Cuts don't fall evenly across Michigan

A welfare recipient in Flint is four times more likely to be kicked off cash assistance next month than a welfare recipient in bucolic Luce County -- even though the Upper Peninsula county has a higher poverty rate.

In rural northern Lake County, 36 percent of children lived below the poverty threshold, the highest rate in the state in 2008, the most recent figures available. Yet its welfare recipients are eight times less likely to lose their cash assistance than comparatively wealthy Wayne County.

Michigan’s welfare reform will remove more than 11,000 families composed of more than 30,000 people in one day. A Bridge Magazine analysis of Michigan Department of Human Services data revealed that the impact of that reform will hit like a sledgehammer in a few cities, and be practically nonexistent in much of the rest of the state -- including the 10 counties with the highest poverty rates in 2008.

Under the state’s welfare reform, residents are limited to 48 months of cash assistance in their lifetimes. Because the law is retroactive, more than 11,000 families are being kicked out immediately.

The majority of cash-assistance welfare recipients are in Michigan’s big cities (40 percent are in Wayne County alone -- home of Detroit). Bridge’s analysis found that those poor, urban families are much more likely to be timed-out of benefits than families from counties with higher poverty rates.

Across the state, 14 percent of cash-assistance welfare cases are being kicked out of the system because the recipients have received aid for more than 48 months. But of the state’s 83 counties, only four have  a cut-off rate higher than that average: Wayne at 20.9 percent; Genesee (home of Flint), 19.3 percent; Muskegon, 18.3 percent; and Saginaw, 14.7 percent.

By contrast, a dozen counties have no welfare families losing cash assistance benefits. And 52 of Michigan's 83 counties have less than 4 percent of their welfare cases being timed out.

Of the 10 counties with the highest percentage of children living in poverty in 2008 (all rural northern counties), nine have a welfare removal rate less than a third of the state average. Roscommon County, home of Houghton Lake, for example, had the second-highest child poverty rate in the state, at 35.1 percent. Yet of 144 welfare cases in the county now, only one is being cut off next month.

That doesn’t mean it’s better to be poor in the country than the city. But it does seem to indicate that Michigan’s rural poor are less likely to receive benefits than equally poor city residents -- and that the rural poor don’t stay on assistance as long.

(BRIDGE DOCS: Excel spreadsheet of case removal figures, percentages for all 83 counties.)

“It might be harder for (the rural poor) to get to a welfare office,” said poverty researcher Luke Shaefer, assistant professor of social work at the University of Michigan. “There might be fewer people who are knowledgeable about the system.”

There also may be cultural factors, admits Shaefer, who has done research with the rural poor. “We’d see that all the power had been cut off and there was no food, and (DHS representatives) would have to fight with them to go on welfare.”

Scott Dzurka, president of the Michigan Association of United Ways, says the chronic urban poor have been on welfare longer because of DHS rules that encouraged them to stay on the system.

Before this fall’s reform, welfare recipients in counties with an unemployment rate 10 percent higher than the state average could surpass the state’s 48-month limit. Counties such as Genesee and Wayne typically have higher-than-average unemployment rates.

About this project

Michigan lawmakers have embarked on a huge experiment in social welfare policy: a strictly enforced lifetime cap on cash assistance benefits. How will this affect the thousands of families receiving this aid, the communities in which they live and the course of public policy? For the next year, Bridge Magazine will provide regular reports from ex-recipients and policy-makers to judge the effectiveness of this change.

Also, individual DHS caseworkers had discretion to decide whether families met any exemptions that would allow them to stay on aid. Now, most of the exemptions are gone.

In Detroit alone, 21,000 people (in 6,560 families) will lose benefits. A Detroit News analysis found that in a five-square-mile section of the city, about 3,500 people -- an average of a family in every block -- will be cut off.

Rep. Rick Olson, R-Saline, grew up on welfare. His father died when he was a baby, and his mother spent 17 years collecting cash assistance in the U.P. Yet Olson, who voted for the tightened limits, sees a difference between his upbringing and a “culture” of welfare he feels permeates Michigan’s urban centers.

“At home (in the U.P.) you were only on welfare because you had to be,” Olson said. “In the urban areas today, it’s far more acceptable to be on public assistance.

“If they don’t qualify anymore, they’re going to have to do what my mother did and get five cents out of a nickel," he said.

That concentration of the chronic poor in a small portion of the state made it easier for legislators to vote for welfare reform, claims Gilda Jacobs, president of the advocacy group Michigan League for Human Services. “Most of these people are not in the back yards of the legislators,” Jacobs said. “They’re coming from the urban areas.”

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


Anne Seaman
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 10:42am
How is it that yoopers are victims of circumstance and urbanites are opportunists? Rep Rick Olson shows a lot of arrogance in his statement, "At home (in the U.P.) you were only on welfare because you had to be.In the urban areas today, it’s far more acceptable to be on public assistance." Perhaps we just need to inject more shame into the process.Let's paint "W" on everyone's forehead so Rick doesn't assume that just because someone is from an urban center that they are on welfare.If we're going to stigmatize a support service let's be sure and do it right!
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:31pm
I'm sure we'll end up paying more in law enforcement as prostitution, selling drugs and theft will go up in these areas creating more middle-class jobs. No one wants to live in a shelter, but if there are no jobs that make working a net gain over childcare and transportation expenses, you adapt.
Sat, 10/22/2011 - 8:48pm
Four years with your fingers in somebody else's earning is enough. Period. In fact it is three years too long.
Laura Bates
Sun, 10/23/2011 - 10:54am
Let's not forget the elephant in the room when we talk about "urban" vs "rural" poverty -- race. When legislators talk about a welfare culture they are really talking about largely African-American urban centers. By ignoring race, one also ignores the impact of racial segregation on the opportunities available to poor people who want to better themselves. In a long term study I participated in of low-income families in Flint, we found that poor white families were more likely to live in areas of the county where there was access to jobs, such as near malls, whereas African American families lived largely in segregated, isolated areas of the city where there were few job opportunities. It is easier to attribute failure to "personal attributes" than to address the systemic issues that cause inequities in opportunity for many people in our society, but it doesn't benefit us in the long run!
What are you sayin
Sat, 02/18/2012 - 8:31am
It sounds like you are saying whites are smart enough to live where there are jobs and blacks aren't. Also some would say when you ignore the racial aspect you are being fair and when you don't ignore it you are being racist.
Sun, 10/23/2011 - 2:02pm