Flawed but Promising Welfare Reform : Wilson’s plan rightly would change rules to help keep fathers in the home

Welfare rules have chased many a father from the home, but the explosion in fatherless homes was not what President Franklin Roosevelt intended when he pushed through the aid program 60 years ago. Back then, most fathers provided for their families and most mothers stayed at home with the children. When a young father, say a coal miner, died, his widow typically had no means of support. A welfare check was a compassionate government response.

But welfare eligibility guidelines evolved to require the absence of the father, under the rationale that if a father was present he should provide for his children. Unintended consequences of that policy were huge increases in single motherhood and poor fatherless families.

Out-of-wedlock births have become the norm on welfare rolls, and a growing trend in the general population. In California, nearly one out of three babies is born to a single mother. Though this development crosses racial and income lines, the percentage is highest among poor urban women.

Reversing this situation is a goal of Gov. Pete Wilson’s proposed welfare redesign. He wants a father in every home. His new welfare eligibility policy would allow fathers--married or unmarried--to remain in the home while the mother and children collect welfare benefits based on household income and the number of offspring under the roof. However, the aid wouldn’t go on forever. Cash grants would be phased out in two years for those parents best prepared to go to work, and in five years for those who required more schooling, job training or drug or alcohol treatment.

The governor is motivated in part by the staggering social costs involved. Poor children from single-parent homes are more likely than youngsters from two-parent families to drop out of school, end up in jail or later file for welfare themselves. They also are more likely to have children outside of marriage.

Finding remedies is a must. Unfortunately, Wilson’s welfare redesign, which would eliminate the traditional Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, would cut benefits again and too deeply. Sacramento should reject another round of punitive cuts and go on to debate the other parts of this plan.

The governor’s plan would require relaxed controls from Washington. These might not be forthcoming. President Clinton vetoed a federal welfare reform, designed primarily by congressional Republicans, on the justifiable ground that some of the changes would have been too tough on children. So at the federal level, it’s back to square one.

Welfare needs fixing. Gov. Wilson’s plan isn’t perfect, but allowing fathers to stay in the home is worth trying.