By Jerry L. Austin
From Foresight, Vol. 4, No. 1
published 1997
When the 1996 Welfare Reform Act was signed into law, many hailed it as long overdue and as a means to reduce the federal deficit. Others, however, responded in a vastly different manner. They raised as yet unanswered questions about how the reform would affect states, localities and individuals. As the discussion of and planning for welfare reform continues, emphasis is being placed on solving anticipated problems locality by locality. The local approach may work for many changes the law compels, but other consequences will require a much broader response, one that is commensurate with the scope of the legislation’s impact.
Included in this group of broader issues are indirect social and economic effects on education that will almost certainly result from welfare reform. Each is potentially costly in terms of human and monetary capital, and only effective planning and careful development of flexible programs will prevent financial and programmatic failure.
Perhaps the most significant social problem that will affect schools is the potential breakdown of extended family networks in many localities. Historically, the extended family has offered housing, food, child care and other necessities to relatives who have suffered financial setbacks. One of the approaches to moving welfare recipients into the labor force now under discussion is that of relocating them from high-unemployment to low-unemployment areas. If such relocation occurs and the bonds of extended families are strained or severed, several educational issues emerge that ultimately must be addressed.
Many of the people who would be relocated now live with family members, but they will require housing in a new location. Will a sufficient supply of low-income housing be available in the areas of relocation to meet the needs of this population? If not, who will finance and build the required homes? If parents work, will sufficient child care exist and will it be affordable? Finally, what happens when current recipients refuse to move and subsequently have their benefits terminated?
Whether or not recipients opt to relocate, schools and after-school programs may need to expand in order to provide services to families who no longer have the support of extended family networks. Latch-key and after-school programs currently exist in many localities, but how will expanded services be financed and staffed? Greater consistency among curriculum and school organization and calendars will also be needed during the transition period in order to make school transfers less disruptive for students. This need may be in direct conflict with the emphasis on local school-based decisionmaking that is central to the Kentucky Education Reform Act.
Two other related issues that will affect school operations are nutrition and the possible loss of Medicaid and Medicare coverage. If food stamp benefits and medical coverage are terminated because recipients fail to sign the Personal Responsibility Plan or for other reasons, how will those needs be met? Will schools be asked to provide expanded feeding programs for children, or will they simply be allowed to go hungry, or, worse yet, starve? When one asks whether the American people will allow children to starve, the answer is decidedly no. The question of how to avoid that tragic consequence, however, is much more perplexing. Should schools be asked to provide three meals a day even during the summer, if necessary? If so, how will they be financed? Schools currently can qualify as third party providers to Medicaid eligible students for speech therapy and other services that directly affect learning capacity. If these students lose their medical benefits, how will those services be financed? If the result of losing medical coverage is the absence of health care and diminished health status for children, the educational impact will be tremendous.
Perhaps the most direct and potentially the most difficult to resolve outcome of the Welfare Reform Act may relate to the financing of public schools. Again, this possible outcome is linked to the deliberate or inevitable relocation of people to areas where jobs are available. Kentucky, like other states, relies heavily on the average daily attendance (ADA) of students to determine the distribution of state funds to local public schools. A loss in the number of students in ADA will impact negatively in at least two ways.
First, a costly reduction in the number of students who attend schools in a given locality may occur. During 1996-97, approximately $3,000 per student is being provided by the state to the various school districts in Kentucky. Those districts with the lowest ability to pay, usually those with the highest proportion of welfare recipients, receive higher per student allocations. The ability of each local district to pay for the education of its children is determined by comparing the dollar value of the tax base per student in average daily attendance to an amount determined in advance by the General Assembly. If the tax base remains the same, a lower number of students will result in a higher local ability to pay. The aid from state funds will be reduced accordingly.
Second, the relocation of families and children may have a domino economic effect, which could occur whether recipients relocate or lose their benefits. A small grocery in one central Kentucky location, for example, reportedly receives about $85,000 in food stamp business per month. If those sales are lost, the grocery may have to lay workers off or go out of business completely. The end result is an erosion of the tax base, which in turn reduces the amount of money available to operate the local school system. Loss of income to other businesses which rely upon the trade generated by recipients could further decrease school funds.
