LOS ANGELES TIMES INTERVIEW : Eloise Anderson : On Bridging the Gap Between Welfare and Work

Question: Why should government provide welfare?

Answer: There ought to be a safety net. But we . . . ought to develop a safety system so that when people are unemployed--and that happens to a lot of us now and then--there’s some place they can go temporarily until they find another job. But it (welfare) shouldn’t be viewed as a lifestyle. It shouldn’t be viewed as that’s something I’m going to do until the kid is 18. It shouldn’t be viewed as that’s my income. . . . It’s got to be temporary. And the question is how temporary.

Q: How temporary would the Wilson Administration make welfare?

A: The governor’s talking about two years with incremental reductions . . . so they’re always keeping their eye on the fact that they’ve got to get out of here as adults. . . . Unemployment only gives you 26 weeks. Should welfare look more like that? Should it be longer? Should it be shorter? I don’t know what the right number is. . . . Maybe it should be one year for everybody, then the parent is off and just the kids (remain on).

Q: Explain how that would work.

A: At six months, you get a cut (in money). And at 18 months, the adult comes off the grant. . . . That says to that person who’s on AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children): Remember, this is temporary. . . . We’re cutting your grant and we’re doing it at six months, because when you came here, we thought it was a crisis. At six months, you ought to have your crisis worked out. You ought to be back into the work force, looking for jobs. Maybe you don’t have a full-time job yet. Maybe you only have a part-time job . . . Eighteen months later, you should be back full-fledged in the work force.

One of the reasons we look at six and 18 months is because a whole lot of the women in our program come from domestic-violence situations. It takes a while to rethink your life when you’re coming out of domestic violence. Six months gives them ample time, especially if they’ve never worked, if they’re fearful, to work out their relationship with that man in a way they feel safe.. . . Once they feel stable, and that’s about where it shows up in shelters, once they feel somewhat safe, then the 18 months is a good figure. That’s where we are now . . .

Q: Are the cuts punitive?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: This is one of our principles. We don’t want welfare to pay more than work. You have people in this program who have low skills. Some have no skills. If you look at the jobs they can take, welfare can’t be more lucrative . . .

We don’t want welfare to contribute to family breakup, and the men (partners of welfare mothers) have the same kind of skill base, which means they’re low-skilled, low-wage workers--we don’t want welfare to be more attractive than they are. So you’ve got to bring your welfare grant and your welfare benefit package down to the level where a low-income wage and a low-income male worker looks attractive versus AFDC.

Q: Would cutting the welfare grant encourage more marriages?

A: It would encourage more men to step up to their responsibility, because they actually have something to bring. We’ve told them (men) as long as the Western world has been in existence that their worth is in the check they bring home. We didn’t say that their worth is in being there, which it is. . . . Now, I’m not saying people will get married, but I am saying the money they can put on the table becomes much more attractive.

Q: The stereotype of the partner of a young welfare mother is a young, single man, irresponsible, perhaps 16 or 17, high- school dropout. How would reducing the grant make this person attractive?

A: The partner to the teen mom is not a teen. . . . We forget that women mate upward in age. Men mate downward in age--and they do it significantly. So you will find when you look at the data around teen parenting that the vast majority of the fathers are not teen-agers. In fact, they’re between 22 and 26 and, on average, pretty close to 25 years of age.

Q: Even when the mother is 14 or 15?

A: We have some data that suggest some fathers are in their 30s, with girls who are in their early teens.

Q: Isn’t that against the law?

A: Sure. But we don’t enforce that. If these were boys in sexual liaisons with men of the same age . . . we would have every man in jail. What is so different about a girl being exposed to men whom they’re not capable of having an equal relationship with? These girls are vulnerable.

Q: The Wilson Administration would require these young mothers to live with their own mothers?

A: If you have a child under the age of 18, we believe that child ought to be supervised . . . hopefully at home with her parents, and if not, either in some kind of group setting or a family setting that would help her finish developing.

If you start looking at moms (who came) on AFDC as teen moms, who are out on their own, and you look at them 15 years later, they have three and four kids. This is where our larger number of single moms on our caseload are. These are the moms who have lots of kids. . . . Their development has been delayed. . . . All of a sudden, you have a kid to take care of. All of a sudden, you’re out there in the world. All of a sudden, you’ve got all these guys preying on you. You don’t have the capability to handle that . . . What happens? The young baby whom we say we’re protecting is unprotected.

Q: How would you discourage young teen-agers from becoming mothers?

