Center on Women and Public Policy Case Study Program Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota

The Welfare of Feminism: Struggle in the Midst of Reform Patricia Ireland, the President of the National Organization for Women (NOW), sat at her desk, weary from the day’s meetings and strategizing. She found herself in a difficult position that would test her leadership skills and the ability of NOW to negotiate a national legislative battle. In the mid-1990s, Congress passed three versions of legislation aimed at reforming the nation’s welfare program. This legislation, known as the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act” (PRWORA), would dramatically change welfare policy and affect millions of poor women and children in the United States. This law replaced the program Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and would imposed time limits, strict work requirements, illegitimacy tests, marriage promotion programs and family caps. Complicating the situation was that President Bill Clinton, a Democrat and strong ally of feminists, was supportive of this legislation, promising during his 1992 presidential bid to dramatically reform this New Deal program. As the leader of one of the largest and most prominent feminist organizations in the United States, Ireland knew that NOW was in a unique position to influence the welfare debate. Armed with half a million active members, engaged in coalition efforts across feminist causes, and possessing political capital, Ireland and other NOW leaders understood the importance of publicly condemning welfare reform and mobilizing their army of grassroots activists. However, Ireland was unsure if she could energize NOW’s membership around this issue. When fellow feminist organization, NOW Legal Defense Education Fund, attempted to raise money to hire an economic justice litigator and increase awareness about welfare reform using NOW’s mailing list, not only did the appeal fail financially, but it sparked a rash of hate mail from some NOW members (Kornbluh 1996). Ireland was aware that welfare rights groups were organizing and mobilizing their members. The National Welfare Rights Union (NWRU) and their coalition partners attempted to prevent the passage of any welfare reform legislation that did not alleviate poverty. They held protests, marches, and rallies and engaged in other acts of civil disobedience to spread their message. However, Ireland knew that these organizations had scarce resources, fewer connections to members of Congress and the _________________________________________________ Bethany Snyder wrote this case for the Center on Women and Public Policy in 2004-2005 as part of a graduate course on case studies on women and public policy. The Center on Women and Public Policy provided supporting funds. ©Center on Women and Public Policy 2005.

White House, and fewer members than their feminist counterparts. NWRU and other welfare rights organizations would greatly benefit from NOW’s support and the resources and political capital it brought to the table. Ireland realized this was a tough issue for NOW members to swallow. The majority of NOW members were white, middle-class, college-educated women who adhered to the liberal feminist position that access to the paid labor market and reproductive freedom were the two most important issues for women. The majority of NOW members’ lives were not jeopardized by the new welfare law—it did not threaten their access to abortion, their choice to work inside or outside the home, or their ability to have or raise their children. However, Ireland and NOW officers believed that an attack on poor women was an attack on all women, understanding the connection between economics and gender and the importance of weighing in on such a critical issue. At this point, Ireland was in a quandary. As the president of a national membership organization, is she bound to follow her membership’s wishes? As an organization that takes its directives from the grassroots, that prides itself on listening to the voices of its members, should Ireland refrain from strongly criticizing President Clinton on this issue? However, as a feminist leader, should she not follow her personal beliefs and her own feminist philosophy? Would speaking out against welfare reform jeopardize NOW’s ability to work with the White House and sympathetic members of Congress to affect change on other feminist causes? The politics of welfare The United States’ modern welfare program began in 1935 as part of a host of New Deal reforms aimed at reducing poverty and providing relief to those suffering from the financial effects of the Great Depression. Passed in concert with the Social Security Act, Aid to Dependant Children (ADC) provided financial assistance to children who lived in poverty due to the death, absence, or incapacity of a parent or caretaker. These reforms marked a change in the administration of social welfare programs in the United States, replacing inconsistent and unreliable state programs with a permanent federal welfare program and thus transferred the responsibility for social welfare from the decentralized state system to the federal government. ADC was not without its contradictions. The framers of this program, mainly white, middle-class social workers steeped in Progressivism, held their own conceptions of poor women and women of color (including immigrants). Captive of racial and class attitudes of their time, they deemed poor single women untrustworthy in matters relating to their finances and child-rearing. Thus, while the framers were committed to state-sponsored financial assistance for poor single mothers, their social status deemed them morally superior and they felt it their duty to supervise the recipients of the program. Consequently, while the recipients of the Social Security Act programs enjoyed a high degree of privacy and autonomy, 2