On the surface it would appear that receiving school districts will benefit financially from the relocation of current recipients, but quite the reverse may be the case. While these districts will receive additional per pupil state revenues, questions remain. Will the receiving districts have sufficient facilities to house the additional students or will they need to construct new classrooms? Since a higher percentage of at-risk and disabled students are often found in the lower socioeconomic groups occupied by welfare recipients, what will be the financial impact of providing services to this high-cost population? The smaller maximum class sizes for special needs students could also place new stresses on facilities. At the same time, some poorer school districts with high numbers of welfare recipients among their students could be left with costly underutilized space and possible closure of some schools due to declines in student populations.
If these problems occur, major geographic shifts in unmet school facility needs could occur in a relatively short time. For example, if opportunity arises in the home regions of former welfare recipients, the investment in expanded capacity could be lost and the problems of stresses on infrastructure and underutilization might shift yet again. And will a population that is deliberately mobilized by policy choices continue to move in search of improving work opportunities, making it far more difficult, if not impossible, for states and some school districts to plan for classroom needs? Clearly, this area needs immediate and continuing study as the Welfare Reform Act is implemented in Kentucky.
Provisions for higher levels of training and education are also part of the Welfare Reform Act, but the new stresses it is expected to exert on the educational system raise further questions. As people are moved into the workforce for the first time, many will need preliminary job readiness training and adult basic education. Others will look to the vocational and technical schools or to the community colleges for more specialized skills development. In any case, marked increases in funding for these educational programs will likely be needed. Additionally, the ongoing need to develop programs that are more responsive to the marketplace will only expand in proportion to the population of prospective training candidates with diverse needs. Where will the needed funding come from and how will our less-than-nimble education system respond?
Yet another concern for secondary school teachers and administrators will be the issue of dealing with students who are in school only because family benefits will be terminated if a student misses 30 days in succession. Some students, who previously would have dropped out at the age of 16, will stay in school until the age of 18. This may be both a blessing and a curse. It will mean that students who wish to learn will stay in school longer, regardless of economic pressures, and teachers will need to determine ways to motivate those students to perform at as high a level as possible. It also will mean that schools will have to contend with possible disciplinary problems created by students who are in school against their will. The need for alternative programs is likely to expand, and the cost of providing an effective education for these students will likely be higher. Again, where will the funds for these programs come from?
Finally, the family resources and youth services centers are the safety net for Kentucky students. Developed as one of the provisions of the Kentucky Education Reform Act, these centers are a source of social, family and health services. As families and students move from the welfare rolls, they will likely need more rather than less support, and thus turn more and more to the services offered through this school-based program. The need for more centers will likely arise, as well as the demand for expanded services at those which already exist. Will the funds to provide these centers and these services come from already tight educational budgets or from other sources? Will the federal and state welfare funds which are preserved by the reform have to be diverted to other support programs, or will we decide not to offer them? Clearly the answers are not easy. If they were, they would have been addressed by the legislation.
As the implementation of the Welfare Reform Act of 1966 evolves, many positive programs and plans for others are surfacing, but planning for the unanticipated ripple effects of this legislation must begin immediately. Specific solutions depend on how the various localities and the Commonwealth approach the total reform process. Although each local jurisdiction may develop its own plan, eventually a level of consistency must be established statewide to permit mobility and prevent "program shopping" by recipients. If the relocation approach is used, these safeguards will be absolutely necessary. If those plans are not developed cooperatively and with regard to a range of factors, welfare reform may become the most expensive activity in American history in terms of both human and monetary capital.
As plans are developed, a range of state and local agencies need to be involved in joint planning to anticipate possible outcomes and identify responses to them. Included should be agencies and organizations that deal with children and families, education, health, welfare, community mental health, the court system, and job services. Moreover, each representative must be able to speak authoritatively and establish policy for his or her agency. Because many of the solutions may require legislation, the legislative and executive branches of state government also should participate. Although education is considered here, these same questions may arise in regard to most, if not all, of the services to children noted here. Anticipating and responding to them will be key to making welfare reform a success.
An Associate Professor of School Administration at Eastern Kentucky University and a licensed attorney, Dr. Austin has been an elementary school teacher, a principal, a school administrator, a college instructor, and a school superintendent over the course of his 34-year career in education.