California’s System Is Fine--for the 1930s : Welfare: We treat women like children, with rules designed for old-fashioned dependency. It costs us millions.

The welfare system that serves single women and children in California is hopelessly outdated. It was designed in the 1930s to serve women who were widowed or divorced. Births to unwed mothers amounted to 3.8% of births nationwide, and women, who were considered dependent, were generally not expected to work outside the home.

Today, the very same program serves a very different population. California’s welfare rolls have exploded, and now include more people than the populations of 19 states. Caseload growth is being driven not only by the recession, but by births to unwed mothers, which now account for 33% of all births in California.

More than half of the adults in the state’s main welfare program (Aid to Families With Dependent Children, or AFDC) had their first child as teen-agers, while less than 10% has any connection to the work force. Increasingly, people go on welfare not for short-term help in a crisis, but as a replacement for a spouse, as if they are “marrying” the state.

Today, more than half of all women work outside the home. Among female-headed households, 58% of women are not on AFDC, and nearly 90% of them hold down jobs to support their families. The truth is, most women--married, single, divorced or widowed--are working.

When women become pregnant, they typically continue working until a few weeks before giving birth, and start working again after about seven weeks. Like it or not, this is the reality for American women in the 1990s.

Compare that to what we expect of women on AFDC in California. The AFDC program treats women like little girls, reinforcing none of the expectations society has of their working female peers. It says you needn’t work or stay in school to achieve “independence”; you needn’t work to support your children; you needn’t work during your pregnancy; you needn’t worry about the financial implications of having more children, and you needn’t return to the work force until your child is 3.

We must change AFDC so it treats women like adults, capable of making sound decisions about their lives and of planning for the future. Program rules should be changed to expect the most out of women on AFDC, rather than the least.

First, let’s expect some mutual obligation of those whom we support on AFDC. We can no longer say that mothers on AFDC have some unique role or right to stay home and raise their children while being fully supported by taxpayers. We must change AFDC so it supports children in need but expects able-bodied women on AFDC to provide economic support as well.

Second, let’s reinforce the fact that both parents have the responsibility of providing financial and emotional support for their children. For too long, our child-support enforcement has focused on fathers as breadwinners and mothers as nurturers. We’re making progress collecting support from fathers whose children are being supported on welfare. Let’s also expect financial responsibility from women.

Third, let’s put an end to grant increases when people on welfare have additional children. Working people don’t get cash bonuses when they have more children; don’t treat people on welfare differently.

Fourth, let’s stop helping teen girls become “independent” by providing AFDC grants that allow them to drop out of school, leave home and never enter the work force. Through reforms proposed this year, we can tell young girls we expect them to stay in school, and we expect teen mothers to live with their parents until they can support themselves.

The American woman has drastically changed from what she was in 1935. We don’t drive cars or wear clothes in the 1990s that were made in the 1930s. Nor should we think that our outmoded AFDC system can work today. It’s costing taxpayers millions, and it’s not doing AFDC recipients any good.