Benefits Given Newcomers Are Point of Contention : Aid: Governor wants limits that critics doubt will work. One new arrival finds present system tough.

Nearly destitute, Maria Bakatselos moved to California a couple of months ago and applied for welfare benefits to support herself and her son.

She quickly came to the conclusion that the state’s much vaunted welfare system is not all it’s cracked up to be.

Bakatselos said she went on welfare in her home state of Michigan when she was hospitalized during the pregnancy of her son Peter, now 3, and could not work. When she broke up with her boyfriend recently, she decided to follow her mother, who migrated to the West Coast a year ago.

But Bakatselos, 23, who moved into her mother’s Santa Ana apartment when she arrived, has since been unable to find work and has had difficulty navigating California’s complicated welfare process.

“I’ve been very disappointed,” Bakatselos says. “I don’t want to be on welfare all my life, but I do need help now. But no one offers us any help or information about where else we’re supposed to get it.”

While Bakatselos may find problems in California’s system, Wilson contends that people like Bakatselos are part of the problem.

California’s welfare benefits are so high, the governor argues, that they act as a magnet for welfare recipients from other states.

As a result, he has proposed a financial scarecrow--new residency requirements that, if approved in a proposed November state ballot initiative, would require poor families to receive benefits no greater than those in the states they left for the first 12 months after they move to California.

In Bakatselos’ case, that would mean she would get the same $350 a month in Aid to Families with Dependent Children that she had been receiving in Michigan, instead of the $535 in AFDC that California pays to a mother with one child.

According to state figures, about 7% of the AFDC caseload--50,000 families--have lived in the state for less than a year. Of that number, about half received public assistance in another state before moving to California.

These newcomers drain $100 million yearly from California’s $43-billion general fund, state officials say.

“Are we saying that all of these people shopped for grants and then moved here? No,” said Kassy Perry, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Health and Welfare. “But when somebody on aid in Boston gets on a bus and comes here, probably some of the reason is because the grants are better.”

Orange County officials say changes in welfare programs in other states can indeed have an impact locally. When Michigan recently eliminated a program that provided benefits to indigent adults, many welfare recipients left the state, including a “little wave” of needy Michiganites who ended up in Orange County, said Robert A. Griffith, chief deputy director of the county’s Social Services Agency.

“We actually received (welfare) applications from some parties who came out west as a result,” Griffith said. “But they would still have to meet our criteria and declare they are making California their home.”

However, Griffith added, instances of a surge of applications linked to welfare policies elsewhere are uncommon. The county does not keep track of welfare applicants who are newcomers, but he said estimates are that most local welfare clients have lived in the state longer than a year.

Local officials also say grant levels can be deceptive. Each state computes grants differently; some cold weather states, for example, provide special needs allowances for heating and heavy clothing. California is one of only 12 states with fixed grant levels.

Under the proposed residency requirement, newcomers to California from states with superficially lower standard grant levels might well be eligible for just as much as a California resident if those special needs allowances are factored in, Griffith said.

Trying to make such calculations could prove an administrative nightmare for local officials, said Angelo R. Doti, the county’s director of financial assistance programs.

Critics, moreover, say there is no evidence to suggest that poor families are beating a path to California.

“Migration follows job prospects, not welfare,” said Casey S. McKeever, an attorney with the Western Center on Law and Poverty Inc. in Sacramento.

McKeever said studies have shown that in the past 15 years more of the poor moved out of the Northeast, where states pay relatively higher benefits, to Sunbelt states, where benefits tend to be lower.

For example, a study of welfare families in Vermont--one of three states that pays higher benefits than California--found that as many AFDC families move out of the state as move in.

What’s more, say critics, Gov. Wilson’s proposal may well be unconstitutional.

“Residency requirements and penalties on persons moving from one state to another have been consistently found by the U.S. Supreme Court to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and to penalize the right to travel,” McKeever said.

State officials say they expect to win any court challenges.

“Certainly we’ll be challenged, but our attorneys feel we are not infringing on anyone’s constitutional rights,” Perry said.

Whatever the constitutionality, public sentiment seems to support limiting welfare benefits for new residents.

A Los Angeles Times Poll conducted in December, shortly before Gov. Wilson’s welfare proposals were announced, found that two-thirds of the respondents favored denying welfare benefits to residents until they have lived here for at least three years.

Many Orange County residents agree.

“We got enough to take care of (with) the people who are already here without giving away money to every newcomer (to) the state,” said Jas Moore, a Huntington Beach building contractor. “If we can save money this way, then I would support it.”

Minna Rogers, a retired Corona del Mar secretary, suggested the governor go even further.

“I don’t think anyone should be allowed to receive welfare from the state unless they have been here, worked here and contributed something,” she said. “I’m not opposed to helping those who are truly needy, but many people just choose to run from their problems and have no sense of responsibility.”

Bakatselos said she too can understand the emotional support for residency requirements, but she said such arguments fail to consider Orange County’s high cost of living.

