Los Angeles Times Interview : Lawrence Townsend : Running a Welfare Program That Succeeds In Putting Recipients to Work

Lawrence E. Townsend Jr. is a man on a mission: He wants every welfare recipient in Riverside County to get a job. He aims high. And he achieves. Riverside County’s GAIN program is the most effective welfare-to-work effort in the state. Ten thousand AFDC recipients go to work every year, out of the roughly 14,000 who participate in the program. That’s exactly the kind of progress Washington wants.

While the Senate debates welfare reform, members should consider the successes of Townsend, the director of the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services. He moves recipients of Aid for Families with Dependent Children from welfare check to paycheck. It doesn’t matter if they’ve been on welfare all their lives, or just a year. It doesn’t matter if the unemployment rate is 15% or 5%; he insists they find work.

GAIN saves families and futures. The program also saves money, big money. Riverside County spent $10.5 million to operate the program last year. Because of the program’s success, welfare payments were reduced by more than $18 million. That’s a return of $1.84 for every dollar invested. As anyone on Wall Street would admit, that’s an astonishing return.

The potential for profits--economic and social--should persuade Washington to invest more, not less in welfare-to-work programs. The freeze proposed in the Personal Responsibility Act, recently passed in the House, puzzles Townsend. He testifies regularly in Washington about the welfare exodus in Riverside County. He explains the emphasis on work, the start-up costs and everything else needed to succeed. He details the results: the millions saved, the millions earned by welfare recipients, the months shaved off the median time on welfare. Yet, welfare reform--as envisioned by House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and his followers--expects states to do more with less. More moderate views might prevail in the Senate, traditionally the more thoughtful body in Congress--unless presidential politics intrude. Yet, at least one would-be President has praise for Townsend: Gov. Pete Wilson saluted Riverside’s success in his inaugural address.

Townsend, 58, a veteran of welfare administration since 1972, is aware of the praise. He refuses, however, to rest on laurels from Sacramento, Los Angeles and Washington. He pushes for greater results. He encourages his staff to try something new. His department has put out an album, “Work Makes the Difference,” produced by the staff. It’s available on compact disc and tape. The musical inspiration--a mix of rap, country music, urban contemporary and Spanish lyrics--is played in the waiting rooms of welfare offices and during breaks at the GAIN program. He puts such slogans as “Life Works--If You Work” on welfare-check envelopes, bumper stickers, buttons--even the handmade license plate holder on his Jeep. He’ll try just about anything to help another welfare recipient get a job.

Question: What can the Senate learn from the success of GAIN in Riverside County?

Answer: . . . We have found equal success with the various ethnic groups . . . . Long-term recipients do not have to be given as much special treatment as we had thought. We don’t have to enroll them in long programs of training and education for four or five years in order to have them back in the mainstream of American society . . . . What seems to be important is how you focus, how you shape your program. If you really believe in your heart that welfare recipients have promise, have abilities and a great future out there, they will, in fact, benefit from the earliest possible engagement in employment. Employment is development. It is a form of education . . . .

Q: Your emphasis is on jobs. How well does it work?

A: The total number who have attended Riverside GAIN is 71,336. The total number of job placements is 41,431.

Q: That’s impressive.

A: . . . . But we are not fully operational. We cannot fully implement the jobs program. There is insufficient funding for the jobs program, as we speak. The Gayle Pollard Terry is an editorial writer for The Times. She interviewed Lawrence E. Townsend Jr. in his office.

nationwide average is around 15% of AFDC recipients engaged in the jobs program. So a critical message I have for the Senate, particularly the Senate Finance Committee, is: How can you give us an expectation to move them all off of welfare into work and, at the same time, freeze the jobs program at the existing funding level where we’re only serving about 15% of the AFDC recipients?

We’re being asked to undertake the most formidable challenge that’s ever been given an employment program, a mind-boggling objective--which could be, surprisingly, accomplished. But we do need increased resources to get this Herculean task done. You can’t do that by block-granting it and freezing it at the federal fiscal ’94 level.

Q: So you’re asking Washington for more money?

A: Initially. There’s some start-up and expansion costs. There are training costs and building costs. Once you get operational, then the funding level could actually be gradually tapered off, because if you run your program in a cost-effective manner, you will recoup your costs.

In Riverside County, by any measure of cost-benefit analysis, the lowest level we can measure is around $1.60 of direct welfare costs back, ignoring all the other savings to government for every dollar we spend on GAIN. We actually make money on the program here.

But you need some lead time. You need to hire staff. You have to train the staff, develop procedures and regear your program. For a year or two, we would need additional money to take this job on, and do it correctly across the nation.

Q: Why has GAIN worked better in Riverside than in other counties?

