Montana disputes welfare rating

HELENA – State officials say a national study giving Montana a “C” grade for its welfare programs takes too harsh an approach to providing help to the most needy and unfairly penalizes Montana for trying to give them a break.

Montana policies addressed in the report offer needed flexibility to welfare recipients looking for work and avoid extreme punishment for families of those who do not comply with state requirements while receiving public assistance, said Gail Gray, Department of Public Health and Human Services director.

She said the state deserves a “high B” for its efforts to implement changes in welfare programs since the mid-1990s. Montana does not warrant an “A” because it fails to provide enough aid to those with little or no chance of finding work, she said.

The study by the Cato Institute, a nonprofit public policy research foundation that advocates limited government and individual liberty, named Montana as one of 20 states with the average mark of “C.” The state had an overall score of 51 points out of a possible 100, ranking it 28th in the country.

Idaho topped the nation with a score of 76 and was one of four states getting an “A.” Wyoming ranked third, also getting an “A.” Seven states got a “B,” 11 states received a “D” and eight states, including North Dakota, got an “F.” Vermont was ranked last with just 21 points.

Montana needs to do a better job discouraging teen pregnancies, is too lax in what welfare recipients must do to fulfill work requirements and is not tough enough on those who fail to meet the requirements, the report said. The state also should have a policy penalizing welfare families that have additional children, it said.

“Though it levels some sanctions against noncompliant recipients, there is no point at which Montana truly puts its foot down,” the study concluded.

Gray said that is intentional. The state’s policy of not penalizing an entire family when one member violates work requirements or some other mandate recognizes the needs of children, she said.

The state takes away assistance directed at adults in a family, not aid for children, until the problem is corrected, Gray explained. Even cases where persistent violations lead to total loss of financial aid, a family is allowed to reapply, she said.

“We don’t want people with children to be denied assistance forever when the purpose of the program is to become self-sufficient and meet the needs of their children,” she said. “We’re concerned about the welfare of our children.”

She said the state considers people in job training, drug treatment or college as fulfilling work requirements, and the study found fault with that.

Hank Hudson, head of the department’s Human and Community Services Division, said the study reaches the wrong conclusion about the value of penalties, such as a “family cap” where a welfare mother giving birth to another child is denied increased benefits.

“The implication is that if you don’t have full sanctions and a family cap policy that people don’t want to go to work and succeed,” he said. “That’s not true. People do want to get off welfare.”