RIOT AFTERMATH : Riots Renew Debate on Anti-Poverty Work : Assistance: Liberals say the unrest shows the need for new government programs. Conservatives say the policies waste money and foster dependence.

The questions blaze anew in the wake of last week’s rioting in Los Angeles: Has the federal government done enough to combat poverty in the nation’s inner cities? Have its efforts helped--or hurt, as some critics say?

The debate already has been drawn: Liberals contend that the Los Angeles riots show that programs have fallen behind, and they demand that the government launch a new “domestic Marshall Plan,” patterned after the post-World War II recovery program, to help inner-city residents overcome their economic plight.

Conservatives argue that the programs are a waste of money and worsen the situation by forcing people to stay on the dole and by imbuing them with a “welfare mentality” that encourages the breakup of families and a push toward crime.

But a closer look at the federal government’s efforts in recent years shows a decidedly mixed performance, and a few surprises on both sides:

* While total federal spending on the poor slowed substantially in the mid-1980s, it has soared again in the past few years--partly because of programs to combat the effects of the recession, but also as a result of court rulings and congressional action to broaden the number of people covered by these programs.

* Despite all the rhetoric about ending the Great Society programs of the ‘60s, the major cutbacks during the last 12 years have involved a handful of programs that all sides agreed were not working: the public service jobs of the 1970s, revenue-sharing and urban development action grants.

* The narrowing of inner-city job opportunities in recent years has had more to do with the transformation of the American economy--to services and high technology--and with the recent recession than with any changes in the government’s efforts to combat poverty.

* Although some policies, such as eligibility rules for welfare payments, clearly discourage job-holding and family cohesiveness, analysts say most federal programs have achieved their limited goals--that is, they have provided the poor with added cash, food or services.

* Although statistics show that the federal effort has not increased the incomes of the poor significantly, experts argue that it has boosted their overall living standards--by providing goods and services, such as food and medical care, that they otherwise could not buy.

* Despite the huge outlay of federal money, the government’s programs fall short of serving all of those in need, and do not really aim at providing the economic incentives needed--and the changes in individuals’ behavior--to secure jobs in inner-city areas.

Gary Burtless, a Brookings Institution economist, warns that assessing the impact of federal anti-poverty programs is a complicated venture at best.

“Most programs for the poor achieve their objectives to at least a limited degree,” Burtless said. “None of (them) achieves spectacular results--but spectacular results are, of course, difficult to achieve.”

The effort is substantial. Washington provides more than $240 billion in grants and other subsidies under 75 programs, ranging from cash payments to food stamps and Medicaid. It also offers aid for education and job training.

Perhaps the most widely known--and criticized--is the welfare category called Aid to Families With Dependent Children, which provides cash payments, primarily to single women with low incomes who also serve as heads of household.

Also providing extra income are the Earned Income Tax Credit, which provides a cash payment to working poor families with children, and the Supplemental Security Income program, which yields additional payments for the aged and disabled.

A second category of programs provides poor people with vouchers for the purchase of goods or services--such as food stamps to help buy groceries, Medicaid to pay physician and hospital bills, and housing and energy aid. All, like the welfare program, are limited to the poor.

There also are about half a dozen programs to help finance education and training for children of poor families--from the Head Start program for preschool youngsters to targeted federal aid for elementary and high school children and federal loans for college students.

One of the myths about spending for anti-poverty efforts is the suggestion that it has been cut back severely from the Great Society days and that major Democratic programs all have been gutted either by Congress or the President.

In fact, government figures show that while spending on poverty programs did taper off in the mid-1980s, it has soared during the past three years. The government spends $240 billion on poverty programs, up 23% from the levels of fiscal 1989.

Part of the reason stems from the recession, which has left more people without jobs and made them eligible to receive welfare and other aid. But much of it also reflects actions by Congress and the courts, which have extended benefits to more people.

Figures published Tuesday by the Office of Management and Budget show that overall assistance for low-income families will have soared by 82% between fiscal 1989 and 1993--with Medicaid spending up 144%, welfare payments up 82% and outlays for food stamps up 64%.