A: We have a less paternalistic approach. Paternalism implies that we know better than the client, and they possibly might not be as good as we are. So then we prescribe things: . . . you must go to education for three years, or you must take this training course.

We believe a lot of the clients are job-ready. They can function in existing jobs . . . . The true test of employability is: Can they get a job by being involved in a job search? Do they get employment? If they don’t get employment, then we will use our resources on the clients who remain unemployed. We spend our money very carefully. We keep our costs down. We keep our production up so we can serve more clients.

We are focused 100% on one goal in this county: unsubsidized private-job placements. All the other facets of the GAIN program, all the components, are only a means to that end. We are focused on that. We set goals on it, and the staff is very successful in bringing in those goals.

Q: Is there a deadline on recipients to get jobs?

A: That can vary depending on the situation the client is in, depending on their education level, their work-experience level. For those who don’t have a high-school degree, the average in reading and math is fifth-grade level . . . . We really need to move most of our clients up to around the ninth-grade level in reading and math to be successful and retain their jobs in the private sector . . . . We want them to get there in the shortest period of time.

Q: Should Washington impose a deadline on welfare?

A: I am definitely for a deadline. It is a motivation we can use to get improved results in our GAIN program . . . .

I believe that prolonged welfare usage harms the most beautiful things about a human being. It can destroy their pride, their self-confidence; impair their decision-making over a long period of time, and they may develop fear and anxiety as to whether or not they can actually secure employment. The longer that dependency continues, the more damage there is to the human being. We need to intervene as soon as we can before that damage becomes more pronounced.

Q: If you were a senator, how would you reform welfare?

A: The very first priority I would have is to eliminate the requirement that one parent be absent for the family to be aided. It is very destructive to the family . . . . It ought to be a crime to impose this sort of requirement, as we now do it through the AFDC program. We need to promote the importance of the father. We need to build up his role and importance not only in supporting the children but in being involved in their lives.

We need to make welfare eligibility offices more like an employment office. When they come in to apply for assistance, we should say the best thing that we can do for you is to help you support yourself. That’s the greatest gift we can give you--so that you don’t need us. We’re willing to give you temporary assistance, but it’s conditioned upon your cooperation with seeking employment and taking the necessary steps on time so that you can become employed.

Q: Can welfare policy encourage the formation of two-parent families?

A: We’ve made the man economically more valuable to be gone with our welfare policies. How about using the reverse strategy: . . . (If) you have the father of the children in the home, you get more resources. You get more training resources. You get more job services. All of the extra support you need to get the whole family self-sufficient.

Q: Can states do a better job than the federal government on welfare reform?

A: The further you’re away from a problem and the day-to-day reality, the harder it’s going to be to accomplish meaningful change. Also, if you have 50 decision-making centers, as compared with one, you’re going to have more experimentation. You’re going to be trying different policies and different approaches. There’s a greater chance of success in breaking welfare dependency if more approaches are being used.

Q: Can counties handle this problem better than states?

A: Counties should be given latitude just like the states are asking for latitude from the federal government. In the state of California, we have been blessed with the jobs program we call GAIN. They encouraged us to use different methods, because we started our employment program before the federal government started the jobs program. They said, go out and try different methods. That was wise of the state Legislature.

Q: Would this work if government did not continue to provide child-care assistance or a transportation subsidy?

A: Adequate child-care funding is crucial during operation of the jobs program and following job placement. Transportation allowances are crucial. We must keep in mind that some recipients, depending on the size of their family and their wage level, may not immediately get off of welfare . . . . They are working to the best of their ability . . . . They need child-care provisions . . . . They need transportation allowances so that they can get to work.

Q: Is this bleeding-heart liberalism?

A: Every day that we can keep a welfare recipient in employment is a good day. It’s a day where learning can occur-- . . . how to get along with co-workers and how to accept supervision. Even if somebody is out there for just a while and gets fired, I can even rejoice in that, because that’s a learning experience. We’ll get them right back out into other employment again and say, “Now, what did you learn from that?” Many taxpayers have been fired for cause and used it as a learning experience. It’s a socialization process. You have to learn it like anything else in life--how to be a successful employee and how to progress and earn pay raises and promotions . . . .

If we have to give them a little bit of subsidy while they’re going through this learning process, that’s a good investment. At least they’re trying to earn their own way instead of depending on society.

Q: Have Americans grown weary of helping everyone who has a handout?

A: There is a desire to help somebody who is down and out, had a really tough break, were laid off or maybe even made a bad decision. But (Americans) demand that there be progress and there be cooperation in learning how to become employed . . . . There’s a good heart to the American society for temporary assistance. But it should be conditioned upon effort and response to cooperation from the client.