Building a Bridge From Welfare to Work : Time is ripe for a true bipartisan reform effort from Sacramento

Welfare reform shouldn’t remain a political football in Sacramento. Gov. Pete Wilson is no longer stubbornly digging in his heels. He’s now willing to compromise. Democrats, who seem determined to deny the governor any major legislative victory prior to next year’s gubernatorial race, should stop the partisan posturing on this important issue and also find room for compromise.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Both sides can easily agree on expanding Greater Avenues to Independence (GAIN), the state’s increasingly successful workfare program. The governor is willing to increase funding by 58%, which would allow the state to take advantage of all the matching federal dollars earmarked for welfare-to-work efforts in California. The state currently serves fewer than half of the welfare recipients eligible to participate in GAIN. The proposed expansion would allow more poor parents to get the education, job training, child-care allowance and other support that form the bridge from welfare to work.

Wilson also wants to reshape the state workfare program in the image of the very successful Riverside County GAIN program, which emphasizes getting a job quickly. Riverside’s GAIN participants out-earned members of a control group not in the program by 55%, according to a study by the highly respected and nonpartisan Manpower Demonstration Research Corp.

That success certainly merits duplication. However, Assemblywoman Marguerite Archie-Hudson (D-Los Angeles) is right to insist that the new work-oriented direction shouldn’t limit the education assistance of GAIN to two years. Why discourage poor parents who are succeeding in community colleges and thus are increasing their chances of staying off welfare?

Wilson is willing to reward poor teen-age parents who stay in high school. He would reward the students with $100 for each grade level they pass and with $500 for graduation. These incentives would encourage teen-age parents to return to school and graduate. Reducing the drop-out rate for teen-age mothers should reduce the welfare rolls because teen-age pregnancy is a major predictor of long-term welfare dependency. Single mothers who first gave birth as teen-agers head nearly half of U.S. welfare households. Surely, the Democrats can embrace these meaningful incentives.

The governor’s plan also would reward thrifty welfare recipients. Wilson’s proposals would allow them to keep up to $5,000 of savings earmarked for a house, a business or a college education. They may also keep up to $2,000 in unrestricted savings and own a car valued at up to $4,500. Current restrictions limit savings to $1,000 and a car valued at $1,500. C’mon Democrats, these are generous limits.

AREAS OF DIS- AGREEMENT: There will be less agreement on Wilson’s proposal to cut welfare benefits by an additional 15% for recipients who receive public assistance for more than six months. (After that cut, a single mother with two children would get only $507 per month). Welfare checks already have been cut by 10% since the governor took office, and those reductions were on top of earlier cuts.

Wilson argues that poor parents who don’t need child care could make up the loss with a couple of hours of baby-sitting or washing cars. That’s not very realistic in the very poor communities, where even low-paying jobs are scarce. Parents with young children who need baby-sitters would need to work 10 hours to stay even. How many would find jobs, given the state’s high unemployment rate and the competition from better-educated job seekers?

This isn’t the first time the governor has tried to reduce the welfare rolls. He took his case to the voters last year. But his ballot initiative, Proposition 165, which combined a more punitive approach to welfare reform and a grab for budgetary power, rightly failed.

Not one to give up, Wilson has salvaged the best of his earlier proposal, the incentives for teen-age parents, and improved on those rewards. He has also dedicated more resources to the GAIN program. He has kept some punitive restrictions, but his new mix is generally more supportive of welfare recipients who are willing to help themselves.

Gov. Wilson is willing to give ground on welfare. The Democrats should put their compromises on the table and the two sides should hash out a bipartisan reform.