ADC recipients were bound by a high degree of oversight and regulation that routinely led to government intrusion and a disregard for their privacy. After World War II, the welfare population grew considerably. Spurred by population growth, expanded programs, a growing economy, and the ability of the federal government to better address issues relating to poverty, more Americans relied on government aid. This trend persisted through the 1950s, 60s, and 70s and helped continue the expansion of the Social Security Act, which included new and improved services. Most noticeably, President Johnson’s War on Poverty initiative during the 1960s established a host of new government programs, including the creation of Medicare, Medicaid, and Food Stamps, among other services. Additionally, in 1962, Congress expanded ADC to include households with an unemployed or absent father, providing the program with its modern name, Aid to Families with Dependant Children (AFDC). Despite growing support for federal protections against the effects of poverty, the recipients of these programs were not immune to public scrutiny. Recognizing the stigma that recipients of government aid faced, Congress consolidated many of the new programs during the 1960s and 1970s, creating two tiers of entitlement. Congress added Medicare and Medicaid to the Social Security program and combined income-maintenance programs aimed at the elderly and disabled to form the Social Security Income (SSI) program. Not coincidentally, the only program to be left out of this merger was AFDC, the sole program aimed at assisting poor women and children. During the 1970s and 80s, after the Vietnam War ended and the civil rights and women’s rights movement shifted from a mass movement to interest groups, welfare programs became the target of a new political movement. While the economy continued to decline, social conservatives gained more influence in the United States politically and ideologically. Staunchly advocated by these political forces of the time, reducing welfare programs was seen as a key component in reviving the economy and decreasing “big government.” While many Americans were not welfare’s biggest fans, many were ambivalent about seeing these programs dismantled. Indeed, in the early 1990s, nearly 50 percent of all American households relied on government aid of some kind (Abramovitz 2000, 18). To win public support for decreasing the funding of government programs, the American public had to be convinced of the benefits of a smaller government, the dangers of large welfare rolls, and the moral degradation that welfare propagated. Consequently, intrusive practices designed to regulate the lives of welfare recipients were becoming more common. A popular tactic of the time was the “midnight raid,” which involved a caseworker visiting a recipient’s home in the middle of the night if the agency suspected that a male companion was living with the recipient. Because co-habitation was strictly against program rules, such a violation was grounds for reduction or suspension of benefits. In addition to pushing women off welfare, this tactic served to 3

reinforce the stereotype of the “welfare queen” (an undeserving woman taking advantage of welfare programs) and the immoral behavior of female welfare recipients (engaging in sexual relations outside of marriage). Due to the negative picture conservatives painted, AFDC was one of the most vulnerable of the social welfare programs. Dismantling of AFDC began in the 1970s and continued during the 1980s as part of the Reagan Administration’s “economic recovery plan.” Exploiting its negative public attention and focusing on the moral deficiencies of its recipients, AFDC was portrayed as a waste of money for undeserving women and a drain on the economy. Armed with public support to force “morality” on poor women, changes to welfare resulted in stricter eligibility requirements, decreases in benefits, and funding cuts of other social programs. In concert with its belief in a decentralized government, the Republicandominated Congress passed the Family Support Act in 1988, which encouraged states to create their own welfare-to-work programs and began to shift the focus of AFDC from a government program that provided single mothers the ability to stay home with their children to one that mandated paid work. This change in social policy set in motion the devolution of welfare as the federal government’s safety net for the poor to a state-run, work-based program that encouraged participation in the paid-labor market outside the home. History of feminist activism around welfare issues Women from all classes and races have been involved in social change movements since the founding of the United States. In the 1800s, white middle-class women’s participation was primarily through charitable organizations or religious-affiliated groups. After the Civil War, these women were primarily active in issues relating to temperance and suffrage. With access to education, yet excluded from careers in academia, business and other professions, many white middle-class women focused on equal treatment, primarily through suffrage. Still others, known today as “maternalists,” focused on securing distinctive protections for working women and mothers. These social reformers often staffed settlements houses, were active in trade unions, and provided research, lobbying and community organizing. During the 1920s, many of these women directly supported New Deal programs and some worked in FDR’s administration. During this time, middle-class African-American women were also civically engaged, although their energies were focused on increasing resources to thousands of emancipated but impoverished former slaves. With an increasing urban, poor, powerless, and segregated black population, almost every black woman’s organization was dedicated to alleviating one or more of these social ills. By the early 1900s, black women were organizing around similar issues as their white counterparts, but with fewer resources and political connections. These organizations focused on enacting women’s suffrage, working in settlement houses, and supporting the New Deal reforms, in addition to eradicating racism. 4

Poor and working class women also have roots in social reform and organizing efforts. These women, mainly young and immigrant, were active in labor and trade associations and often participated in efforts to demand higher wages and better working conditions. Engaged in collective action in their communities, these women routinely organized strikes and boycotts, demanding government action on issues ranging from a “living wage” to maternal and child healthcare programs. While African-American organizations routinely held similar actions in black communities, they were still segregated from the mainstream labor movement. However, white women fared better in their coalitions; in 1928, the trade unions and women’s organizations united, forming the National Women’s Trade Union League. The 1960s and 70s brought about a new wave of activism. With the loosening of cultural mores and the peace movement stemming from the Vietnam War growing stronger, women across racial and class lines began mobilizing. However, with Americans still segregated, black and white women, for the most part, organized separately (Roth 2004). The women’s liberation movement, not surprisingly, sparked widespread activism among white middle-class women. With the emergence of feminism, these women began forming organizations of their own, such as the National Organization for Women (NOW) and the National Women’s Political Caucus. While the members of these organizations were predominantly white, they were not exclusively white. Thus, these organizations typically addressed issues of importance to white, middle-class women, such as workforce protections for women, equality in the workplace, and reproductive freedom, addressing the issue of poverty peripherally. Women who joined these organizations typically equated women’s liberation with access to paid labor and abortion rights, issues which proved to resonate the most effectively with these women. Thus, this category of women and their philosophy of women’s liberation shaped the goals and agendas of mainstream feminist organizations. During this time period, black women’s activism was also increasing. Facing the dual oppression of sexism and racism, and often marginalized by white women’s organizing efforts and ignored by the male-dominated Black Liberation Movement, black feminists formed their own organizations such as the National Black Feminist Organization (NBFO) and Black Women Organized for Action. The NBFO emerged from meetings held among black women at the NOW New York offices in 1973. Formed to address the discrimination faced by black women due to their race and gender, the group’s statement of purpose read, “We, not white men or black men, must define our self-image as black women and not fall into the mistake of being placed on the pedestal which is even being rejected by white women” (NBFO 2004). Influenced by both the women’s movement and the civil rights movement, black feminists, often adopting the label “womanists,” participated in demonstrations, boycotts, and massive marches, drawing the public’s attention to the effects of racism, sexism, and classism in American society.

