In California, welfare ain’t broke

IN 1987, Riverside County took a bold step toward reforming its welfare program. The county’s human services agency, which I ran from 1996 to 2004, was a leader in changing welfare from a monthly check with no strings attached to a program that focused on self-sufficiency through employment.

The “work first” philosophy we pioneered was highly successful, and our approach became a model for sweeping national welfare reform in 1996. Today, welfare still gives families a monthly check, but it also helps them find jobs and keep them, with the help of services such as child care and transportation assistance. Welfare rolls have been cut nearly in half.

But in response to changes last year in the federal welfare law, the Schwarzenegger administration has proposed drastic changes to the CalWORKs program, including cutting aid to thousands of children who already receive a reduced monthly check because their parents are not meeting work requirements, have reached time limits on benefits or are ineligible immigrants. This plan should be rejected. Some history on the success of welfare reform in California can help illustrate why.

Ten years after we started our efforts in Riverside County, then-Gov. Pete Wilson signed California’s bipartisan response to the national welfare reform law. The federal law gave states great flexibility in developing their approaches. California’s program, known as CalWORKs, let counties develop programs that would meet the needs of their communities while requiring adults to work and preserving a basic level of subsistence for children whose parents -- for whatever reasons -- could not work.

Combining stringent employment requirements with support services was successful. The number of California welfare caseloads dropped precipitously; participant earnings grew faster than inflation. Tens of thousands of parents entered the workforce, many for the first time. Dollars shifted away from cash assistance and toward services like child care. Overall, CalWORKs has saved the state General Fund an estimated $9 billion since 1998.

By every measure, CalWORKs is a success. Yet the federal government last June issued new regulations requiring states to focus on process, rules and narrow definitions of “program participation” rather than on helping parents find jobs. The changes also make states more likely to face penalties if they cannot meet these work participation levels. The penalties would pull funds away from the very services that help families find and retain jobs.

California can increase participation without making drastic changes to CalWORKs. The governor and the Legislature responded to the new federal requirements as part of last year’s budget negotiations, enacting thoughtful changes aimed at increasing participation. Indeed, the Schwarzenegger administration’s estimates indicate that the state is likely to meet the required work participation rate in 2008 based on the changes already enacted. Counties are especially focused on parents who are participating in CalWORKs for fewer than the required number of hours, as well as those who are not participating at all.

Against this backdrop, the plan put forth by the Schwarzenegger administration in January for additional changes is particularly unexpected and wholly unnecessary. Currently, families in which parents are no longer eligible for benefits receive a reduced grant to help meet the children’s basic needs. The new harsh proposals would terminate this aid to thousands of children whose parents are not participating or who have reached their time limits.

But studies by the Brookings Institution in 2002 and the University of Washington in 2006, among others, shows that increasing sanctions does not lead to higher participation. Research on the effects of discontinuing aid to children whose parents do not comply with program requirements indicates that these children suffer greater hardships and that their parents have more difficulty finding jobs.

The state in 2006 enacted smart policies that could significantly improve an already notable program. Give these changes a chance to work.

While cutting children off the program might save money in the short term, the cost in the long run is too high. The deeper into poverty people sink, the harder it is to get out. The Schwarzenegger administration’s proposals would perpetuate the cycle of welfare dependence, not break it.