Shawn Vestal: Turning the safety net over to states is a way to erode it, not reform it

Call it the $212 line.

That’s the difference between the cash assistance a very poor family of three might receive for basic living expenses in Spokane versus Coeur d’Alene. It’s also a good reason to look askance at proposals to turn over more control of the social safety net to states – a strategy all but certain to emerge from the Republican Congress.

The last time we did it, with Bill Clinton’s welfare reform in 1996, what emerged was less a reform than an erosion. Families received less money, benefits stagnated against inflation, and many states simply used the welfare money for other things. Just half of federal and state dollars spent through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program in 2014 actually went toward “core welfare” activities, according to a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Some of the money was diverted for purposes you might regard as related – such as pre-K support – and states were given latitude in deciding how to use them. But some also simply went into general funds for unrelated purposes.

“There is no evidence that giving states this broad flexibility has improved outcomes for poor families with children,” the CBPP report concluded.

Perhaps improved outcomes for poor families with children wasn’t the goal.

Major welfare programs fall into two categories: cash assistance and food stamps. In 1996, reformers shifted the federal cash assistance program (Aid to Families With Dependent Children) to a state block grant (TANF). They also put time limits and work requirements on the cash assistance, among other changes.

The Congressional Research Service produced a report in 2014 that found a recipient who qualified for both programs would still fall below the poverty level in every state.

In 1995, for every 100 families with children living in poverty, 68 received cash assistance. In 2014, that figure was 27, the CBPP said.

In Washington, this drop has been more pronounced. Seventy-six of every 100 families in poverty received cash assistance in 1996, falling to 33 in 2014. In Idaho, it went from 32 to 8.

CBPP and others have noted the disparity in cash benefits state to state. A qualifying family of three in Washington may receive $521. In Idaho, that benefit level is $309. The national median is $429. Meanwhile, the grant amounts have stagnated, losing buying power by the year.

That’s one of the reasons, experts say, that the number of people stuck in deep poverty has remained unmoved, even as the overall poverty level has declined. Deep poverty is defined as living below half the poverty level, which is $20,000 for a family of three.

In Washington, for example, the overall poverty rate dropped from 13 percent to 12 percent between 2014 and 2015, but the percentage of those in deep poverty stayed steady at 6 percent.

Spokane County’s overall poverty rate remains at 16 percent, and its deep poverty rate is above 7 percent. It’s much higher among minorities and single parents.

That statis at the very bottom reflects the overall direction of welfare in the country since the reforms: a focus on the working poor and a deepening of poverty at the very bottom. In 1996, about a quarter of all poor families in Washington were in deep poverty. By 2014, that figure was 40 percent.

“A lot of the emphasis on poverty in the last 20 years or so has been on the working poor,” said Jennifer Romich, a professor and poverty researcher at the University of Washington, in an interview. “There’s a segment of the population for which that’s not working.”

Romich cited the changes in cash benefits as one key factor. Even for families who qualify, the declining value of the benefits keeps them from catching up.

“Even if you qualify for the welfare payment, you’re still going to be in deep poverty,” she said.

It’s not a problem that occupied much air time during the campaign or during the aftermath, but it’s an important question in the months to come: How safe is the safety net?

The safe answer: Not very.