Putting Poor People to Work: How the Work-First Idea Eroded College Access for the Poor (review)

Putting Poor People to Work is a compelling book that explicitly addresses the moral dilemma of many U.S. citizens with finding balance between two cultural values—hard work and higher education—when developing social policies to assist economically disadvantaged groups. The most thought-provoking question raised by the authors is: Why did the United States create welfare polices that strongly encouraged people to find a minimal wage job rather than earn a degree at a college or university?

The authors expose the inconsistencies in our country's value system by presenting data from national surveys on attitudes of Americans clearly showing that the majority of people (98%) believe everyone should have equal opportunity to attend college. However, the majority of these same Americans prefer that welfare recipients work rather than attend school to receive their benefits.

This book provides a detailed historical account of the changes in the U.S. welfare system and its overall impact on shaping the cultural attitudes toward welfare recipients. During the early 1900s, the primary beneficiaries of the first welfare program (better known as a pension program) were White, widowed mothers. Then in 1939, widows began to receive "Old Age Insurance"; subsequently, Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) was created to serve primarily White, unwed mothers.

In 1962, ADC was reauthorized and renamed Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). During the 1960s, the federal government implemented more standards and controls at local welfare offices to reduce discriminatory practices against women of color, especially African Americans. These nondiscriminatory polices were effective in allowing more poor women of color to receive benefits, but these new welfare recipients received a public backlash. Prior to the 1960s, the image of the typical welfare recipient was a White, widowed mother (deserving poor), but that image changed in the mid-1960s to a never-married Black mother with multiple children (undeserving poor), even though the majority of welfare recipients were still White women. This cultural shift in seeing welfare mothers as either the deserving or the undeserving poor created the political and social conditions for implementing welfare policies that emphasized employment over education and training.

The heart of the book explores the relationship between welfare polices and their impact on poor people's access to higher education. Specifically, the authors examine how the "work-first" philosophy is embedded within two key policies: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA, 1996), and Workforce Investment Act (WIA, 1998). The PRWORA is best known as the welfare reform act that is primarily responsible for establishing time limits on how long welfare recipients can receive services and requiring them to work for their benefits. PRWORA led to the creation of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which replaced AFDC.

WIA's main goal is job placement. WIA endorses the work-first philosophy, but it also focuses on accountability and measurable outcomes that take into consideration the needs of both the WIA clients and employers. Both legislations have contributed to the declining enrollment of welfare recipients in colleges.

Although many studies suggest that people are more likely to move out of poverty with a college degree, both the PRWORA and WIA reduced incentives and funds for community colleges to serve disadvantaged students, especially welfare recipients. According to a national survey, 136,000 welfare recipients earned a college degree in 1995; but in 1997 only 54,000 welfare recipients earned a college degree after welfare reform (p. 46).

Moreover, the caseworkers interviewed in the study did not present postsecondary education as a real choice to their clients; instead, caseworkers strongly encouraged their clients to find employment as soon as possible. The authors present data to support their arguments that denying welfare recipients the opportunity to earn a college degree has a negative impact on their...