New Federal Welfare Law: No Hands For Picking Beans? Michael Miskowiec Appalachia is likely to feel the adverse effects of the new welfare law more acutely than any other region of the country. Southern Appalachian states are already facing changes that will impact people of all ages and poverty levels. On August 22, 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193. This law shifts responsibility for the nation's poor families to the states. Furthermore, despite the rhetoric surrounding the bill's passage about granting states flexibility to move people from welfare to work, several provisions of the law tie the hands of the states to create effective programs to achieve an end to welfare dependency. The most striking change made by enactment of this welfare reform bill is the repeal of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program , a public assistance program in existence over sixty years that paid cash benefits to families with children who have been deprived ofparental support. In place of the AFDC program, the law creates a block grant program called the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program . Federal funding for the TANF program is fixed at a level below projected spending levels under prior law. The law specifically ends a family's entitlement to the assistance as a matter of federal law. Under the terms of the TANF program, states may not use federal funds to pay assistance to families that have received benefits for a total of sixty prior months. The law also requires the states to meet annual percentage targets for family members to be involved in work activity. The law also makes changes in the Supplemental Security Income program. The Supplemental Security Income provides cash assistance to needy disabled, aged, and blind individuals. The standard for disability The author writes, "I am an attorney in private practice in Charleston, West Virginia. In my practice, I handle Social Security and SSI disability andfederal black lung claims and issues concerning access to medical care. I was an attorney with Legal Services programs in West Virginia and Alabama for over thirteen years until January 1996. I worked primarily in the area of welfare and Medicaid litigation.,} 7 for children has been tightened. The requirement that claims be decided based on an individual assessment of the child's ability to function, which was first mandated by the Supreme Court in 1990, has been eliminated. The law also increases the number and type of disability cases that will be reviewed for continued benefits. Finally changes in the Food Stamp program will cause benefit levels to be reduced. In addition the law limits Food Stamp assistance to childless, non-working adults to a total of three months. The law also prohibits provision of a separate Food Stamp allotment to a parent under the age of twenty-one if the parent is residing with her parents. The most obvious impact on Appalachia from the new federal block grants is an almost certain reduction in assistance to low income families. According to the Urban Institute, one in four families in America depends to some extent on programs modified by P.L. 104-193. Given the high level of poverty in many areas of Appalachia, the financial impact on families in this region is likely to be even more widespread. The termination of entitlement status and a provision which allows states to implement different assistance programs in different locales within the state could lead to a return of the politicization of assistance programs in Appalachia. Before the U.S. Supreme Court in Goldberg v. Kelly established that families had a right to notice and a hearing before welfare assistance could be terminated, local políticos used welfare assistance to keep poor families allied with their respective factions. In many areas of Appalachia, families were required to obtain a letter or certification from the county executive before they could apply for welfare. These certifications were granted more often based on party affiliation and promises of future voting support than on any showing of need. Without the protection afforded by a federal entitlement to the assistance payment, poor families...