Must Babies Bear the Brunt? : Study points to defects in Wilson’s welfare plan

Most welfare recipients are children. These very poor children cannot depend solely on their parents, primarily single mothers, to provide food, shelter, medical care and other necessities. They shouldn’t suffer because an economy is stagnant, an education system isn’t what it ought to be or because some parents are not as responsible as they should be. But it’s children who will suffer if Gov. Pete Wilson’s welfare initiative, Proposition 165, passes in November, and that is the measure’s fatal flaw.

The governor’s proposal in effect forces mothers of infants and toddlers to seek work at a time when, child development experts say, quality child care is critical; finding such care outside the family usually is very difficult. In fact, according to an analysis funded by the Stanford Center for the Study of Families, Children and Youth, Wilson’s well-intentioned but misdirected welfare reform initiative could wind up hurting as many as 200,000 poor infants and toddlers. That’s because their mothers would have to go to work immediately to compensate for an initial 10% cut in benefits imposed by the ballot initiative. The governor’s proposal would lop off 15% more in six months among families that include able-bodied adults. The reductions would slash a welfare check of a mother with two children to barely $500 a month.

Those cuts would force poor parents to seek what have become elusive treasures for many poor, middle-class and even better-educated Californians: jobs and child care.

Most welfare reforms, including California’s workfare program commonly known as GAIN, exclude mothers of children younger than 3.

Under the governor’s plan, at least 70% of welfare recipients would lose up to 25% of their benefits. To compensate for that kind of loss, poor parents would have to work about six hours a week, at $5 an hour, according to the best calculations from the governor’s office. But Michael Wald, the Stanford law professor who authored the analysis, factors in the cost of transportation, clothing and child care to come up with as many as 20 hours of work to compensate. Where are those jobs?

Not all welfare recipients would find work. Their children would suffer, particularly if they were not among the 12% of California welfare families who live in public or subsidized housing. California’s housing costs are among the highest in the nation.

Gov. Wilson is not trying to punish poor children. He wants to cut welfare to contain mushrooming social costs. But his idea of reform, as we have said before, provides too little carrot and too much stick. A better welfare reform would allow poor parents to stay home with very young children and encourage poor parents to go to work without punishing their children.