Guiliani's workfare, a question about its "success"

I have been discussing the NY workfare with a Repub and he is talking about how many people got off welfare due to the workfare program, thanks to Guiliani. Now I know better than to believe there is a causation, or even a correlation, but where can I get stats to show how the program was not a success? Such as, the number of people who were taken off the rolls due to workfare, but ended up back on rolls because workfare is not a viable solution to poverty? Make sense? Or, were the income guidelines lowered so that more people were removed, just to create the belief that workfare was working?

Thank you so much,

jessica

The workfare program in NYC has been used as an excuse to impede people from pursuing higher education. I saw an article about it in the village voice. The workfare program has also been used to get around worker's rights.

It had a bad side or two. For instance, in order to KEEP welfare benefits, mothers had to pay money they didn't have to put their children in daycare while they had to work 25-30 hours a week. These jobs were nonskilled, like picking up garbage, sweeping, etc. They got paid I think, minimum wage. The second thing that benefitted the city but hurt others was these jobs had belonged to civil servants, who received union (read, living) wages with benefits, which of course were eliminated and reassigned to the the workfare employees.

In short, workfare benefitted the city more than the people struggling in its economy: the win-win situation was either the city did not have to pay union wages and benefits or welfare benefits for women (whom the city overgeneralized and classified as those) who stayed at home, neglected their children, and kept having babies to get more welfare benefits.