Politics                                                      

The debate over welfare reflects
stereotyping of aid recipients

The proposed "reforms" include some mean-spirited provisions that could make life bleaker for the poorest and youngest citizens

By CHARLES N. WHEELER III

Seldom has the fate of one child so captured the public attention as has the case of "Baby Richard." Many Illinoisans expressed shock last year when the Illinois Supreme Court ordered the 3-year-old boy taken from his adoptive family — the only one he has ever known — and given to Otakar Kirchner, the biological father he has never met.

In a rare move, Gov. Jim Edgar asked the court to reconsider, while the General Assembly with little dissent rushed to the governor's eager pen a new law that requires that a child's best interests be given paramount importance in custody hearings.

Last month, when a majority of the justices affirmed that the child belonged to Kirchner, Edgar branded the decision "shocking," "outrageous," "heartless" and "incredibly inhumane."

Meanwhile, the governor's wife, Brenda, wrote a personal note to Kirchner asking him to relinquish his claim for the good of the child.

If the plight of one small boy could so galvanize state political leaders, one might reasonably expect they would be moved even more deeply when the future well-being of tens of thousands of youngsters was at stake.

Incredibly, that is not the case. Instead, the governor has joined Republican lawmakers in promoting welfare "reforms" that include some mean-spirited provisions that could make life even bleaker for the poorest and youngest of the state's citizens. Perhaps the most noxious is the so-called "family cap," which would deny any increase in benefits to women who have additional babies while on welfare.

Cap proponents contend the state should encourage responsible behavior, not offer incentives for single parenthood. Such arguments reflect the common stereotype: the welfare mother as baby factory, indiscriminately procreating to boost her Public Aid check. But the facts belie the image.

In the state's largest cash assistance welfare program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the average family has two children, just like its non-welfare counterpart. Fewer than one out of eight welfare families in Illinois have four or more children, according to caseload statistics from the Public Aid department.

Moreover, human experience suggests that a decision to engage in sexual activity is not always preceded by a cost-benefit analysis of the pregnancy that might result, especially when those involved are teenagers. Not surprisingly, common sense is confirmed by scientific research; studies have found that benefit levels have no significant effect on out-of-wedlock births and teen pregnancy.

While unlikely to achieve the results its proponents are seeking, a baby cap most surely would lead to consequences Edgar and lawmakers should abhor.

When some welfare mom has another baby — as will happen — the family's already inadequate resources will be stretched further, enhancing the odds the children will become victims of neglect and fall into the state's child welfare system. That warning comes not from some bleeding heart poor people's advocate, but from Children and Family Services Director Jess McDonald, whose agency already faces huge caseload increases.

When some other welfare mom becomes pregnant — as will happen — she will opt for abortion, rather than bear another child into grinding poverty. That certainty has led right-to-life groups and the state's Catholic hierarchy to oppose the cap. Yet, among its most ardent supporters are some of the loudest right-to-life voices in the legislature, giving credence to the canard that anti-abortionists' concern for life begins at conception and ends at birth.

While the baby cap is the most reprehensible portion of the GOP program, the most sweeping change would abolish Aid to Families with Dependent Children on January 1, 1999. The program, which serves as a safety net for almost 500,000 kids, would be supplanted by some as-yet-unknown and undevised replacement,

6/March 1995/Illinois Issues

which Edgar says will focus on temporary assistance rather than long-term dependence.

Again, the rationale behind the proposal seems rooted in stereotypes: people on welfare are lazy, jobs are plentiful, and recipients should be forced to work. But those perceptions don't jibe with reality. Most AFDC families are on the rolls for two years or less, according to Public Aid statistics. Only about one in four receives benefits for more than four years, although many of those who leave for marginal employment are forced to return. Almost two-thirds of those served by the AFDC program are children, half of them 6 years old or younger.

The minimum wage jobs available to their moms — most of whom lack even a high school education — rarely provide fringe benefits like health insurance, nor do they pay enough to cover child care. Job prospects are further hindered by drug and alcohol problems for some AFDC mothers.

Those who champion the abolition of AFDC as a meaningful way to cut welfare costs also are misguided; the program constitutes less than 15 percent of the current Public Aid budget. Six dollars will be spent on Medicaid, which pays health care costs for the poor, for every dollar spent on AFDC. What's more, health care for AFDC recipients accounts for only about one-third of Medicaid costs; some two-thirds of Medicaid dollars pay for services to the elderly and the disabled, groups which make up only about one-fourth of the total welfare caseload.

Perhaps Edgar and the legislature are truly serious about welfare reform, not just interested in bashing the poor to score political points. In that case, they should build on past initiatives like Work Pays and Earnfare that attempt to remove obstacles and provide incentives for recipients to enter the workforce. They should make adequate child care and ongoing health benefits top priorities. They should strengthen adult education and job training. And they should enhance child support collections.

To persist with such onerous notions as the baby cap and eliminating AFDC, however, is "shocking," "outrageous," "heartless" and "incredibly inhumane." *

Charles N. Wheeler III is director of the Public Affairs Reporting program at Sangamon State University in Springfield.