Cathie Wright : The State Senator Explains Her Vision of Effective Welfare Reform

State Sen. Cathie Wright (R-Simi Valley), a member of the Legislature’s welfare reform committee, stood alone among Republicans in voting for a plan vetoed by the governor. She explains her thinking in an interview with The Times.

*

Question: Why did you want to be involved in reforming welfare?

Answer: It just seemed like an issue I’d like to get my teeth on. . . . We talk about getting people jobs but it’s more involved than that. Sometimes you have to do something first. Look at the different populations [on welfare.] They are not all laid off aerospace workers, not all people who don’t want to work. . . . You can’t just put somebody out to get a job they keep for six months and that’s the end of it. You have to do something permanent.

Q: What point of view did you bring to the table?

A: It had something to do with the jobs I had before I came [to Sacramento]. I sold cable television in the Simi Valley. I used to pay one woman’s cable bill sometimes. She was a single mom. . . . Without cable there was no television. She was trying to hold down two jobs and take care of two little kids at the same time. Child support was what she needed. . . . I looked at [fellow legislators] who had never been in that situation or seen anyone in that situation. They see people who are not working and not why they are not working. . . . I wanted to make sure [everything] was covered.

Q: What did you see as your mission in the first year of revamping this complex system?

A: What I hoped to accomplish was, one, setting up a system that ensured people would be prepared to go to work. And in looking at the system there had to be enough flexibility for each county to deal with their populations, which are very different. . . . There were two things we had to have statewide--time [limits] and eligibility [requirements].

Q: You co-chaired a welfare reform working group on child care, transportation, mental health and substance abuse. Much of your knowledge about these subjects, you say, came from the Systems of Care programs you started in Ventura County. How did you get involved?

A: I was approached by probation officers in Los Angeles County [seeking early intervention for at-risk kids]. . . . I found out about integrated systems. You have people come together as a board and analyze youngsters and decide what they need. In California, we had plenty of programs for children, but we had youngsters in programs that didn’t meet their needs. . . . Ventura County was chosen for the pilot project. At the end of three years we had such wonderful results . . . we thought we must have made a mistake.

Q: Then you tried the same approach with mental health?

A: Because Systems of Care was so successful, we went into mental health and geared it toward adults. . . . What I saw is many of the people classified as homeless are mentally ill. The same with welfare. With evaluation some of these people could very well go to work--if they take medication.

Q: What did you learn at the study sessions on welfare that informed your decisions?

A: We had quite an argument about illegal immigrants [in nursing homes]. You needed to take a second look. . . . What are you going to do with these people? In all honesty, are you going to put them on the streets? Do they have any family? It was interesting to find out a lot of them didn’t have any family. The numbers [in nursing homes] were so small in comparison to the whole welfare picture, I said, “They are all going to die before we finish this argument.”

Q: What about benefits for legal immigrants?

A: I wondered how could you be a legal immigrant unless someone sponsored you. . . . But when you get into it, you find refugees, people who were given asylum. . . . What came before the committee is that the majority of them were the elderly. . . . How could you take somebody 70 years old and tell them they had to go to work?

Q: Were you able to prevail on that point?

A: Pretty much so. Many of these elderly people would qualify for [aid] under SSI. We found out we weren’t talking about a lot of money and it was temporary [SSI requires a waiting period.]

Q: Child care was a key issue for you. How did child care figure into your calculations on the committee?

A: We asked, “What are the services necessary for a person who has never been to work to go to work?” It was child care and transportation. We looked at what the governor had in his proposal: [12 weeks after giving birth, a mother on welfare must get a job]. My daughter . . . went back to work two months after having a baby. The only way she could do this was that I was in recess and took care of that child. . . . If you’re going to send women to work you have to find [infant care]. Not that this won’t happen in the future, but we have to start welfare reform right now. The Democrats said one year [before a welfare mother had to find work]. My compromise: no more than two years but only for the first child. I imagine there will be more negotiations.

Q: What will the compromise ultimately be?

A: There will probably be a compromise at one year. That will give us a year for child care facilities to gear up for babies.

Q: You’ve said you’re proudest of making sure the welfare reform program has accountability written into it.

A: That’s right. . . . We make the counties accountable to the states. And we want an evaluation of all the components by the University of California to make sure it is a cost-effective system. . . . With oversight, we would never again have a welfare program in California that is such a failure.

Q: Tell me about some of the Democrats’ ideas on welfare reform that you were able to keep out of the plan.

A: First off, they wanted to use the pooled investment fund of the State of California as collateral for loans for starting small businesses [to create jobs]. It would have brought our [credit] ratings down and put our fund at risk. . . . The next thing I got taken out of the plan was the earned-income tax credit. That was for people employed and paying taxes. . . . We were dealing with people who are not working. They were trying to take care of the working poor. They also wanted to [lower] the amount of time you had to work before becoming eligible to collect unemployment.

Q: Of all the Republicans lawmakers on the Welfare Reform committee, you were the most involved, most informed and therefore had the most input of anyone in the GOP on the plan. Why did your fellow Republicans not take a more active role?

A: Many of them [backed] what was called the Wisconsin [reform] plan. I read that plan and it is a good plan, but I would not want to compare California to Wisconsin. . . . Our fellows [Republicans] were very supportive of the governor’s [plan], which was understandable. It wasn’t that I didn’t support him, but I didn’t think his was a well-rounded program. He’s right, work comes first. No question. Then there’s the time element, [eligibility requirements] and he didn’t want to use any General Funds to start any new programs. I agree wholeheartedly with all that. But what do you do to get there?

Q: Will a welfare reform plan emerge this year?

A: I believe because the budget is tied to welfare reform there will be a compromise. There will be a good program. It will start Jan. 1.

Q: Will the criticism you’ve been getting from fellow Republicans about voting for the plan soon die down?

A: I’m hoping so. I have not received one phone call, nor have I received on letter to chastise me for what I did.

Q: You received a couple of hundred letters and calls about Cal State Northridge’s decision to cut four athletic teams. Where does that issue stand now?

A: It’s not quite over yet. Some administrators of that campus are not local. They are from the Midwest where football is the main sport. I think they moved too quickly. What I’m trying to do is give them time to lay out a plan. . . . I believe they will find a way to keep the sports and set up a foundation to keep the sports, and peace and quiet will reign. . . . After serving them for 17 years, I know the people of the San Fernando Valley love their winning teams.”

Q: What about your future? Any plans to run for office after your final term in the Senate expires in 2000?

A: Am I going to run for anything? I don’t know. . . . One thing: I will not run for the Assembly. I would rule out lieutenant governor. It would be something else if I did decide to run.