Legislature OKs Major Revamping of Welfare System

Despite strident opposition from the outer wings of both political parties, the Legislature passed and sent to the governor Monday a mammoth restructuring of California’s welfare system designed to provide the catalyst for moving 500,000 recipients into the work force.

The compromise plan, which attempted to strike a balance between those who desired to give the poor a helping hand and those who wanted to use economic penalties to push them into jobs, won approval in the Senate, 33 to 5, and then the Assembly, 64 to 11.

For the first time, it will etch into California legislation strict limits on the amount of time recipients could remain on welfare, force poor mothers to adhere to tough work requirements and establish community service jobs for those who can’t find employment.

But the legislation also attempts to provide a safety net for children by allowing them to continue to receive aid when their parents reach the five-year lifetime limit established by federal law.

The opposition came from liberal Democrats, who saw it as too punitive to the poor, and ultraconservative Republicans, who believed its work requirements were not strict enough.

“All I’ve got to say with respect to my colleagues is shame, shame,” said Sen. John Burton (D-San Francisco), the most vocal opponent.

A second measure that placed a lifetime ban on aid for anyone convicted of a drug felony passed the Senate by 21 to 9 and the by Assembly 53 to 14.

The welfare plan, climaxing months of partisan debate, is expected to be signed into law by Gov. Pete Wilson, who helped hammer out the final compromise in often-explosive bargaining sessions with Democratic legislative leaders in the past month.

In a statement, Wilson said he is inclined to sign the reforms, which would go into effect in 1998.

“Throughout the welfare debate, we have insisted on a reform package that puts work first, has meaningful time limits and provides flexibility to counties,” the governor said. “Today . . . is the first step in reforming a welfare system that for far too long trapped people in dependency and denied them the dignity of work.”

California is one of the last states to pass a welfare reform law. The action came only a few weeks short of the anniversary of the passage of a national act that gave states broad new authority to design their own systems.

“This moves us away from what we have today, which is a cold and heartless system based more on paperwork and bureaucracy rather than achieving results,” said Assemblyman Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield), one of the architects of the compromise.

*

Sen. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena), the Senate’s principle author of the proposal, said the plan fulfilled the president’s promise to “end welfare as we know it” by providing “rewards for those who play by the rules and sanctions for those who don’t.”

“This is the future: We want to train, educate and motivate people to get into the work force,” said Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward).

The final measure blended elements of a welfare proposal unveiled by Wilson in January and a Democratic plan produced by an 18-member bipartisan conference committee after months of hearings and debate.

The plan failed to address two key elements the Democrats wanted--state funding for general assistance, the county program that provides aid to the poor, and relief for legal immigrants who will lose food stamps in September under the federal act.

Democrats said they still hoped that budget negotiations with Wilson would produce some food stamp relief for immigrants, but they acknowledged that as a major concession to Wilson, they had to give up state funding for general assistance.

Their own proposal had called for the state to pick up 30% of the cost of general assistance as a gesture to counties which expected a huge increase in that caseload when recipients were pushed off other programs by time limits and work requirements.

In an attempt to cut down on the caseload growth, the final bill prohibits welfare recipients who reach the time limits from receiving general assistance as long as their children are still on aid.

That and other punitive provisions in the welfare proposal were enough to cost the support of liberal Democrats, two of whom--Sen. Diane Watson of Los Angeles and Assemblywoman Dion Aroner of Berkeley--had helped write the original legislative proposal.

Assemblyman Antonio Villaraigosa (D-Los Angeles), who also sat on the welfare conference committee, said he believed the final plan would do little to truly help move recipients into the work force.

“All we have today is a bare framework, but it is so underfunded and decimated by compromises that I could not support it,” he said. “Now it is a plan that is skewed to throwing people into the street rather than taking them from welfare to work.”

Sen. John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara), another opponent of the measure, said that while the plan provides a program for creating low-skill jobs, it is unlikely that program will ever be funded.

“Let me remind you we are talking about moving 500,000 women with kids from welfare to work,” he said. “. . . That many jobs will not be produced by this economy, robust as it is.”

The most conservative Republicans in the Legislature joined the liberal Democrats in voting against the measure, but for opposite reasons.

Insisting that the plan made “a mockery of any serious work requirement,” Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Northridge) argued that instead of pushing welfare recipients into work, it was more likely to push the working poor into welfare.

*

Because of the new income levels the plan sets for welfare eligibility, he said that working mothers in low-wage jobs are likely now to qualify for welfare payments, although their benefits will be much lower than the maximum $565 a month provided for a family of three.

“This is not going to significantly reduce the welfare caseload. It is going to increase it,” he warned.

But Assembly Republican Leader Curt Pringle (R-Garden Grove) urged his colleagues to vote for the plan, saying all the Republican objections to the original Democratic plan had been addressed. He said time limits had been shortened, fraud provisions toughened, costs reduced and many of the exemptions from work requirements had been removed.

“The legislative process can never please the purists,” he said, referring to the liberal Democrats and ultraconservative Republicans.

With his endorsement, the bill easily achieved the two-thirds vote necessary for Assembly passage, but the second proposal dealing with drug felonies was more controversial. In the Senate, it barely collected a two-thirds vote.

In an emotional speech, Burton, himself a recovering drug addict, argued that the bill would forever prevent convicted drug felons from receiving any federal cash aid for their families--even those felons who had been rehabilitated.

“I’m telling you, don’t turn your back on people who have had drug problems,” Burton pleaded. “It ain’t easy to stop. You don’t stop until you die. . . . There is redemption. There is rehabilitation.”

Times staff writers Carl Ingram and Dan Morain contributed to this article.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

California’s New Welfare Plan

Here are key components of the welfare plan adopted Monday by the state Legislature:

* Time Limits: 24 months for current recipients and 18 months for new applicants, but counties may extend the limit for another six months. Lifetime limit of 60 months.

* Community Service Jobs: Recipients who reach the 24-month limit and haven’t found work can be employed in government-financed jobs.

* Safety Net for Children: Once families reach the 60-month limit, children can continue to receive aid in the form of cash or vouchers.

* General Relief: Counties will continue to finance general assistance for the poor.

* Maternity Exemption: Mothers of newborns generally will be exempted for six months from work requirements, but counties have the option to reduce that to three months or increase it to a year.

* Fraud: Recipients convicted of welfare fraud are barred for life from receiving aid.

* Paternity: A family’s grant will be reduced by 25% if the mother refuses to provide information about the father of her children that will allow district attorney to establish paternity.

* Grant Levels: A 4.9% cut in benefits and suspension of a cost-of-living increase will be continued for another year, meaning a family of three in Los Angeles can collect a maximum of $565 a month.

* Work Requirements: Able-bodied adult recipients will be required to engage in work or training at least 20 hours a week for the next two years. Beginning Jan. 1, 2000, the requirement becomes 32 hours a week.

* School Attendance: Parents can be sanctioned if a child under 16 fails to attend school regularly.

* Immunization: Children must be immunized within 30 days after a family has been determined to be eligible for Medi-Cal.

* Child Support: Families on aid will get to keep $50 of a monthly child support payment provided by an absent parent. The remainder goes to the state.

* Child Care: Families will be entitled to child care as parents leave aid for low-paying jobs.

* Diversion: Counties can set up diversion programs that provide one-time emergency assistance to divert families from applying for welfare.

Sources: California Legislature, California Department of Finance