The growth rate for other programs is almost as spectacular: Outlays for Supplemental Security Income will be up 71% from fiscal 1989; welfare, up 37%; earned income tax credits, up 37%; housing assistance, up 55%, and other income-security programs, up 26%. The Head Start budget is up 127%.

Just how well these programs have worked is a matter of perspective. Conservatives contend that welfare eligibility rules encourage the breakup of families and the birth of children out of wedlock, and also discourage poor people from taking jobs.

“Insofar as they make people dependent and have given them expectations that the federal government has been their permanent nanny, they have done more harm than good,” said Carl Horowitz, a policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

“They’ve given them the welfare mentality. That, in turn, leads to the crime mentality--’If you’re not getting enough, why not just take it?’ ” Horowitz argues that the same problems result from the food stamps program and other efforts. “It’s a dole,” he complained.

But Brookings’ Burtless counters that whatever their other problems, the programs have performed at least some fundamental functions--providing cash or goods and services to help keep poor families afloat.

“Public assistance succeeds in making families who would otherwise be destitute a little less destitute,” Burtless said. “Food stamps raise the food intake of people living in poor households. Medicaid improves poor families’ access to decent health care.”

There also is disagreement over the impact of such programs in helping the poor improve their income levels over the long term. Census Bureau figures show that despite the federal effort, 20.6% of Americans were below the poverty line in 1990, compared to 22.9% in 1983 and 14% in 1969. (A family of four with income of $13,400 or less is considered impoverished.)

But the figures fluctuate sharply according to economic conditions and do not take into account the effect of food stamps and Medicaid in improving the lot of the poor. As a result, analysts say, there is no easy way to measure the impact.

Still, critics say there are some serious gaps in programs. The regulations governing the AFDC program limit federal welfare payments largely to female heads of household, and other programs such as Medicaid are partly linked to AFDC.

As a result, Robert Moffitt, a Brown University poverty specialist, points out that only a few two-parent families receive any federal benefits at all, and only a relative few qualify for AFDC, food stamps or Medicaid.

At the same time, most analysts agree that existing federal programs designed to help prepare poor people for the job market have had a mixed effect, providing some marginal help in the case of single women, but--inexplicably--little for inner-city men.

Precisely how to respond to the problems highlighted by the Los Angeles riots is a matter of serious debate between liberals and conservatives. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has proposed a $35-billion aid program for cities, to be financed by federal funds.

At the same time, conservatives are promoting plans that they say are designed to create new job opportunities in the private sector and give poor people a bigger economic stake in their communities to encourage them to reduce their dependency on government grants.

Included in this category is a plan by Jack Kemp, secretary of the Housing and Urban Development Department, to create special urban enterprise zones, under which governments would reduce taxes and regulatory obstacles in inner-city neighborhoods in an effort to lure more industry.

Kemp also would invite tenants to help manage public housing projects in which they live, in an effort to prod them into taking better care of the facilities and in helping police the projects.

But no matter how much the past week’s rioting in Los Angeles may have mobilized support for boosting anti-poverty efforts, experts warn that prospects for alleviating the economic conditions in inner cities are almost universally dim.

For one thing, analysts say the constraints on the federal budget, which is heavily in deficit, are serious and are likely to preclude any major increase in federal spending on such programs.

And the need to provide at least some money for virtually every congressional district--considered by many to be a must for pushing such a measure through Congress--is apt to add significantly to the cost.

At the same time, Douglas J. Besharov, a poverty expert at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, cautions that hopes for inventing some sort of “magic bullet” to help overcome urban poverty are unlikely to be realized very soon.

“Most of the things that have been tried or proposed make a modest difference at best in the lives of the disadvantaged,” he said. “The fact is, we don’t know how to change the life course of impoverished individuals--although that isn’t to say that we shouldn’t try.”

What Besharov and many other poverty experts say is needed is a combination of existing programs that work, experimental plans designed to lure more businesses to inner cities, and new programs to change the attitudes--and actions--of poor people.