Although Wisconsin is widely recognized as the nation’s pioneer in developing
innovative welfare reforms, the federal legal services program has exerted
every effort to stop most of these reforms dead in their tracks.
State Accuses Legal Services of Trying to Subvert Welfare Reforms
In 1994, Legal Action of Wisconsin sued the state for trying to deter individuals from moving there to collect its generous welfare benefits. Wisconsin provides a family of three $517 a month in Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits. Because this is significantly more than neighboring states’ AFDC payments such as Illinois’ $377 and Indiana’s $288, at least 30 percent of Wisconsin’s welfare recipients move to the state to get the higher benefits. To discourage Wisconsin’s attraction as a welfare magnet, Governor Tommy Thompson instituted a two-tier welfare plan under which new arrivals were paid benefits equal to those of their home state for their first six months of residency. Legal Action immediately sued the state, claiming that the two-tier plan unconstitutionally infringes upon the right of the poor to travel. State Health and Social Services Secretary Gerald Whitburn angrily criticized legal services saying, “In an entirely predictable way, the far-left advocates are determined to shut down Gov. Tommy Thompson’s welfare reform agenda.” A federal district court is considering Legal Action’s suit.
See Marcia Coyle, “Welfare Entitlements Face Erosion,”
The National Law Journal, June 17, 1996, pg. A1
60-Day Waiting Period Attacked As Unconstitutional
In 1992, Legal Action sued Wisconsin for requiring new residents to
wait 60 days before applying for general relief assistance. General relief
benefits are typically paid to single adults ineligible for AFDC and average
$198 a month. State welfare officials sought the 60 day waiting period
to deter an influx of unemployed people from neighboring states where benefits
are lower. Legal Action claimed the waiting period was unconstitutional
because it interfered with the poor’s right to travel and discriminated
against people who move to Wisconsin to apply for welfare. The state supreme
court rejected legal services claims, ruling that the state has a legitimate
interest in protecting taxpayer funds against fraud and waste. In addition,
the court said the state should not be required to provide aid to people
who move there just to live off welfare.
See Jones v. Milwaukee County, 168 Wis. 2d 892, 1992
State Forced To Pay Welfare Recipients’ Day Care Costs
In 1993, Wisconsin officials were stunned when Legal Action won a lawsuit
forcing the state to pay tens of millions of dollars in day care costs
to welfare recipients enrolled in training and education programs. The
suit was filed on behalf of women on AFDC who were participating in the
Jobs Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program which helps AFDC recipients
to become self-supporting. Like officials in other states blind sided by
similar legal services’ suits, Wisconsin officials were surprised to learn
that besides providing recipients with expensive job training and education
assistance they also had to pay their child care costs. State welfare official
Gene Kussart complained that Wisconsin had already increased its spending
on day care from $12 million to $60 million in the previous five years.
The state didn’t pay the costs of AFDC recipients, he said, because, “There
is only so much money to go around.” When officials considered appealing
the circuit court’s decision, Legal Action threatened to seek retroactive
compensation for thousands of prior AFDC recipients. The state decided
not to appeal.
See Gail Perry, “AFDC Day Care Ordered,” Capital Times, October
28, 1993, pg. 3A
Home Visits to Verify Welfare Eligibility Attacked as Unconstitutional
Last year, Legal Action tried to end the state’s practice of making unannounced visits to the homes of welfare applicants to verify their eligibility for public assistance. Since 1988, the use of home visits and other verification procedures helped the state to uncover nearly $4 million in welfare fraud. However, Legal Action sued claiming that home visits violate welfare applicants’ constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. A US Appeals Court rejected Legal Action’s claim that home visits were unconstitutional. The court noted that the visits were not criminal in nature. Furthermore, investigators were required to inform applicants that they could refuse them entry and that such refusal would not result in an automatic denial of benefits. The court also recognized the legality of home visits because of the state’s interest in insuring that the intended beneficiaries of taxpayer assistance are indeed deserving.
See S.L. v. Whitburn, 67 F.3d, (US App. Ct.) 1995
State Sued for Punishing Welfare Recipient Who Refused to Take a Job
In 1995, legal services sued the state for sanctioning an AFDC recipient
who refused to take a job because she didn’t want to drive at night. As
a condition for receving AFDC, Chua Lee was required to participate in
the JOBS training program to help her obtain gainful employment.
Lee, an ethnic Cambodian Hmong, was offered a job at a company whose personnel
were acquainted with the culture. However, Lee refused the job because
it required her to drive at night. To accommodate her, officials set up
a car pool for Lee and even designated a company employee to give her a
ride home if necessary. Lee still refused. Legal Services of Northeastern
Wisconsin filed suit against the state on the grounds that they didn’t
have good cause to sanction Lee for her refusal to accept the job. Legal
services also claimed that targeting jobs at the company for Hmong participants
somehow constituted discrimination against them as an ethnic group.
A state appeals court rejected both claims.
See Lee v. State of Wisconsin, 192 Wis. 2d 225, 1995