5

Concurrently, although not often collectively, working-class women and poor women, who were disproportionately immigrants and women of color, began organizing on a local level, addressing community issues such as school and hospital closings, access to social services, and public safety. They also began addressing welfare, reframing the issue as a right not a privilege. Throughout the 1960s, aided by the atmosphere created by the civil rights and women’s rights movements and the War on Poverty, community welfare rights organizations began forming and the underpinnings of a national movement were underway. As the American public’s attention turned to reviving the economy, the 1970s saw a resurgence of welfare rights activism. Spearheading this new wave of welfare activism was the National Welfare Rights Organization (NRWO). Created in the tradition of the civil rights movement, its founding members were predominantly black men and women. However, as welfare rights gained momentum, increasing numbers of poor white women became active in the movement. Primarily affected by divorce and falling wages, influenced by the women’s liberation movement, and perhaps because mainstream feminist organizations were not explicitly organizing around welfare issues, these women helped define the new welfare rights movement. By the late 1970s, due to the increasing numbers of their members affected, mainstream feminist organizations began taking a more active role in welfare activism, forming loose coalitions with NRWO and other welfare rights organizations. However, disagreements between the white feminist organizations and the black welfare rights activists emerged. Because women in the mainstream feminist organizations viewed women’s liberation in terms of access and equality in the paid-labor market, they tended to support incentives and protections for women working outside of the home. Conversely, welfare rights activists saw welfare’s work “incentives” as forced labor that prevented women from choosing where to work—inside or outside of the home. Throughout the 1980s and 90s, when the federal government and the states were making dramatic changes to welfare programs and a strong movement was sorely needed to mobilize American women, feminist organizations and welfare rights groups struggled to overcome their historical divisions, compounded by the effects of race and class. History of NOW and President Patricia Ireland The National Organization for Women (NOW) formed as a direct result of the women’s movement of the 1960s and the second wave of feminism. In 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act (CRA). This landmark piece of legislation not only addressed racial discrimination, but also included sex discrimination in employment. After its passage, complaints by women of unfair employment practices flooded the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged with enforcing the CRA, but the EEOC leadership passively ignored these complaints, placing a higher priority on racial discrimination. Recognizing how successful the African-American lobby had been in getting their voices 6

heard, feminists began to realize the benefits of a large, formal organization. In June of 1966, at the Third National Conference of the Commission on the Status of Women held in Washington, DC, twenty-seven women and one man formally established the National Organization for Women. That October, three hundred activists attended NOW’s first meeting and elected feminist author and icon, Betty Freidan, NOW’s first president. During its formative years, NOW created an official statement of purpose that remains the same today: “to take action to bring women into the full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men” (NOW 2004). By 1971, NOW had a set of guiding principles that included a commitment to leading the women’s rights movement, being an activist rather than educational group, maintaining independence from government and political institutions, focusing on a range of feminist issues, and promoting grassroots participation. These principles reflect the connections the founders of NOW had with other social movements and their past experiences with political organizing. However, as the organization grew and new members with new experiences influenced the organization, NOW found its focus and tactics being transformed. Additionally, as the women’s movement gained momentum and more groups formed, NOW was forced to compete with a younger, more radical cohort. In an attempt to remain a leader and relevant in the women’s movement, the leaders of NOW realized the importance of creating a visionary view of women’s rights in order to continue to grow and exert influence in years to come. NOW’s membership dramatically increased from about 1,000 members in 1967 to roughly 40,000 in 1970 (Chappell 2002). By the 1990s, NOW had more than 600 local chapters and half a million members. The members of NOW reflect its origins—mainly white, middle class, collegeeducated women. However, over the last two decades, the leaders of NOW have emphasized diversification, instituting an affirmative action policy in 1980. Currently, people of color make up 50% of NOW’s executive officers, nearly one-third of the organization’s national board, and one-quarter of staff (NOW 2004). Reflective of the changes in the political landscape and the priorities of members throughout the past four decades, NOW currently has five official priorities: passing the Equal Rights Amendment, opposing racism, advocating for reproductive rights and access to abortion, supporting lesbian and gay rights, and eradicating violence against women (NOW 2004). Additionally, NOW has adopted more than a dozen resolutions and has taken action on a range of feminist causes (NOW 2004). Since its inception, the leaders and members of NOW have struggled to balance their role in the women’s movement as well as in the political arena. NOW has paid great attention to engaging women in the feminist movement through direct acts such as picketing, rallies, letter-writing, and sit-ins. These actions serve to attract public attention to specific issues and are used as recruitment tools to draw women 7

