PERSPECTIVES ON WELFARE REFORM : The Governor’s Got It Half-Right : Wilson’s correct to link benefits to citizen obligations. But cuts will produce only more misery.

California’s current welfare problem and Gov. Wilson’s proposed response confirm the state’s reputation as a place of social extremes. With 12% of the U.S. population and 16% of its welfare recipients, California accounts for 26% of national spending on Aid to Families With Dependent Children. This is a considerable increase from 10 years ago, when the state had about 10.5% of the country’s population, 12% of the welfare population and paid out 17% of the total bill for AFDC. In the face of a multibillion-dollar state deficit, the expanding rolls and rising costs of AFDC are alarming.

Of course, there are other relevant numbers. With 12% of the population, California is home to 20% of the nation’s millionaires. And if welfare costs are high, they do not look quite so unreasonable in light of housing costs. Current AFDC grants for a family of three amount to less than the “fair market rent” established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for two bedroom units in San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, Orange County, Oakland and San Diego--the places where most Californians reside. But no matter how one runs the numbers, a daunting problem remains. More generous than most states, California also has proportionately more recipients, and their ranks have been growing at a precipitous rate.

In his proposed ballot initiative, Wilson has set out to break the cycle of welfare dependency and reduce the state budget deficit. Unfortunately, the two objectives collide.

The initiative contains a much-needed element of mutual obligation between government and recipients of aid, linking citizens’ right to public benefits with their duty to perform as responsible members of the community. Teen-age parents would be required to try to complete their high school education, with aid supplemented or reduced by $50 per month based on attendance; unwed mothers would have to cooperate actively in establishing paternity and obtaining child support payments from the fathers of their children; no additional benefits would be awarded if recipients had another child after going on welfare; unmarried recipients under 18 would have to live with parents or other relatives and generally have their benefits paid to these adults.

A good start. These are reasonable conditions aimed largely at encouraging self-sufficiency and augmenting economic support of the family. However, the plan might have expressed greater concern for children. For instance, a variation of the incentive structure for completion of high school could be used to ensure that children receive vaccinations and attend school regularly. As a condition of eligibility, teen-age mothers might attend a course in child care. Welfare recipients also could be obliged to accept home-based services offering mothers advice and support as well as some degree of professional supervision of child-care practices. But measures such as these would increase costs, which brings us to the second objective of Wilson’s initiative.

Wilson proposes immediately cutting benefit levels by 10% and imposing an additional 15% reduction after aid has been received for six months. For a family of three this means monthly support would drop from $663 to $507, on top of a 4% cut last summer. In addition, welfare applicants who have lived in California for less than a year would be eligible for levels of aid no higher than the maximum in their previous states of residence. These Draconian measures simply go too far.

One need be neither a social worker nor an economist to discern that a 25% reduction in aid will create serious deprivation. Yes, a few may find jobs, even in this recession, but most won’t. If necessity begets invention, desperation breeds disorder and neglect: These measures to reduce the budget deficit will undermine the more thoughtful provisions aimed at breaking the cycle of dependence.

If Wilson’s initiative passes, the state will immediately save a considerable sum. But we will soon have to settle the escalating social and economic costs of getting welfare reform only half right.