THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, February 25, 1995 TAG: 9502250253
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY MARGARET EDDS, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Long : 104 lines
Gov. George F. Allen and the Virginia Poverty Law Center found themselves in rare agreement Friday: Both said the governor had won almost every major point in a ``compromise'' that could give Virginia one of the toughest welfare-reform plans in the nation.
``This is not compromise; it's capitulation,'' said Steve Meyers, an attorney for the poverty law center, referring to a welfare-to-work agreement that lawmakers must act on today. Many will be seeing it for the first time.
``I'd rather have our original bill, but it's very close to our original bill on the essential major questions. . .,'' said Allen at a hastily arranged late afternoon press conference.
Key Democratic negotiators, including Lt. Gov. Donald S. Beyer Jr., had a different view of the plan, which would put most able-bodied recipients of Aid to Families With Dependent Children to work over the next four years and limit most benefits to 24 months in a four-year period.
Beyer described the proposal as genuine compromise, and noted that additional changes might be made today. ``It's not a deal that's made and put to bed,'' he said.
Debate over the plan is likely to provide the final drama for a session, ending today, that has been remarkable for its partisan discord.
Asked if he would support the plan, Beyer declined to say yes or no, but quoted Benjamin Franklin: `` `When a carpenter goes to build a house . . . you have to cut a little off each board to make them fit perfectly.' We've done our best and we hope it's good enough.''
Asked if all the half-dozen or so Democrats who joined in the negotiations had signed on, he replied: ``Exactly the opposite.'' A number of them are still looking for changes, he said.
Sources said several members of the Legislative Black Caucus were upset with the deal and were slated to meet with Beyer about it Friday night.
Allen has threatened to veto any bill that does not meet his specifications.
Earlier in the session, House and Senate Democrats rejected Allen's welfare reform proposal, substituting an amended version of a reform plan they passed last year. The 1994 plan was never implemented, largely because the Allen administration did not submit an application for federal approval until November.
Here's how the ``compromise'' addresses some of the key points of contention.
The Democrats' bill prescribed a 1-to-45 ratio between case workers and welfare recipients during the two-year transition to work. Democrats said this ratio was essential; Republicans said it would break the bank.
The compromise says the ``goal'' will be to have a case-management ratio no higher than that in a current JOBS program. That ratio is currently either 1-90 or 1-120, depending on whether you accept state or federal figures, state officials said.
The Democrats' plan said recipients ``shall'' receive child care and transportation services while they make the transition to work. The Republicans said they intend to provide the services, but that the law should read ``may.''
The compromise says local departments of social services ``are authorized'' to provide the support services.
The Democrats' plan listed a series of specific hardship exemptions to the two-year benefits cutoff, including failure to find ``suitable employment'' after an active search. The Republicans said exemptions should be considered in localities where the unemployment rate exceeded the state average by 2 percent or more and welfare officials determined that a hardship exemption was deserved.
The compromise turns the task of deciding hardship exemptions over to the state board of social services. It instructs them to ``address circumstances'' in which there is ``unfavorable . . . job availability'' or an individual has been unable to find employment.
The Democrats' plan prescribed one year of training, followed by one year of work. The training portion could be extended if that would give the client a better chance of self-sufficiency. The Republican plan said work should begin after 30 days. After six months, it allowed individuals to spend a portion of the work day in training, but at no point would work stop altogether.
The compromise calls for work to begin within 90 days. For six months, eight hours of the 32-hour work week could be devoted to training. After that, ``the number of hours worked may be reduced by the local department.''
No limit is set on the reduction, so that - at least theoretically - the entire time could be spent in training or education after six months. Beyer cited this as a major point won by Democratic negotiators.
Meyers said he interprets the language differently and believes that there could be no educational allowance during the first six months and that some degree of work would be required throughout the two years.
The Democrats' bill called for re-enactment in two years. The Republicans had no such provision. Neither does the compromise.
It is uncertain whether lawmakers will have to vote up or down today on the proposal or will have the opportunity to amend it. Under a recently passed constitutional amendment, they may be able to take floor amendments. But both Democrats and Republicans said it's uncertain how the scenario will work out because it's never been tested.
Some sort of welfare reform has been expected to result from this year's session; it was the one issue all sides agreed needed addressing.
Lawmakers from every locality see the need for change. According to the 1990 census, six of every 100 households in Hampton Roads rely on public assistance for some part of their income. More than 150,000 residents of the metropolitan area live in poverty. About 40 percent of them are children.
KEYWORDS: WELFARE SOCIAL SERVICES GENERAL ASSEMBLY by CNB