Is There Any Justice in Welfare Reform?

May-June 1997

By James W. Skillen

WHEATON, Illinois—[On March 19-21, the Wheaton College Center for Applied Christian Ethics (CACE) brought to conclusion a year-long program focused on welfare and welfare reform. The culminating event was a "trialogue," involving faculty members, students, and outside practicing professionals. James Skillen, a Wheaton College alumnus, gave the keynote speech, a summary of which follows. For more information about Wheaton's CACE, contact its director Dr. Alan Johnson, Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL 60187; 630-752-5886.]
 

The question before us this evening is whether there is any justice in the latest round of welfare reform. The reform we chiefly have in mind is the federal law enacted last year called the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act." I want to answer the evening's question with a qualified "yes," but also with a definite "not enough."

The Justice Not Done

First, let's ask about the justice that has not yet been done. What injustice remains after enactment of the welfare reform law? I see three kinds or three dimensions of injustice.

There is, first of all, the fact that far too many citizens and members of Congress still seem to blame either government or an indifferent, antagonistic public for the dire state of poverty that exists in this country These are the voices at the opposite poles of the debate. Yet these two positions represent a failure to face up to the reality of poverty that can be addressed only at multiple levels of responsibility. There is not a single source to blame. Neither is there a single reform that will work. If we do not give up our simplistic moralisms, grave injustice will remain.

The second dimension of injustice that exists is the public's declining confidence in government itself. In part this is due to the fact that government has sometimes over promised solutions to problems like poverty.

Finally, and most pointedly, the 1996 welfarereform law had more to do with trying to cut the federal budget and to turn over responsibility to the states than it did with creative reform of the welfare system. The 1996 law is not so much welfare reform as a call to the states to try to create welfare reform.

Justice Done and Promised

On a positive note, I see three signs of hope in the process now under way to reform welfare.

First, many public officials and agencies are recognizing that non-government (often faith-based) service organizations are accomplishing things that government-run programs are not. Public authorities are becoming more conscious that many causes of poverty have a moral and personal root that public funding cannot touch. More funding for more government programs cannot, in itself, provide the solution. We see in this growing recognition a greater awareness of human social complexity, of the diverse responsibilities that individuals and institutions bear. This is the beginning of greater justice, because more people are now confronting reality.

Second, the problems of deep and persistent poverty cannot be gauged by an economic measuring stick that merely tells us who falls below the poverty line. People are poor for different reasons and welfare programs designed so that one size fits all will not help some people. The fact that public officials are now trying to deal with different people in different ways and seeking partnerships with non-government organizations holds the promise of greater justice in the future.

Finally, the Charitable Choice provisions in the new welfare law go a long way to doing greater justice to religion in this country These provisions, as discussed before in these pages, tell states not to discriminate against religious service providers and not to force religious groups to secularize themselves when they do participate in public programs. This is an important, though not sufficient expansion of justice in the welfare system.

The Challenge for Christians

Christians now have a big opportunity to try to strengthen justice and to overcome injustice as described above. This requires more than minor adjustments in our thinking and action. Fundamental changes are now taking place in the way government relates to the rest of society. We need to think new thoughts and to develop a more comprehensive public philosophy by which to make judgments in this regard. Professors and students at Christian colleges need to move to the forefront of creative thinking precisely because of their Christian view of life and not be satisfied with choosing sides among the simplistic moralisms and faulty views of the past.