Chipping Away at General Assistance: A Matter of Economics or an Attack on Poor People?

Over the past few years, a number of states and localities have restricted or discontinued their general assistance programs: Arizona, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Washington, and San Diego County in California (Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law, 1992a; Rothschild, 1992). The governors and some administrators in these states and localities contend that fiscal necessity is the reason for these reductions or terminations (Lemov, 1991). However, after a review of these changes, it is clear that the decimation of general assistance is an attack on poor people, a group whose political clout is minimal or nonexistent. In fact, these reductions are devastating the poorest of the poor, people with no source of income other than general assistance (Sylvester, 1992). This article describes the political climate that has contributed to these general assistance changes and recommends efforts social workers should make toward reversing this trend. Early General Assistance Reductions Massachusetts (1975) and Pennsylvania (1982) were the first states to discontinue or reduce their general assistance programs (Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law, 1991b). Pennsylvania's then-Governor Richard Thornburgh supported welfare reform that would encourage self-reliance, because he believed that a labor market existed for the employment of able-bodied general assistance recipients. Pennsylvania provided general assistance for only 90 days in any 12-month period for eligible employable individuals between the ages of 18 and 45 (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1982). The governor's confidence in the labor market was belied by one study (Halter, 1989) that indicated that of 113 former Pennsylvania general assistance recipients, only three remained employed for nine months after discontinuance of their assistance. Human services institutions also felt the effect of these changes. For example, before these provisions took effect, the total number of nights of shelter use in Philadelphia was 6,525. By March 1984, the number had increased to 22,687 (Katz, 1986). Pennsylvania was the forerunner in general assistance reductions that later occurred throughout the United States. Three states, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma, eliminated their programs during 1986-87 (Eckels et al., 1989). In 1991, a number of other states reduced or eliminated their general assistance programs. General Assistance Policy Trends State changes have varied from total elimination of general assistance to limitation of the benefits period for recipients classified as employable and reduction of grant levels. Michigan and Massachusetts eliminated their general assistance programs; Illinois, Ohio, Minnesota, New Mexico, and San Diego County, California, provided general assistance for only a limited period; and Arizona, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Kansas, Maine, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington reduced their grant levels (telephone interview with J. Strawn, welfare policy and education specialist, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Washington, DC; Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law, 1992b). Many states are considering further reductions in general assistance, including benefit level reductions, reductions of coverage for specific groups on general assistance, more stringent eligibility conditions, time-limited payments, and discontinuance of benefits for employable people. From the outset it was recognized that these reductions would bring severe hardship to those whose benefits were discontinued, as well as to their families and to human services institutions (Halter, 1989). Policymakers who believed that the long-term effects of these changes would increase state costs challenged politicians citing fiscal austerity as the reason for these changes. Unfortunately, political philosophy has been as influential as claims to financial expediency. …