Does New Jersey Have a Better Way? : Welfare proposals that California needs to look at carefully

Gov. Pete Wilson and the California Legislature could learn a lesson or two about welfare reform from their counterparts in New Jersey. There, a powerful black Democratic leader not unlike Assembly Speaker Willie Brown has proposed a welfare overhaul that could reduce the rolls and prepare poor, single mothers for jobs.

In the national debate on how to get poor mothers from welfare check to paycheck, the New Jersey Family Development Act--expected to be signed Tuesday--is politically instructive. It melds the traditional and expensive liberal solution of removing obstacles such as a lack of education or job skills with the standard conservative remedy of cutting benefits in an attempt to jump-start motivation.

New Jersey’s tough-love approach is the brainchild of Assemblyman Wayne Bryant, the highest-ranking black member of the New Jersey Legislature. He represents Camden, a poor city where nearly half of the residents receive public assistance. His political affiliation, his race and geographical base give him great credibility on what has become a touchy subject. He used that credibility and his significant political clout to get the six bills composing the act passed on the last day of the session.

Bryant views welfare as a “vicious form of slavery”--a description that might be deemed as blaming the victim if a black conservative or any white politician used it. He wants to end chronic dependency and encourage self-sufficiency. The big question is how--for New Jersey, California and all the other states that face mushrooming deficits and spiraling social costs.

The New Jersey plan links public assistance with personal responsibility. Poor mothers must go to school or get job training to receive full benefits. Failure to participate would cost parents 20% of their assistance.

To make it less difficult to comply, the state would guarantee the availability of required remedial education, high school equivalency classes, English-as-a-second-language classes, counseling including family planning options, job training and placement. The state would also provide vouchers for day care, transportation subsidies and a 24-hour hot line to answer questions and resolve problems. That’s an expensive package.

The most controversial bill in the act would disallow additional benefits for additional children. Bryant notes that in the workplace few employees get a raise because they have a baby. In New Jersey, Aid to Families with Dependent Children pays $69 more per month for each additional child. To soften that income loss, the new mothers could earn up to an additional 50% of their grant without penalty. A single mother with two children, for example, could earn up to $212 over her monthly $424 check without losing any benefits.

In California, Gov. Wilson’s proposals also would penalize poor mothers who have additional children but there would be no allowance for significant additional income. Wilson’s plan would cut up to 25% of welfare benefits without adding significant new avenues leading to employment.

Wilson is rightly forcing a serious look at welfare costs, but the Legislature really ought to do the job. Speaker Brown should take the lead. He should use his credibility and clout to forge a more compassionate and real-world compromise before the voters are faced with a ballot initiative that would freeze punitive reforms into the state Constitution. Welfare should be a temporary lifeline, not support for a lifetime.