Report gives S.C. bad grade on welfare

According to the Heartland Institute, South Carolina isn't doing enough to keep people off of welfare. You can read their full report, but they gave the Palmetto State a grade of D overall, with a C- in anti-poverty success and a D+ in welfare reform policies.

So why did we get such a low grade? Well, if you look at the full report, the South Carolina profile is on page 46. It shows a slight decline in child poverty, but a slight rise in general poverty. In the end, S.C. ranked 34th in the study, which also included the District of Columbia.

The Post and Courier offers a more in-depth look at the Heartland Institute study, as well as examining how local operations feel on the issue.

From The Post and Courier:

A local nonprofit, HALOS, regularly sees how this hole in the state's safety net affects people, said Kim Clifton, executive director. HALOS works with social workers, churches and other groups to provide abused and neglected people with supplies and services, including those who might not qualify for welfare.

"Because of the lack of coordination and oversight, it's hit or miss in terms of who gets help," Clifton said, adding that although the state received an A for imposing work requirements, "we still have a child poverty rate that is extremely high, per the report."

Although, in the end, whether we should listen to the Heartland Institute is questionable: SourceWatch has them listed with some fairly unsavory tendencies, depending on your point of view.

From SourceWatch:

Heartland campaigns against what it refers to as "junk science"; supports "common-sense environmentalism", such as opposition to the the Kyoto protocol aimed at countering global warming and promoting genetically engineered crops and products; it supports the privatization of public services; it opposes tobacco control measure such as tobacco tax increases and denies the health effects of second-hand smoke; it supports the introduction of school vouchers;, and it promotes the deregulation of health care insurance.

So that's interesting ...

Filed in