‘Devastating’ Effect Feared if Welfare Deadline Is Missed

The continuing deadlock over local welfare reform guidelines could cost Orange County millions of dollars in state and federal funds and prompt the state to ultimately assume control of the county’s welfare planning if the Board of Supervisors fails to approve a plan by the end of the week.

County officials said the effect would be “devastating” if the board does not submit a welfare plan to the governor by the Jan. 10 state-imposed deadline.

The county would be subject to fines and other penalties and could lose as much as $50 million in state and federal funding earmarked for social services.

The funding cuts could force the county to pay some benefits out of its general fund, which is already stretched to the limit and contains little money for such a contingency, officials said.

Without a plan from Orange County, the state is empowered to assign a trustee to come up with a local welfare plan and begin implementing it.

“That would be the worst-case scenario,” said Angelo Doti, who is leading welfare reform planning for the county. “I don’t think that would ever happen. I have no reason to believe some accommodation could not be reached before that could ever happen.”

The plan is part of the larger national welfare reform movement to get recipients off welfare and into jobs by setting a lifetime, five-year limit on welfare benefits, and also by imposing workfare or education conditions on those still receiving aid.

“The consequences of not having this done would be monumental,” said Supervisor Thomas W. Wilson. “It would become obstructive to the way county government operates.”

Last month, the supervisors failed to agree on a welfare plan after a lengthy debate that focused on one provision of the proposal--the amount of time welfare recipients should be required to work or be in school during the first year of welfare reform.

The county’s staff recommended that recipients work 32 hours a week. But the board voted 3-2 to require a 26-hour workweek for the first year, and 32 hours after that.

Supervisors said they were persuaded to adopt the less stringent requirement after listening to several mothers on welfare who said they needed more time to make the transition to work or school.

But county plans require a 4-1 vote for approval, and the two holdouts for the 32-hour work week--Supervisors Todd Spitzer and Jim Silva--refused to vote for the plan without the change.

“On certain issues, some of us feel so strongly that we’re not going to change our votes just because we’re trying to reach a compromise,” Spitzer said. “I will not start welfare reform with built-in excuses for welfare recipients on why they cannot wean themselves off public assistance.”

The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider the issue again this morning. Board of Supervisors Chairman William G. Steiner indicated last month that he was leaning toward supporting the 32-hour rule, and on Monday, Wilson said he is also moving in that direction.

Wilson said he still believes that 26 hours is a better “middle ground” that will give recipients time to find child care and make more successful transitions from public assistance.

“But I am not going to hold out for a few hours on an issue with such important consequences for Orange County,” he said. “I want to listen to what people have to say at the meeting. But it’s gone beyond a philosophical issue. Now, it’s become a pragmatic issue.”

Assemblyman Curt Pringle (R-Garden Grove) and Sen. Rob Hurtt (R-Garden Grove) scrambled Monday to collect signatures from the county’s legislative delegation backing the 32-hour limit. They said the supervisors were “fiscally irresponsible” and “lax” for suggesting welfare recipients work fewer hours than required by state and federal welfare-reform plans.

By day’s end, his letter to chairman Steiner had been signed by each county Assembly member and senator.

“The governor and legislative Republicans fought long and hard for the 32-hour work requirement in the state plan,” Hurtt said. “For Orange County--a full employment county--to adopt anything less is outrageous. It is reminiscent of the fiscal irresponsibility that plunged the county into bankruptcy.”