Welfare Reform Can Work

Welfare reform--with its emphasis on education, training and jobs--holds out great promise for millions of poor mothers and their children. To make good on that promise, Congress must adequately fund the massive child-care, remedial-education and job-training and -placement programs needed to help poor families reach the first rung on the ladder of opportunity.

Changing a way of life for even a fraction of 4 million poor families won’t be cheap. Cost will be a key consideration when a House-Senate conerence committee tries to hammer out a compromise that works for the Democrats, the Republicans, the White House and for the mothers--teen-aged, middle-aged and older--who will be asked to get a job.

The Senate bill, sponsored by Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.), carries a price tag of $3 billion over five years to help states pay for programs, and it is deficit-neutral. The House bill would provide more generous benefits. It would cost $7.1 billion over five years, with no indication of where the money would come from. A compromise must balance political realities--President Reagan is not expected to sign a bill that would swell the deficit--with societal realities, the true cost of providing a modest success.

Under the Moynihan legislation, every able-bodied mother with children older than 3 would have to participate in the new programs--but only as far as state resources permit. That is an important caveat. State programs, including California’s Greater Avenues for Independence, have proved more expensive than anticipated because of a much greater need for remedial education. The additional expense could limit participation.

The proposed federal funding, when matched by the states, would allow only a fraction of the eligible adults to participate. Guidelines insisted on by the Republicans would require at least 10% of a state’s welfare population to enroll in some aspect of the program during the first year. To achieve that goal, states would have to keep every part of the bargain.

Child care, provided at market rates, would be part of the bargain. Children would be supervised while mothers--and a few welfare fathers--attended school or training or searched for work. The child care would continue for nine months after the final welfare check. That would smooth the transition to work.

Basic medical care would also be part of the bargain. Poor families would keep Medicaid benefits (Medi-Cal in California) up to a year after the last welfare check. With that guarantee, no mother would be penalized for trying to better herself; no child would suffer from a lack of health care.

Decent jobs are a key to the bargain. Poor mothers must not be forced to work for poverty wages at jobs that provide no health care, no sick pay, no benefits and not enough money to pay for groceries, rent, child care and other essentials. Poor families must not lose ground with a pay check.

Welfare is expensive. Nearly 4 million parents, primarily single mothers, and 7.3 million children depend on Aid to Families with Dependent Children. The federal government spends $16 billion a year, and the amount is expected to climb unless government does something.

Welfare reform is also expensive, but it can work. Congress and President Reagan should approve the modest proposals outlined in the Senate legislation to offer a bridge from welfare check to pay check.