The Maine Legislature is considering amendments to Maine's welfare system, administered mainly through Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) at the state level and General Assistance at the local level. Primary among the proposals offered in L.D. 254, "An Act to Enact a 5-Point Welfare Reform Program," are a 90-day residency requirement for General Assistance and a five-year lifetime limit on TANF benefits for adults.

It is important to put these proposals in context.

Maine has long been recognized for its ability to thoughtfully and sensibly meet the needs of its poorest and most vulnerable residents while avoiding a punitive approach. When federal welfare laws were overhauled 13 years ago, and included new work requirements for welfare recipients, Maine stood at the forefront for policies intended to help raise low-income families out of poverty. Those policies included our model "Parents as Scholars" program that helps parents gain access to higher education.

Maine also developed policies to help recipients find work and support their transition out of assistance. This investment has paid off not only for the families involved, but also for the state. According to Maine's Department of Health and Human Services, 85 percent of those assisted by Maine's temporary aid program since its inception in 1996 have not returned to the assistance rolls.

It appears that significantly more Maine families are making a permanent transition from welfare to work than in other states. This has happened despite the fact that there has been no increase in either the federal or state funding for Maine's aid program for more than a decade.

Today's efforts, though surely well-intentioned, diverge from Maine's success in providing a stable and humane approach to helping the state's neediest families and reducing state costs over time. Here's how:

* The 90-day residency requirement proposed for the General Assistance program. Its essential purpose is to provide immediate assistance for people in emergencies and to prevent very low-income people from becoming homeless or going hungry. Such a time-specific residency requirement is unconstitutional, since the United States Supreme Court has stated repeatedly that a durational residency requirement is generally unconstitutional if it deprives people of basic necessities of life (including health care, shelter and food).

The durational residency proposal is driven by a deep misconception that people flock to Maine in search of benefits. The truth is that health and human services data show that less than 1 percent of all recipients of assistance in 2007 came to Maine from another state.

* The five-year lifetime limit on benefits provided through Maine's Temporary Aid to Needy Families program. When welfare reforms were made in 1996, Maine adopted a flexible and humane response to limits on assistance. While imposing penalties on families in which a family member has not followed program rules, Maine continues to help families who face the most difficult barriers until they become self-sufficient.

Welfare reform, in Maine and nationally, resulted in a significant decrease in the number of families receiving assistance. Families who were able to leave the program, with the help of transitional supports such as child care, have done so. Today, health and human services data show that more than 70 percent of families receive temporary assistance for one year or less.

Families that continue to receive benefits for more than five years, however, are both very few and in very difficult circumstances.

They face multiple obstacles to self-sufficiency, including domestic violence, health problems and children with disabilities.

Human services data indicate that since 1996, only 1 percent of the more than 90,600 families served have received benefits longer than 60 months. National figures indicate that these families are 30 percent more likely to have children with disabilities. In addition, the rate of physical and mental health impairment among adults in these families is three times greater than among families who receive benefits for shorter periods of time. Many work, but don't earn enough to meet their basic needs.

Thus, the imposition of a strict five-year limit on already struggling families is only likely to lead to further homelessness, hunger and poverty.

The number of Maine families receiving assistance for more than five years is well within the window allowed by federal law, thus Maine is able to support these families with federal funds. Moreover, Maine's approach to time limits is "middle of the road" compared to other New England states.

Although Maine's welfare programs certainly can be improved, punitive measures that prevent the programs from ensuring that the emergency as well as long-term needs of our poorest families are met do not take us in the right direction.

Instead, Maine's welfare programs should continue to strive to help those who can leave the program do so because they are able to achieve self-sufficiency, not because of an arbitrary time limit.

Rebekah Smith is an attorney and policy fellow at the University of Maine's Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center.