ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Friday, May 10, 1996 TAG: 9605100028
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-10 EDITION: METRO
FEW WILL disagree that unwed teen-age mothers must continue their education if they are to have any reasonable expectation of becoming self-supporting and escaping the dependence/poverty trap that otherwise would close on them and their children.
President Clinton's recent executive action designed to make high-school education a condition of welfare assistance for such mothers holds promise, therefore, of bettering the lives of thousands of young women and their babies. That alone is a worthwhile goal. The strategy also reinforces the important notion that government assistance comes only with reciprocal obligations.
After pledging to ``end welfare as we know it,'' the president has been under sharp criticism from conservatives for vetoing a welfare-reform bill shaped by the Republican-controlled Congress. In moving to tighten welfare restrictions for young, unmarried mothers, Clinton is attempting to show progress in an election year.
But, that said, the public shouldn't get its hopes too high.
In the first place, states and not the federal government continue to serve as the primary laboratories of welfare reform. The first step in Clinton's plan would require states to deny welfare benefits to unmarried teen mothers who refuse to complete their high-school education. Twenty-six states, including Virginia, already have welfare provisions to encourage teen mothers to stay in school. The president also wants states to require that teen moms on welfare live with their parents or with a responsible adult. Virginia is among 21 states already doing that, too.
Says the president: ``We have to make it clear that a baby doesn't give you a right and won't give you money to leave home and drop out of school.'' That message is needed. Evidence suggests that some teens welcome pregnancy as a way out of an unhappy home situation, even as a meal ticket - failing to consider the consequences on their future or their children's. And nothing so grates the public as young people with an attitude that welfare support is their due.
But there is a catch: Somebody has to take care of the baby. More schools will need to provide nurseries. And taxpayers will have to help cover more child-care costs, even after the teen mother has graduated or gotten a high-school equivalency certificate. It can't be assumed that the ``responsible adult'' in the home is around, able or willing to baby sit.
The public also needs to understand that the carrot-and-stick plan won't work in every case. This approach has been in effect in Ohio since 1989, and a recent study showed it had improved graduation rates. But neither the threat of losing welfare benefits nor the prospect of a bonus (a benefit increase) had persuaded all young, unwed mothers to stay in school.
As syndicated columnist William Raspberry recently wrote: ``[S]ome people may be beyond the reach of ordinary incentives or sanctions. And what do we do if that turns out to be the case? Let them (and their children) suffer? Increase the sanctions? Take the children?''
Yes, in some cases, children will have to be separated from parents and housed in the equivalent of orphanages.
Clinton's plan is not the ultimate solution to teen pregnancy or the costs it imposes. It should help, but more comprehensive efforts are needed.
LENGTH: Medium: 61 linesby CNB