence contradicting the success story impression almost daily. Jones, who works as a community organizer for the Georgia Citizens Coalition on Hunger, points to what happened in Georgia as an example. There, recipients began to reach their five-year time limits in December 2001. During the first week of January, Jones observed a tremendous spike in the number of people requesting emergency food. That trend continued through the winter and spring. Then, the recession. I just dont see how anyone can call welfare reform a success when so many people have to rely on emergency food shelters as soon as their benefits run out, says Jones. It is clear that a lot of people are not better off. Theyre just off of welfare. Residents of Oregon witnessed a similar trend. Between 1996 and 2000, participation in that states food stamp program plummeted by 20 percent. Yet during that same period the Oregon Center for Public Policy reported a 16 percent increase in requests for emergency food, and the United States Department of Agriculture indicated that Oregon had reached a three-year high in the number of hungry people living in that state. Fields and Jones note that they are not unilaterally opposed to welfare reform. In fact, each acknowledges Americas need to retire the now-defunct AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) program. But, they argue, in Americas haste to get people off the dole, mothers and children should not be pushed further into despair and poverty. They still face great challenges ahead, such as changing the public perception that shrinking welfare rosters rather than shrinking poverty is the sign of success. That perception, for example, builds on such expert research as that of Rebecca M. Blank, dean of the University of Michigans Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. She reported that large declines in rolls since the mid-1990s have been matched by extremely large increases in labor force participation among less-skilled mothers. The result, according to Blank, is a dramatic increase in the share of income from earnings among single mothers. But according to Julie Strawn, senior policy analyst at the Washington-based Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), Most of the employment has been in low-wage jobs, with median annual earnings in the range of $8,000 to $12,000 and the evidence to date suggests that people leaving welfare experience frequent job losses and limited upward mobility. Increasingly, more and more people are speaking up about what is not being said on the subject of welfare reform. Organizations such as Welfare Warriors in Wisconsin, the Ohio Empowerment Coalition and Idahos Community Action Network are joining forces. Under the umbrella of GROWL (Grass Roots Organizing for Welfare Leadership) some 36 groups initiated a new national discussion about public assistance. Poor women and immigrants may lack financial resources, but they are resourceful in their efforts to get legislators to listen. A year ago, GROWL launched a month-long post card campaign urging legislators like the chairman of the House subcommittee charged with welfare reform to hear from those most directly affected by welfare reform and hold regional fact-finding meetings. The subcommittee invited no welfare recipients or grassroots organizations to testify. Welfare recipients also were left off the invitation list for the first major welfare reform conference to be held since the massive reform endeavor swept the nation. The February 2001 event drew prestigious presenters, including the controversial Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute and Jason Turner, who was responsible for New York Citys welfare and job training programs at that time. As a gesture of good will after activists protested, GROWL was added to the program on the last day after most other presentations had been completed and many people had departed. To secure a place at the policy table in the future, GROWL and its member organizations built strategic alliances with organizations such as the Childrens Defense Fund, the Center on Budget and Public Policy Priorities, CLASP and the National Urban League that have the clout to influence legislators. GROWL has visited more than a dozen such groups inside the Beltway. Not content to leave the policymaking to them, GROWL turned to lobbying this year. In early February, they sponsored a hearing on Capital Hill for legislators and their aides; women and men from around the country came to speak about the conditions welfare reform wrought. They sat in a small hearing room, and were welcomed by Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, leader of the progressive caucus. But some policy changes on the GROWL wish list put the grassroots coalition at odds even with those who support the basic position that public policy discussions should include voices from all segments of the countrys socio-economic spectrum. In a meeting with Eileen Sweeny of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, D.C., she agreed with GROWLs contention that public assistance should help move people out of poverty. But the Center was reluctant to oppose time limits, a major goal of the activists. There may be ways to help more people without taking time limits head on, Sweeny said, looking around the table at her Center colleagues. They nod in agreement. She continued diplomatically, Time limits dont work, but on the Hill thats going to be difficult to change. Thats just political reality. For GROWL members, reality is that welfare reauthorization is coming with the same time limits and more work. Yet even if they fail this year, they will continue in their mission of promoting progressive solutions to poverty. <i>This story was written under the aegis of George Washington Williams fellowship for journalists of color, a program sponsored by the Independent Press Association.</i> VTMBH Article: Line Breaks 1 VTMBH Article: Date 2002-06-05 VTMBH Article: Thumb VTMBH Article: Article File VTMBH Article: Hit Count 463 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Hear our voices: Advocates for the poor sound off about welfare reforms shortcomings 911DA Item Elements describing a September 11 Digital Archive item. Status The process status of this item. approved Consent Whether September 11 Digital Archive has permission to possess this item. unknown Posting Whether the contributor gave permission to post this item. yes Copyright Whether the contributor holds copyright to this item. yes Source The source of this item. born-digital Media Type The media type of this item. article Original Name The original name of this item. If elevation from poverty were the measure of welfare reforms success, many recipients of Americas p Created by Author Whether the author created this item. yes Described by Author Whether the description of this item was submitted by the author. no Date Entered The date this item was entered into the archive. 2002-06-05