into the organization. However, early on, NOW leaders realized that their success in transforming the lives of women depended on the full political participation of women, particularly as elected officials. It soon became apparent that their consciousness-raising tactics served no good if they did not have allies in the various levels of government to actually introduce new legislation and change old laws. Thus, NOW joined forces with the National Women’s Political Caucus to help train, recruit, and elect women to all levels of government and eventually created their own political action committee, NOWPAC, in 1977. NOW also applied pressure on the political parties to adopt a women’s rights plank and began forging relationships with elected officials in both parties. However, this shift to working within the system was not universally agreed upon in NOW. Many activists did not want to be too closely associated with either party, worried this would jeopardize NOW’s ability to agitate from outside the mainstream political system. As NOW grew in numbers and resources, it continued to struggle with this delicate balance between applying pressure from the outside by mobilizing the grassroots and working within the mainstream political institutions to advocate for legislative change. NOW’s President, Patricia Ireland, 1991-2001 During the 1990s, when the debate surrounding welfare programs heated up, Patricia Ireland served as NOW’s president. Elected in 1991, she had held previous national office as treasurer and vicepresident. Ireland’s relationship with NOW began in the 1960s, when she was working as a flight attendant and learned that her husband was not covered under her dental plan, but that wives were covered on male employees’ plans. She contacted her local NOW chapter in Dade County, Florida, who helped her win a lawsuit against the airline, which subsequently reversed its biased policy in 1969. With a newfound appreciation of the power of legal action, Ireland enrolled in law school, earning her law degree in 1975. While working at a large law firm, she became deeply involved in the campaign to pass the ERA during the 1970s and the abortion right’s movement of the 1980s. After twelve years as Florida NOW’s pro-bono attorney, she moved to Washington, DC, in 1987 to serve as NOW’s national treasurer and a few years later was elected NOW’s ninth president. Ireland’s term followed that of Molly Yard, a forthright woman who took the reins of NOW at the age of 75. Yard’s outspoken personality had a polarizing effect on NOW’s membership; she won her presidential bid with only 54% of the vote and lasted just one term, from 1987-1991 (Sawyer 1990). In addition to her widespread popularity, Ireland’s appearance also differed from her predecessor’s; Ireland looked the part of a Washington lawyer, wearing dark, tailored suits with a hairstyle to match—a far cry from the older Yard who rarely smiled and was often described as “grandmotherly” (Gross 1992). Despite her popularity, Ireland’s term was not without scandal. Early in her presidency, details about her personal life were made public, causing a bit of a stir for the leaders and members of NOW. Insiders revealed that Ireland, who was still married, also had a female partner in DC. Many NOW 8

activists felt this information further fed into the stereotype that all feminists were gay and that NOW was dominated by lesbianism. Other NOW members applauded Ireland and her ability to “be all things to all people” and appeal to women across the spectrum (Gross 1992). Still other members of NOW disapproved of the heterosexual privilege Ireland enjoyed and her refusal to be labeled lesbian or bisexual. While debating how much NOW should support lesbian and gay rights was not a new issue for NOW and other feminist organizations, the latest form this discussion took surprised many at NOW and within the feminist community at large. Disputes within NOW also occurred regarding the organization’s strategic decisions: specifically if, and how, to play the inside/outside game in Washington. NOW’s Board of Directors cut short the term of Judy Goldsmith (1982-1985), the president who preceded Molly Yard, due to her close ties to the Democratic party and her early endorsement of Walter Mondale in the 1984 presidential election. Many NOW activists felt that Goldsmith’s relationship with the Mondale campaign jeopardized NOW’s ability to pressure Mondale to take firm stances on women’s issues. Additionally, while Goldsmith was instrumental in securing the vice-presidential spot for Geraldine Ferraro, Mondale essentially ignored feminist causes during his campaign and Ferraro was encouraged to play down her connections to the women’s movement. Moreover, many political pundits blamed Mondale’s loss on his catering to feminists and his ties to the women’s movement. Goldsmith’s enthusiasm for national party politics seemed to signal to NOW members the diminishing importance of the grassroots and an explicit disregard for one of NOW’s founding principals of political independence. NOW members were anxious to see how Ireland would negotiate this delicate balance. NOW and welfare rights Like other liberal feminist organizations, NOW has had a tenuous relationship with the welfare rights movement. During the 1970s, as the welfare rights movement grew stronger and more visible, NOW was slow to enter the movement and energize its members in the plight of poor women and women of color. Although the leaders of the NOW were keenly aware of the connections of poverty, race, and gender, this did not come intuitively to all NOW members. Due to its membership demographics— predominantly white, middle-class, well-educated women—welfare did not directly bear on the lives of these women. In fact, NOW’s poverty activists had difficulty inciting interest among general members and planners of the 1970 national conference forgot to schedule a poverty workshop. Recognizing the need for a more public national campaign, NOW’s leadership deemed 1973 “NOW’s Action Year Against Poverty,” hoping to inspire its members to hold rallies, protests, sit-ins, and other public acts intended to increase attention to poverty issues. Disappointingly, this only produced twelve actions, a mere ten percent of that year’s total (Chappell 2002).

