According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s most recent statistics, the nationwide welfare recipient caseload dropped by 48 percent, from about 14 million in 1993 to about 7.3 million this year (see Figure 1). Unfortunately, California does not have much to celebrate. Despite some progress in reducing the state’s caseload, California is near the bottom when compared to the rest of the nation.

While California’s 25-percent drop in welfare caseloads—about half the national average—during that same period may initially seem impressive, it is important to recognize that the leading states have seen their caseloads fall by as much as 90 percent (see Figure 2). California presently ranks 46th in caseload reductions, leading only Alaska, Hawaii, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia. But that is only part of the story.

In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWOA), a welfare reform bill aimed to "end welfare as we know it." The Act established work requirements and time limits in order to give welfare recipients an incentive to find work rather than remain on the public dole.

Rather than take more aggressive steps to move welfare recipients from welfare to work, some California lawmakers appear to be moving in the opposite direction. Several legislative proposals aim to scale back work requirements and time limits for welfare recipients —incrementally unraveling welfare reform in California.

Work requirements. When most people hear of "stringent" work requirements for welfare recipients, they likely think of their own hectic work schedules and marathon days of balancing work and family. Many citizens may be surprised to learn, therefore, that California’s current work requirement is 32 hours per week for a single parent. For two-parent families, the work requirement is 35 hours per week between both parents. New legislative proposals would weaken these requirements by counting sick leave and holidays toward the welfare recipient’s work requirement.

In addition, California already exempts women with children under six months of age from the work requirement and gives counties the discretion to exempt women with children under three months to 12 months. The proposed changes would further weaken the work requirement for single-parent welfare recipients with children under age six from 32 hours to 20 hours per week. More than half of California’s current single-parent recipient households have at least one child under age six, so the size of this loophole is readily apparent.

Time limits. The federal Act establishes a five-year lifetime limit for cash benefits. Many states established even shorter time limits and are experiencing significant caseload reductions. Yet not only did California opt for the least-stringent federal requirement of five years, but California counties may opt to provide welfare recipients with county-level benefits in the form of cash or vouchers after the recipients’ five years expire.

One current proposal would further weaken the 60-month time limit on welfare by creating a new state-only benefit that would guarantee subsidized employment. The state is already allowed to exempt up to one-fifth of its welfare caseload from the five-year time limit.

No dead-end jobs; only dead-end welfare. Enforcing time limits and work requirements is important because welfare is intended to be used for only a short while by people who are temporarily out of work. It is not intended to be a way of life. The present welfare system is the source of many more social problems that come at a high cost to society, taxpayers, and those trapped in the welfare system—particularly children.

Welfare dependency dramatically diminishes their prospect of a bright, successful future. For example, children raised on welfare are seven times more likely than other children to become welfare dependents. Children’s IQ scores decline as they remain on welfare. Young boys on welfare are more likely to engage in illegal activity and will have lower lifetime earnings. Young girls on welfare are more likely to give birth to children out of wedlock and to drop out of school.

A step in the right direction. California lawmakers should be prepared to engage in more comprehensive and aggressive reform efforts. Strengthening work requirements and reducing the benefit cutoff limit from the current 60-month maximum to 24 months for all new welfare entrants would be positive steps.

Before joining the national celebration over welfare reform, California lawmakers should finish their chores. There are ultimately no substitutes for the benefits of work, family, and personal responsibility. Welfare reform based on these values gives California lawmakers an opportunity to prove their claim that they are truly committed to "ending welfare as we know it."

* Naomi Lopez is director of the Center for Enterprise and Opportunity at the California-based Pacific Research Institute. For additional information, contact Naomi Lopez at (415) 989-0833.