A: One of the reasons we’re doing the Fathers Summit (announced in Wilson’s State of the State Address and still to be scheduled) is because we always talk about teen-age pregnancy as if there weren’t any men around. . . . We have to start paying attention to the male side of this . . . .

We (also) have to start saying to the girls that there are some other ways for you to get attention. . . . We need to start talking to girls about the consequences of early birth without education; the consequences of children when she hasn’t finished growing up; the possibilities for her materially, spiritually, and emotionally and physically if she extends parenthood. . . . We ought to go in and start talking to her mother, because in that household, there is usually a boy as well. . . . The next question is: Where’s dad? Let’s bring dad into this. He doesn’t have to live with you. He doesn’t have to be a part of the family, but he has to be a part of his children’s lives.

Q: How does government discourage single motherhood in a society that glorifies Murphy Brown?

A: That’s a hard one. . . . The outcomes of glorifying conditions where fathers aren’t involved with their children, where healthy marriages aren’t the centerpiece . . . is absolutely disastrous for the children . . .

Marriage is not an institution for adults. It’s an institution for children. . . . Adults can get divorced 20 times, it makes no difference to them. One divorce for a child is harmful. It hurts.

I can say that. I’ve been divorced. My children have done very well, but they would have done so much better if their father and I had stayed together. . . .

My son was in his early teens and he was angry with his dad. I heard him grousing in his bedroom, and I walked in and said, “Let me tell you something, boy, I don’t sleep with dogs. . . . So that means your daddy wasn’t a dog. . . . Because he and I did not get along does not mean that he’s a dog.”

We have to stop putting our children’s fathers down because our sons wind up being their dads. So, if you say that man is no good . . . and you’ve got a son, and you say to this son you act just like your dad, what are you telling this boy? What are you telling this kid when you say that part of him is not worth anything?

Q: Nearly 70% of black children are born to single mothers. Why?

A: We’re still paying the cost of slavery and Jim Crow, mostly slavery. Remember in the United States, in most families during slavery, there was no marriage. Many slaves were not allowed to bond to their mate. Guys were moved around to different plantations. Sometimes, moms were moved to different plantations. Sometimes, children were moved to different plantations.

After slavery was over, according to the records, there was a big effort for slaves to get married. They were jumping over the brooms all over the place because they never were allowed to marry. There was a big effort by slaves (who had been separated) trying to find each other to get married. . . . A whole segment was lost. Never did find each other. Well, where did that go? It didn’t just go away.

If you listen to some of the kids, you listen to some of the families when you work with them, and you’ll say: “Well, why didn’t you get married?” And they’ll say: “I don’t want that guy having no papers on me.” Where does that come from--I don’t want that man to have any papers on me? That’s a slavery issue. . . . Slavery’s not that far away . . .

Q: Does race influence the welfare debate?

A: In most states, it’s not a race issue. The last time I looked, and I haven’t looked recently, there were more whites on AFDC than blacks. I think the media has made it a race issue . . .

I think this is a woman’s issue. . . . Working women, single moms who work and who are not on AFDC, are really the underlying force here. . . . This is about equal treatment. Women on AFDC have a better system of resources and benefits than the low-income working women who are in the same situation. Without a husband or never married, they’re working and not making big incomes. Why should they tolerate this?

Q: The welfare debate is increasingly presented in terms of individual responsibility. Is this a legitimate way to talk about reform?

A: On one side of the fence, you have people who believe that the people on AFDC are equally capable, equally competent, can do for themselves and they ought to be doing for themselves. On the other side of the debate, you have people who believe those people are incompetent . . . aren’t capable . . . can’t control their nature . . .

My side says: You don’t have to have a child. You don’t have to get pregnant. . . . You don’t have to have sex.

A person is responsible to say: How can I have a child when I can’t feed myself? (Having a child when you can’t feed yourself) is absolutely irresponsible. Not irresponsible to the larger society; it’s irresponsible to the child you’re bringing into the world.

Q: Bottom line, how does government protect the welfare of the poorest and most vulnerable child?

A: The only way that government can do that is to take the child and keep him or her in a government-run institution . . . I don’t know if that’s the role of government. Every baby in the United States is vulnerable. Are we going to say that government ought to take kids away from their parents? . . . That’s not where I’m at . . . It is not a sin to be poor. I grew up poor. . . . We grew up just fine. . . . That is not the issue for me. If the parent isn’t providing, the question is why isn’t the parent providing?

Q: Do you expect a welfare reform law out of Washington this year?

A: I think we’re going to get a block grant. . . . The President blew it. He blew his opportunity to put the Democratic plan on the table and have it pass. It’s a different ball game.