Responsibility for the social safety net continues to “devolve” from the federal to state governments, and many states are now confronting the dilemmas inherent in redesigning welfare-dilemmas that faced Congress, too, as it sought to impose new conditions on receipt of public assistance. This article argues that reforming AFDC is difficult because the public has conflicting goals: putting welfare recipients to work; protecting their children from severe poverty; and controlling costs. For 25 years, reformers have viewed requiring welfare recipients to participate in work-promoting programs as uniquely able to balance these goals. Numerous studies have shown that this approach modestly increased employment and reduced welfare costs. More substantial gains have been achieved by some “mixed-strategy” programs, which stress immediate job entry for some recipients and employment-directed education or training for others. Many people remain on the rolls, however, prompting some policymakers to argue for substituting work-for-benefits or community service work (“workfare”) for welfare after a certain period of time, and others for ending all support. The limited knowledge about work-for-benefits programs suggests that, in contrast to work-promoting activities, this approach ultimately costs money. The research record confirms that there are no easy answers in welfare reform, and that states will have to weigh the trade-offs in considering alternative strategies.