9

During the 1980s, under the Reagan Administration, the welfare rights movement revived. Facing a new wave of targeted assaults, welfare rights groups across the nation collaborated. However, NOW had committed most of its resources in the battle to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. By 1982, the ERA had passed both the House and Senate and fell only three states short of ratification. NOW was instrumental in this campaign and dedicated much time, resources, and political capital in advancing its passage. The Reagan Administration also brought with it new attacks on abortion rights. NOW members, many who became feminists during the fight to legalize abortion, saw these threats as most pertinent to their lives and thus dedicated their energies to saving Roe v. Wade. However, in the early 1990s, with a presidential election on the horizon, welfare reform being debated at the national level, and a revived welfare rights movement, NOW was faced with how to combat these latest political forces committed to altering welfare policy and potentially jeopardizing the economic security of thousands of poor women and children. But I thought Clinton was a feminist By the 1990s, the need to reform welfare was a popular notion. Even welfare’s strongest supporters, including liberals and feminists, often criticized AFDC for its intrusive enforcement policies, coercive mandates, and failure to provide women with true economic security. Many scholars and activists believed that the hostility to welfare recipients, the majority of whom were white, resulted from racism, as welfare’s opponents continually cast recipients as undeserving black women. With the increasing political cache tied to reforming welfare, it should have come as no surprise that a 1992 presidential candidate ran on the platform to “end welfare as we know it.” However, the fact that Bill Clinton, the Democratic nominee, ran on this platform disturbed many liberals and, most of all, leaders in the feminist movement. Ireland, and other NOW officers, felt an uneasiness about candidate Clinton from the beginning, “We had great concerns about a number of his positions, including ‘ending welfare as we know it.’ Clearly, he did not mean he intended to end poverty as we know it.”1 Although Clinton ran for president with the explicit goal of reforming welfare, women, and feminists alike, voted for him in droves, contributing to his large margin of victory. Many female candidates, benefiting from presidential coattails, also won Congressional elections, hailing 1992 as “The Year of the Woman.” To be fair, Clinton was the most woman-friendly presidential candidate feminists had ever seen, advocating for abortion rights, equality for women in the workplace, higher funding for breast cancer research, and passage of the Violence Against Women Act. He also appointed many women, especially black women, to high-profile offices. During his first two years in office, President Clinton and his administration introduced two landmark pieces of legislation; one created a federal health care program and the other proposed 1

All quotations from Patricia Ireland are from a phone conversation with author, November 2, 2004.

10

significant changes to the current welfare program. The welfare reform plan included time limits, increased funding for education and job training, a limited work program, increased restrictions on teen parents and legal immigrants, expanded child care programs, and expanded child support enforcements. After he failed to garner public and Congressional support for national health care, Republicans linked his welfare proposal to health care and defeated it as well. However, after the Republican sweep in the 1994 Congressional elections—successfully regaining control of both houses of Congress—the Republican leadership created their own, more draconian welfare legislation that shifted the focus from helping women enter the paid-labor market towards work requirements (recipients must demonstrate they are attempting to find paid work and must participate in work programs), time limits (a five-year cap on cash benefits), family caps (denying an increase in benefits after the birth of additional children), curbing “illegitimacy” (children born to unwed women), increasing “personal responsibility,” and decreasing government spending. It also changed the funding structure of AFDC from an entitlement-based program overseen by the federal government, and replaced it with a fixed-sum block grant program called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). Where before states had to abide by federally mandated eligibility requirements and set levels of assistance, states would now be free from these directives and provided the flexibility to create their own programs and rules. Additionally, where before the federal government provided needs-based funding to the states, now the states would receive (decreased) funding in the form of a block-grant. President Clinton vetoed this legislation twice, stating that the Republicans failed to address the lack of jobs available for welfare recipients pushed off the rolls and that the new program would be too perilous for poor children. However, as the 1996 presidential election approached and polls revealed that the majority of Americans favored welfare reform, Clinton recognized the political advantage that would be gained by making good on his 1992 campaign promise. The feminist landscape During his first term, President Clinton enjoyed a high approval rating across the political spectrum. Indeed, President Clinton won popularity with the American public, and the 1992 election, with his moderate stances on economic issues such as welfare reform. As a centrist Democrat and part of the Democratic Leadership Council (an emerging group of conservative Democrats), Clinton attained widespread popularity with both Democrats and centrist Republicans. During this time, Clinton also enjoyed a fairly amiable relationship with the leaders of mainstream feminist organizations. He championed abortion rights, twice vetoing so-called “partial birth abortion” bills and reversed the global and domestic gag rule. He also signed the Violence Against Women Act into law and increased funding for breast cancer research. Additionally, he was a strong supporter of protections and equal rights for women in the workplace, signing into law the Family and 11

