THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, February 6, 1997 TAG: 9702060015
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A16 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: 58 lines
The House of Delegates struck a blow to the aspirations of welfare recipients on Tuesday when a bill that elevated training over work in some cases died on a 50-50 vote.
With a little more than two weeks remaining in the 1997 session, legislators should find a way to revive this idea and to affirm the principle it represents.
The bipartisan measure, with support led by Republican Del. Vincent Callahan of McLean and Democratic Del. Jean Cunningham of Richmond, would have allowed women who are within 12 months of completing an educational or training program to forgo welfare-reform work requirements until the program is finished.
That is an eminently sensible idea. The bill's defeat says more about election-year squeamishness than about rational concerns. It is not in vogue just now in either Washington or Richmond to appear to be backing away from recently enacted reforms.
The danger of that intransigence, however, is demonstarted by the example of a welfare-to-work training program that is being coordinated by the women's center at Tidewater Community College.
Under that plan, 11 women recently began a pre-apprenticeship program designed to help them become automotive technicians. The women are studying at the Hunter Training Center in Portsmouth, which also runs local automotive apprenticeship programs for General Motors Corp.
The hope is that the women will enter full apprenticeship training with GM when their current work is complete. Even as students, apprentices earn higher wages than entry-level workers at fast-food restaurants. As full-fledged auto technicians, the women probably would earn salaries large enough to sustain them and their families - something few people believe fast-food wages can do.
But under current welfare-to-work regulations, which take effect in Hampton Roads this fall, prospective students could find themselves ineligible in the future for the pre-apprenticeship program.
Currently, women covered by the reform must work eight to 30 hours per week to receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Even if all but eight hours of required work were waived, there is no guarantee that a woman could find a part-time job that would fit her class schedule.
Some delegates arguing against the bill noted that they worked their way through school. But how many did so with children, poverty-level living conditions and no mate?
Delegate Callahan - no bleeding-heart liberal - says about 17,000 jobs statewide that require lower-level technical skills are going unfilled for lack of applicants. It would meet the needs of both business and an indigent population if the two could be meshed. The Callahan-Cunningham proposal is a step in that direction.
In welfare reform, Virginia and the rest of the nation have embarked on a huge social experiment involving the lives of thousands of poor men, women and children. To pretend that the original legislation was perfect and to brook no revision is absurd.
It is not backing away from a commitment to welfare reform to do everything possible to make sure that the reform works.