No Welcome for Welfare Wanderers A Burst of New State Laws Are Passed to Lower Welfare Benefits Paid to New Residents

Article excerpt

Monique Ruffin came to Seattle in search of a better life. Recently divorced, the mother of four moved from Louisiana to look for a job here and to be near her family.

But dwindling resources and no job meant welfare. Much to her surprise, though, she did not receive the Washington rate of $740 a month for a family of five, instead got $277 a month - the Louisiana rate.

Ms. Ruffin, who is suing the state over the discrepancy, now finds herself at the center of a national debate on welfare reform. Since sweeping changes were passed in August 1996, lawmakers have worried that welfare recipients from low-paying states would flood into states with better benefits, decreasing the quality of life and overtaxing the system. To date, 15 states have passed laws paying lower benefits to new residents - to push people to find work and prevent their states from becoming "welfare magnets." The only problem is, there is little evidence to support the notion that masses of poor people are moving from state to state, seeking benefits. Moreover, many critics are standing up for the rights of those who do move. Thus, the future of these laws remains uncertain, and other states are looking to Washington to see which direction the court will go next. So far, three federal court cases, including Ruffin's, are contesting the new laws. Yet some experts say that the concerns about becoming a welfare magnet are so strong that many states may still push to pass two-tiered laws. "If the perception is out there - regardless of what the research shows - there's pressure to limit benefits," says Mark Rank, associate professor of social work at Washington University in St. Louis. "There may be a race to the bottom," to pay the lowest benefits. Public opinion largely favors work-based welfare reforms, experts say. In fact, Washington's rates are some of the nation's most generous, and even bordering states pay far less. Oregon and Idaho pay $460 and $317, respectively, for a family of three - compared with Washington's $546 per month. The author of the Washington law that took effect last fall, Rep. Suzette Cooke (R), says that it is a preventive measure. "We're saying you better have a pretty good idea of the job market before you move your family up here." The law's tough road ahead But Washington may have a tough road ahead if it wants to keep its law. …


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.