It’s not as great as columnist portrayed

In reading the Jan. 27 column, “Welfare reform could be on the path to success” written by David Broder, I was struck by the many discrepancies between politicians’ views of measuring welfare reform success and the actuality of how this policy is playing out for welfare recipients and their communities.

As a mental health professional and social work practitioner, both my own and collegial experiences with clients and systems involved with welfare policy paints more of a problematic picture fraught with barriers. There have indeed been successes in the welfare reform, however contradictory to Mr. Broder’s column, there have been severe governmental funding cutbacks which have led to DSHS and other human service professionals being laid off while burgeoning caseloads continue to demand more services with less staff to provide them.

Unemployment rates in Snohomish County alone have reached crisis proportions, while safety net non-profit agencies struggle in the looming uncertainty of funds, as reflected in the recently reported $1.2 million shortage in the United Way fund drive.

While there have been successes, many barriers still exist for women and families struggling with mental health issues, learning disabilities and substance abuse addictions. Mr. Broder’s column also claimed teen-age pregnancy is declining as a result of welfare reform. He does not take into account the massive efforts of agencies such as visiting public nurses and other educational and counseling efforts aimed at reducing teen-pregnancy. Value-laden comments asserting that “marriage is a good thing,” and “focusing on out-of-wedlock births may be the most useful goal of government programs” clearly reflects an ignorant perspective disregarding the cultural, gender and socioeconomic differences involved with welfare recipients. Perhaps we should broaden our societal perspective on how “eliminating poverty” is defined, as well as how we measure its successes.

Arlington