The Illinois General Assembly passed welfare reform. Supporters tout it as one of the few matters of substance passed during a session when lawmakers were preoccupied with a tax increase that never arrived. Others suggest that it is more show than substance if there are no jobs for welfare recipients to take to break the poverty cycle. But the Thompson administration is claiming a victory, and advocates for the poor feel they tempered the measure to remove its worst features.

The welfare reform bill passed the General Assembly with little floor debate and few arguments. The bargaining came instead in the corridors of the Capitol and the offices of lawmakers and Edward T. Duffy, director of the Department of Public Aid. When all was done Michael L. Taylor, executive deputy director of public aid, said the measure will bring few changes to the department. "We've been basically reforming welfare for the last several years," he said. What the measure provided, according to Taylor, is "legislative affirmation" of what his department has done with its two-year-old Project Chance welfare-to-work initiative. (For the bill's major provisions, see box.)

Taylor said that except for linking grant levels to the minimum wage, the legislation (H.B. 2853) fulfills all the objectives of the Governor's Task Force on Welfare Reform, which he chaired. The task force's report focused on breaking the cycle of poverty and preventing succeeding generations from entering the welfare rolls. One of its tenets was that welfare should be no more attractive than work to discourage dependence.

But not everyone sees the effort as true reform. "It doesn't come close to welfare reform," said Carol Ronen, executive assistant to the director of the Chicago Department of Human Services and a participant in the Capitol negotiations. Ronen questioned whether the jobs for the welfare recipients exist and whether the state has provided the resources to train and support welfare recipients in those jobs which are available. "We saw no system to help people from point A to point B," she said. And Ronen stressed that is a jump her department would like to see made: "We feel very strongly [that] able-bodied people who are on General Assistance should work, if the jobs are out there."

As originally drawn, the bill looked punitive to Ronen's department. The city ends up providing shelters and food banks for those who lose state benefits. Although Chicago's Department of Human Services would have preferred no bill at all, Ronen said her department recognized that welfare reform was in vogue and joined with other groups to run what she called a "damage control" operation. Chicago got into the negotiations late in the game, as the bill was moving from the House to the Senate. Although a latecomer, the city enjoyed more "clout" than did some of the other advocacy groups.

Sponsored by House Minority Leader Lee A. Daniels (R-46, Elmhurst), the administration bill, H.B. 2853, had an up-and-down ride through the session. A House committee gutted it, removing most of the features objected to by advocates for welfare recipients. A subsequent floor amendment restored many, as both sides agreed to further negotiations to work out their differences.

But when the bill arrived in Senate committee, advocates for the poor lost an attempt to add what they saw as necessary amendments, despite the support of Senate President Philip J. Rock (D-8, Oak Park). A complaint to Duffy produced a meeting in his office where differences were ironed out. The advocates' concerns were then added as a Senate floor amendment.

The amendment incorporated a number of procedural safeguards to the process of withdrawing benefits from (sanctioning) a recipient. The department will be required to complete an assessment of employability before sanctioning someone; it must develop definitions of noncooperation and abide by other due process protections.

With the amendments, H.B. 2853 passed the Senate without opposition. As part of the agreement, the Democratic leadership agreed not to hold the bill hostage and send it to a conference comittee.Typical of the negotiating points was the administration proposal to end the interim assistance program, which provides benefits for up to two years while the application for federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is processed. The department believes that persons apply for the federal benefits — anyone can apply —simply to get on the state program. Advocates disagree.

'This is not a major
breakthrough in the world
of public welfare reform,
partly because there is
not the money to back it up'

--Rep. Currie

The welfare reform bill had proposed to do away with interim assistance. Instead the Department of Public Aid would do screening. Those found likely to get SSI would receive help in applying for the federal benefits, while those who were not would enter the Project Chance program. The issue between the department and those representing the poor was what standards to use in making the determination of potential SSI eligibility. The state had proposed to use the federal standards. Advocates argued that this would be an expensive duplication of the federal effort. The compromise called for use of the medical standard that exempts clients from participation in Project Chance. For those who cannot work under that standard, the state will serve as their advocate for acceptance into the SSI program.

The new state advocacy program will be a good thing for those clients, said John Bouman, an attorney with the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago. Many lack the documentation for their medical problems, and the earlier assistance by state advocates will mean a greater likelihood of a successful application. That gets the client more money and the state off the hook for payments.