In Pontiac, Mich., Bakatselos paid $190 to share a two-bedroom, two-bath, split-level townhouse. By contrast, her mother’s two-bedroom, two-bath Santa Ana apartment rents for $875 a month.

Bakatselos said that while there is a better selection of food here, the prices are almost double what she paid back home. Local electricity costs and sales taxes are also higher, she says.

“Everything is higher out here,” she said, sitting in the cozy, well-appointed living room of her mother’s apartment. “I went in to get diapers that cost $10.99 a package and ended up paying almost $12 with tax.

“When I said I was coming out here my friends said, ‘Maria, you don’t know what you’re getting into. If you can’t make it (in Pontiac), what makes you think you can make it out there?’ ”

For many poor families it is nearly impossible. County officials say numerous welfare recipients rdiscontinue their cases because they simply can’t afford to live here and are forced to move to areas like Riverside County--where they have to reapply for benefits since welfare grants cannot be transferred from one county to another--or even out of state.

Bakatselos said she is not willing to give up hope so soon. Her mother, Janet Cummings, is a restaurant manager and the two spend Cummings’ off days searching for a job for Maria, who has experience as a waitress.

The rest of their free time is spent at the Santa Ana welfare office supplying information about Maria’s past earnings and about her mother’s earnings and assets.

Bakatselos says she was refused emergency cash assistance and food stamps when she first arrived because she was staying at her mother’s home and sharing meals there. She has since been granted AFDC benefits, but both mother and daughter now wonder if it would have been better if Maria had got off the plane and checked into a homeless shelter.

Cummings said that she would love to help her daughter more, but she is only now getting on her feet herself. Having two extra mouths to feed has stretched her resources to the limit.

“I don’t want the state to have to support me or my daughter,” said Cummings. “She is healthy and able, and I don’t want her to be dependent. But when you’ve worked all of your life and paid taxes, and find yourself out of a job, whether you’re in California or Michigan, you ought to be able to reap some benefits.”

Leaving the Rolls

The county’s Aid to Families With Dependent Children program discontinued or closed 2,341 cases in January, the most recent month for which information is available. Among the reasons clients leave the welfare rolls:

Recipient’s initiative: 66%

Earnings increased: 14%

Transferred to another county: 8%

No eligible child: 6%

Other reasons: 6%

Source: Orange County Social Services Agency

Grants Differ for Family Size

AFDC monthly grant levels and family sizes:

Family Monthly Size grant 2 $535 3 $663 4 $788 5 $899 6 $1,010 7 $1,109 8 $1,209 9 $1,306 10 $1,403

Monthly grants increase $14 for each additional family member after 10.

Source: Orange County Social Services Agency

Benefits vs. Costs

The primary monthly expense for most AFDC recipients is housing. Below is a state-by-state comparison of maximum amounts a family of three receives in AFDC benefits, with median rent.

AFDC Median Median Rank State benefits* rent** rent rank 1. Alaska $891 $503 6 2. Vt. $679 $378 18 3. Hawaii $666 $599 1 4. Calif. $663 $561 2 5. Conn. $581 $510 4 6. Mass. $579 $506 5 7. N.Y. $577 $428 11 8. N.H. $575 $479 7 9. R.I. $554 $416 13 10. Minn. $532 $384 16 11. Wash. $531 $383 17 12. Wis. $517 $331 25 13. Mich. $474 $343 24 14. Maine $453 $358 22 15. Ore. $444 $344 23 16. D.C. $428 $441 10 17. Iowa $426 $261 39 18. N.J. $424 $521 3 19. Md. $408 $473 8 20. S.D. $404 $242 44 21. Pa. $403 $322 27 22. Utah $402 $300 29 23. N.D. $401 $266 38 24. Kan. $396 $283 33 25. Mont. $389 $251 42 26. Ill. $367 $369 20 27. Neb. $364 $282 34 28. Wyo. $360 $270 37 29. Colo. $356 $362 21 30. Okla. $341 $259 41 31. Dela. $338 $425 12 32. Ohio $334 $296 30 33. Nev. $330 $445 9 34. N.M. $324 $312 28 35. Ariz. $316 $370 19 36. Idaho $315 $261 39 37. Fla. $294 $402 15 38. Mo. $292 $282 34 39. Va. $291 $411 14 40. Ind. $288 $291 31 41. Ga. $280 $344 23 42. N.C. $272 $284 32 43. W.Va. $249 $221 47 44. Ky. $228 $250 43 45. S.C. $210 $276 35 46. Ark. $204 $230 45 47. La. $190 $260 40 48. Tenn. $185 $273 36 49. Texas $184 $328 26 50. Ala. $124 $229 46 51. Miss. $120 $215 48

* As of July 1, 1991, except California, which is as of Sept. 1, 1991

** 1990 Census

Source: California Health and Welfare Agency, U.S. Census Bureau