Medical Leave Act and increasing the minimum wage, which disproportionately benefits women who are the majority of minimum wage earners. Indeed, after the Reagan and Bush years, the leaders and members of feminist organizations were ecstatic to have a pro-choice, feminist-minded president in office (and a self-proclaimed feminist as First Lady). Ireland recalled, It was often very difficult to keep our allies to hold the president accountable….A lot of feminists, particularly in the pro-choice movement, breathed a sigh of relief [after President Clinton was elected], as if everything was alright again….After being pushed out during the Reagan and Bush years, some were so excited just to be inside [the White House]. They were gushing. Undeniably, feminist leaders across issues enjoyed more access to the White House than ever before. Additionally, with the influx of female members of Congress during the 1992 elections, women’s organizations felt they had allies in Congress to help advance their legislative priorities, block harmful legislation, and give voice to women’s concerns and priorities. Thus, with the 1996 election on the horizon, and considering their alternative, Senator Bob Dole, feminists felt their allegiances must lie with Clinton and the Democrats, with some hope of advancing other feminist causes during the next administration. Welfare rights activists were not so easily pacified. Since Congress had first introduced welfare reform legislation, welfare rights groups had been organizing feverishly to defeat the measure and any candidate supportive of it. The recently resurrected National Welfare Rights Union, formerly the National Welfare Rights Organization, mobilized their members, developing a four-pronged strategy focused on organizing, lobbying, litigation, and pubic relations. While this strategy resulted from lessons learned during the 1970s and 1980s, this new cohort of activists also promoted their identities as mothers, placing a high priority on providing for the needs of their children. They demanded that social policy address the value of women’s unpaid labor in the home and assist women in carrying out their domestic responsibilities. They emphasized the positive effects on children when mothers did not enter the paid labor force and worked inside the home. But mainstream feminist organizations, such as NOW— organizations that wield the most power on Capitol Hill, who have allies in the White House, and who helped elect the small number of female members of Congress—were hesitant to rally around these “traditional” views of women and motherhood, views they had been working to breakdown. In addition to their commitment to expanding access to the paid-labor market and protecting reproductive rights, NOW members were cautious to become engaged in a large-scale effort around the issue of welfare. The NOW officers, led by Ireland, met to discuss the latest welfare bill. It had passed both houses of Congress and was on President Clinton’s desk. With the 1996 election on the horizon and information from their White House allies, they knew the President was considering signing it. Ireland and the leaders of NOW understood they could influence the welfare debate and have an effect—as they 12

had on “partial birth abortion” legislation earlier—if they could mobilize their members. But could they forge ahead when they knew many of their members favored welfare reform? Could they run an effective campaign without the full support of their army of grassroots activists? Ireland pondered, “I am not afraid to take a stand [on an issue]; even if I think it is unpopular….But if I cannot even convince the members in my own organization, how can I convince [other] people?”

13

The Welfare of Feminism: Struggle in the Midst of Reform Epilogue When Congress introduced the first version, Patricia Ireland and the leaders of the National Organization for Women (NOW) waged a full-scale campaign against welfare reform and its supporters. Ireland used a successful inside/outside political strategy. She applied political pressure from the outside by mobilizing grassroots activists and drawing public attention to a particular issue while simultaneously working within the mainstream political establishment. Ireland used NOW’s political capital and allies in the White House and in Congress to gain access to key political decision-makers, rallied NOW’s grassroots activists and tapped into NOW’s political resources. Throughout the early 1990s, Ireland and other NOW officers committed the organization’s energies and resources to advocate for all women, including the rights of poor women and women of color. The strong leadership of Ireland deserves the credit for this commitment of NOW’s national leadership to address the concerns of poor women. “[We had an] incredible focus on internal education [on welfare issues], which I was surprised we had to do. We had to clean house inside the organization.” This internal education also revealed the personal connections many leaders of NOW had with poverty issues: We also discovered [that some staff] had at some point in their lives been on public assistance or had received some sort of government support. Karen Johnson (then NOW’s Membership Vice President) grew up on welfare. Other NOW leaders grew up poor. This was one of those issues that women felt guilty about if they had lived in poverty. Employing her inside strategy, Ireland and other NOW leaders met with Clinton Administration officials and allies in Congress, applying political pressure to strip the new welfare reform legislation of the most punitive provisions, including family caps and time limits. While these efforts proved ineffective, they were successful in implementing the Family Violence Option, ensuring that states screen for domestic violence, provide appropriate services, and waive work requirements that would force women off welfare and into abusive relationships. Gearing up for the 1996 elections, Ireland and other NOW leaders also met with Clinton campaign staff with the message, “Although our local activists may not vote for Bob Dole, we won’t be eager to turn out to vote for Bill Clinton if he signs this bill. President Clinton must stand for something besides re-election” (NOW 1996). NOW also sent a strong message to Congressional candidates, “NOW political activists refuse to be taken for granted. We will only work for candidates who voted against this bill” (NOW 1996).