48/August & September 1981'/Illinois Issues

Those who do not meet the standard get referred to the employment-rehabilitation components. It includes Project Chance as as well as programs for alcoholics, drug abusers and the mentally ill. Clients participating in the employment and the rehabilitation programs cannot lose their benefits if their problem with finding a job is related to their other problems.

On paper the bill is much better than when it started, said Bob Grossinger, another attorney with the Legal Assistance Foundation. Much will depend on how the rules are drawn, he says. The department has brought a number of the groups into that process through the General Assistance Restructuring Advisory Committee, which shares drafts of rules and statistics from the department.

"Glitz" is the characterization of H.B. 2835 by Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie (D-26, Chicago). "This is not a major breakthrough in the world of public welfare reform, partly because there is not the money to back it up," Currie said. She still sees unmet need. Better service (higher grant levels) is needed for those left in the welfare system. More attention must be given to creating jobs for welfare recipients to hold. And disincentives like waiting periods for resumption of benefits must be removed for those who take temporary jobs. But Currie acknowledged progress on some fronts— particularly the recognition that day care and medical services must be provided to those who would move from the welfare rolls to payrolls.

Although the administration feels it got all it wanted and advocates feel the welfare reform package was better than when it started, the recipients saw some losses, Taylor's task force had recommended a 3.2 percent increase in grant levels. Gov. James R. Thompson included that in his proposed budget — an $18.1 million item and only the second grant increase he has ever proposed.

Welfare rights organizations argued that 3.2 percent was too little. They tried to convince legislators to hike benefits by 10 percent. They argued that General Assistance grants of $154 per month for a single individual fall well below what the state computes as the standard of need — $307 — and even further behind the federal poverty line of $447. For a family of three on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) the grant is $342, the standard of need $689 and the federal poverty line $760. According to the Public Welfar Coalition, even when food stamps and energy assistance are added in, the General Assistance individual runs a $62 monthly deficit and the AFDC family of three a $150 deficit.

Groups like the Public Welfare Coalition and the Campaign for Family Stability gathered 20,000 signatures on petitions asking for a grant increase. On June 17 they crowded the Capitol to rally for their cause. "I think 20,000 signatures say a lot more than the politicians' meetings," Douglas C. Dobmeyer, executive director of the Public Welfare Coalition, told the group. In the audience one advocate carried a picture of a Merlin-like character, with the words, "To live on $154 a month you need a magician." Public Aid Director Duffy warned the group, before sending them upstairs to lobby their lawmakers for more money: "If what they're proposing on the third floor goes through, we'll need more than magicians to help the poor and the needy."

Another group took a different tack. About 30 members of an ad hoc committee of Chicago welfare recipients and community organizers asking for a grant increase and opposed to H.B. 2853 sat in the governor's office for four hours on June 18. They complained that there had been no welfare recipients on Thompson's welfare reform task force and said the proposals would increase the numbers of homeless and hungry. "The people united will never be defeated," they chanted (for the benefit of radio microphones). Thompson could not hear the chants because he was on a trip to the Chicago suburbs. Although the group pledged not to leave without an appointment, Duffy and Thompson aides convinced them to leave about 7:30 p.m. with a promise to convey their concerns to the governor.

August & September 1981/Illinois Issues/49

For those seeking the grant hikes, the magician never appeared. The tax increase died. With its passing went hope of even a 3.2 percent grant increase this year. But Duffy got the poster, autographed by the artist who created it. And Duffy got high marks from most of those involved in the negotiations over 2853, including some who won't make their comments publicly for fear of loss of credibility. He accommodated the advocates at a time when he probably — if the Senate committee vote was any indication — could have pushed his package through. Duffy said he had the votes, but he explained: "When you push your package through with the required number of votes instead of consensus, you put together a short-term victory.'' He said welfare reform efforts are better served by the cooperation that developed between his department and the advocates for the poor. "I think he really did a superb job, not only in a willingness to discuss and talk —he really went a long way substantively to address the concerns," Rep. Currie said. She said Duffy had worked with lawmakers before and had a consensus approach. Chicago Department of Human Services' Ronen thinks the relationship that developed between the city and Duffy may be the best thing to come out of 2853. "We went into it being very upset. He was very easy to work with. Very reasonable. Very fair."

While Ronen feels good about the experience with Duffy, she expects more welfare reform efforts. "We do feel strongly the battle has just begun," she says. So do the other advocates, who acknowledge they fared better than they hoped in the first skirmishes.

Michael D. Klemens

August & September 1981/Illinois Issues/50