Wilson Welfare Proposals: Key Debate’s Starting Point

The ambitious welfare redesign unveiled by Gov. Pete Wilson in his budget address capitalizes on the new flexibility allowed by Washington and proposes several improvements over the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. But the plan also proposes several punitive elements, like a cut in benefits for recipients who are playing by the rules and a tighter time limit for new recipients, who can receive aid for only a year before going to work. Overall, the proposal is merely a starting place in the legislative debate that will determine how California ultimately provides for its neediest children.

Under the current program, a single mother with two children receives $565 a month in urban counties and $538 a month in rural counties. Until the federal law changed, recipients were allowed to receive benefits for as long as they were caring for children. Thus a program that should have been a temporary helping hand became a way of life in too many families. The new federal law, which was designed by Republicans and signed by President Clinton last August, mandates five-year lifetime maximum assistance and only two consecutive years on aid before a recipient must go to work. Washington pays half the cost and now gives that money to the states, which pay the other half and now have greater freedom to determine how it will be spent.

Every state must redesign welfare to comply with the new federal directives and put welfare recipients to work. Massachusetts and Michigan will require recipients to find work or participate in some meaningful societal activity 60 days from when the new state program takes effect or they start receiving benefits. In Kentucky, they must go to work after six months on aid. Wisconsin and Indiana also are in the forefront of reform, but California is not far behind.

The Democratic-controlled California Legislature is expected to reshape Wilson’s plan. Democrats are expected to balk at eliminating general assistance, a county program that provides $212 a month for destitute adults who are not raising children. Counties should be relieved of some of that burden, which is expected to double when poor legal immigrants lose food stamps and supplemental security income checks later this year because of the new federal law. The state should designate to the counties some of the projected $550 million in savings from the welfare redesign over two years.

Wilson also proposes a 15% cut in benefits for all recipients after six months. He reasons that a reduction in the monthly check would prompt them to find part-time work to make up the difference. That’s not likely. A recent UCLA study found the governor’s 1992 program, which cut benefits but allowed recipients who worked to keep more of their earnings, failed to change behavior significantly.

The governor also would limit new recipients to one year of assistance before they must go to work, instead of the two allowed by the federal law. Wilson’s rationale is understandable. The longer one stays on welfare, the harder it is to get off. But one year is hardly long enough for many new recipients to resolve a family crisis or gain the skills needed to find work.

Democrats and Republicans should find plenty to endorse in Wilson’s plan to continue benefits for immigrants here legally. The federal law gives states the option to cut off legal immigrants. Wilson wisely chose not to do so. Both parties are also likely to agree on Wilson’s plan to exempt from cuts, work requirements and time limits those grandparents who are raising grandchildren because the parents are unavailable due to desertion, drug or alcohol abuse, physical or mental illness or death.

Wilson also proposes expanding Greater Avenues to Independence (GAIN), the state’s successful workfare program. This could allow GAIN to serve double the current number of participants and possibly half of all eligible welfare recipients. That would mean perhaps 50,000 more people would get the training and education needed to prepare them for work.

If parents fail to meet the new requirements, the state would continue to provide for their children though non-cash vouchers for housing, clothing and other basic necessities. That safety net is essential for poor youngsters.

Wilson’s directive to counties to remind more young welfare mothers of the option of giving up babies for adoption should not be taken too far. Many well-heeled people make lousy parents and many poor adults make fine ones.

California’s new welfare program must balance realistic work requirements with adequate support for people who need help getting off welfare. But even the best state program will fail if there are not enough jobs awaiting them in both the public and private sectors.