14

Employing her outside strategy, Ireland whole-heartedly denounced the Personal Responsibility Act and its supporters, including President Clinton. Leading a full-scale public campaign supporting universal welfare rights, Ireland and other NOW leaders participated in hunger strikes, protested in front of the White House, organized a national march, and publicly criticized Clinton and other members of Congress who backed welfare reform. Despite support from the NOW leadership and other feminist organizations “inside the beltway,” this shift to focusing on welfare rights as part of economic security for all women in addition to securing protections and equality for women already in the paid-labor force was not a priority for all of NOW’s members. As Ireland recalled, “We found that there was an extraordinary need to educate our members [around poverty issues].... People like to live in a state of denial; they don’t want to imagine that they could fall into a situation of poverty, same with violence. ‘Oh, it can’t happen to me.’ So they didn’t want to hear about how many women were living in poverty.” In addition to educating NOW’s members, Ireland vigorously emphasized NOW’s engagement in the welfare reform debate and consciously formed coalitions with the National Welfare Rights Union (NWRU) and other welfare rights organizations. In 1992, NOW participated in NWRU’s Up and Out of Poverty Now! Campaign and Ireland invited NWRU’s President, Marian Kramer, to address NOW’s national conference. Additionally, Ireland hired a former NWRU leader as a NOW organizer, participated in acts of civil disobedience, and encouraged local NOW chapters to form coalitions with local welfare rights organizations. However, as Ireland recalled, these partnerships did not evolve smoothly, “[These coalitions] did not begin with a great indication of success. There was a great deal of anger from the poor women that the feminists in general had come to this issue late. One of the women [at the march] asked, ‘Where were you when our children were cold and hungry?’” Even today, some critics within the feminist movement still wonder if NOW failed to be more successful because of their late entrance into the debate and the lack of grassroots support from their members. Despite the efforts of welfare rights activists, civil rights groups, and women’s organizations, on August 22, 1996, President Clinton signed the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996” (PRWORA) into law, severely changing welfare and affecting millions of poor women and children in the United States. The program Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), changing its structure from an entitlement-based program overseen by the federal government to a fixed-sum block grant program run by the states. Funding for TANF was set to expire in 2002; however, as of February 2005, reauthorization had not yet occurred. With reauthorization still on the horizon, welfare rights activists, civil rights groups, and women’s organizations have the opportunity to influence the debate and perhaps address some of the most punitive aspects of TANF. The coalitions formed during the 1990s have been maintained, and some feel they are 15

even stronger. But, as Ireland knows, it takes a strong and dedicated leader to continue the discussion and mobilize the grassroots: “[NOW] members need to organize around this issue. The members need to make this a priority and we need to force our leaders to recognize this issue.” However, political context is critical and Americans’ minds, including feminists’, are currently elsewhere, “I fear that some of [the momentum] has faded. Especially with the election and the war, people are overlooking that the wage gap and the wealth gap have widened.”

16

Bibliography Abramovitz, Mimi. 2000. Under Attack, Fighting Back: Women and Welfare in the United States. New York: Monthly Review Press. Barakso, Maryann. 2004. Governing NOW: Grassroots Activism in the National Organization for Women. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Brush, Lisa. 2003. “Impacts of Welfare Reform.” Race, Gender, and Class. 10(3): 173+. Chappell, Melissa. 2002. “Rethinking Women’s Politics in the 1970s: the League of Women Voters and the National Organization for Women Confront Poverty.” Journal of Women’s History 13(4): 155+. Conniff, Ruth. 1999. “The Progressive Interview: Patricia Ireland.” The Progressive, August. Retrieved on October 30, 2004 from The Progressive web site: http://www.progressive.org/int899.htm. Gonnerman, Jennifer. 1997. “Dirty Dancing: It was Another Two-Party Tango, and Feminists did Not Lead.” On The Issues 6(1): 26+. Gross, Judy. 1992. “Does She Speak for Today’s Women? Patricia Ireland, President of NOW.” The New York Times, March 1. Kornbluh, Felicia. 1996. “Feminists and the Welfare Debate: Too Little? Too Late?” Dollars and Sense: The Magazine of Economic Justice November. Mandell, Betty Reid. 1996. “Women and Welfare, Part One.” NWSA Journal 8(2): 107-120. Mink, Gwendolyn. 1998. “The Lady and the Tramp (II): Feminist Welfare Politics, Poor Single Mothers, and the Challenge of Welfare Justice.” Feminist Studies 24(1): 55+. ____1998. “Feminists, Welfare Reform, and Welfare Justice.” Social Justice 25(1). National Black Feminist Organization Collection. 2004. Retrieved January 23, 2005 from the University of Illinois at Chicago website: http://www.uic.edu/depts/lib/specialcoll/services/rjd/findingaids/NBFOb.html. National Organization for Women. 1996. “NOW, Allies Step up Heat over Welfare Bill.” National Organization for Women, August. Retrieved November 11, 2004 from the NOW web site: http://www.now.org/press/08-96/08-01-96.html. ____ 2004. “The History of the National Organization for Women.” Retrieved on October 30, 2004 from the NOW web site: http://www.now.org/history/history.html. Pearce, Diana. 1995. “Welfare, ‘Reform,’ and Women.” NCJW Journal 18(1): 4+. Roth, Benita. 2004. Separate Roads to Feminism: Black, Chicana and White Feminist Movements in America’s Second Wave. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sawyer, Robin. 1990. “NOW’s National Conference.” Off Our Backs 20(8): 4.

17

Shalom, Stephen and Joanne Landy. 2001. “Feminism Today: An Interview with Gwendolyn Mink.” Retrieved on October 14, 2004 from the New Politics web site: http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue31/mink31.htm. Williams, Marjorie. 1987. “Women and the Tides of Change; Conclaves in Washington and San Diego Offer Reflections on a Decade’s Evolution.” The Washington Post, November 19. Winston, Pam. 1996. “President Clinton Abolishes Welfare as We Know It.” Off Our Backs 26(9): 14+.

18

The Welfare of Feminism: Struggle in the Midst of Reform Teaching Note Case summary During the 1990s, Congress passed three versions of legislation aimed at reforming the nation’s welfare program. This legislation, known as the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act” (PRWORA), would dramatically change welfare and affect millions of poor women and children in the United States. With the strong support of President Bill Clinton, this law would target the program Aid to Families with Dependant Children (AFDC), replacing it with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which would impose time limits, strict work requirements, illegitimacy tests, marriage promotion programs and family caps. Welfare rights organizations and civil rights groups were organizing and looked to the feminist community for support. Patricia Ireland, President of the National Organization for Women (NOW), understood the importance of weighing in on such a critical issue and the resources NOW, with its stable funding base, large membership, and political connections, could bring the welfare debate. However, after a failed attempt by a fellow feminist organization to solicit support from NOW members, it became evident that not all of NOW’s members felt similarly. Ireland, faced with an unsupportive membership but personally committed to organizing on behalf of all women, struggles with how to proceed. Providing a historical framework of welfare programs, feminist organizing efforts around welfare issues, NOW’s historical role with welfare activism, and the significance of the political context of the time, the reader must weigh all the factors influencing Ireland’s decision and decide how best to proceed. Objectives of the case This case was written to help students understand the history of welfare programs in the United States, how the historical context of the Progressive Era influenced the program’s scope and reputation, and how this foundation endured into the 21st century, influencing the current debate surrounding welfare and reforming social programs. Students will explore how modern feminist political strategy around a polarizing issue such as welfare reform is influenced by feminism’s historical roots, the internecine divisions within feminism, and the political climate of the time. Students will also have the opportunity to discuss the role of coalition-building in feminist organizing and evaluate successful and unsuccessful organizing efforts across lines of class, race, ethnicity, age, and sexuality. Through the lens of Patricia Ireland at NOW, students will explore the various factors that affect Ireland’s decision to take action at a national level on a highly polarizing issue, including the organization’s historical origins, membership demographics, the personal beliefs of NOW’s leaders, the

19

role of a charismatic leader such as Patricia Ireland, coalition-building efforts, access to political decisionmakers, and careful consideration of current political relationships. Other issues the case touches upon include the role of social movements and how feminism has affected and been affected by various social movements in the United States, the Civil Rights Act and the EEOC, and devolution and its impact on social policy. Key Issues ● Progressive Era reformers ● History of feminism ● History of modern welfare state ● Welfare reform ● Social policy ● Social movements ● Feminist organizations ● Feminist strategy Discussion questions 1. What role have feminist organizations played in social movements and, conversely, how have various social movements affected them? 2. How do class, race, ethnicity, age, and sexuality help construct differences among women, specifically in women’s organizing efforts? 3. What is the role of coalition-building in feminist organizing? Can coalition-building across lines of class, race, ethnicity, age, and sexuality be successful? How? What are some recent examples of successful coalition efforts in the women’s movement? 4. How was welfare politicized in the 1980s? How did this change during the campaign to reform welfare in the 1990s? What is devolution? How has the trend towards devolution affected social policy? 5. How should we measure welfare reform’s success? How can success be measured? Why were not alleviating poverty and the impacts of welfare reform salient campaign issues in 2004? What does this reveal about politicians’ and the American public’s view of poverty and programs designed to help the impoverished? 6. How does this case illustrate NOW’s political strategy? Can an organization successfully balance an inside/outside strategy? Would NOW be more successful only employing one of these strategies? Is one approach more feminist than another? 7. How did the debate around welfare reform reveal the contradictions within feminism? What are these contradictions? Can they be resolved? If so, how?

20

9. What lessons do you think feminists learned through the welfare reform debate? Is it fair to criticize feminists regarding their organizing efforts around welfare reform? Is internecine dissidence beneficial and even necessary in the feminist movement? Or does it cause more harm and ultimately jeopardize organizational efforts and successful results? Questions for further consideration 1. How did the first wave of feminism and the struggle for suffrage contribute to the historical divisions between white and black feminists? How did these divisions manifest themselves in the second wave of feminism? Third wave? 2. How did the campaign to pass the Equal Rights Amendment affect feminist coalition-building? How did the ERA campaign contribute to the historical divisions between white and black feminists? Is the ERA still relevant today? Should feminists continue to work towards passage of the ERA? 3. What does it mean that welfare is a “gendered institution”? What is the “feminization of poverty” and how did it relate to the welfare reform debate? 4. Were women’s and poor people’s voices heard during welfare reform hearings? What role did female members of Congress play? How did their social status and identification to the second wave of feminism contribute to their view of welfare reform? 5. Did feminists learn from their mistakes in the 1990s? How are they mobilizing around reauthorization? Has their strategy changed? Should it? For further reading Abramovitz, Mimi. 2000. Under Attack, Fighting Back: Women and Welfare in the United States. New York: Monthly Review Press. Deparle, Jason. 2004. American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation’s Drive to End Welfare. New York: Viking Press. Evans, Sara. 2003. Tidal Wave: How Women Changed America at Century’s End. Gordon, Linda. 1994. Pitied But Not Entitled: Single Mothers and the History of Welfare, 1890-1935. New York: The Free Press.

21