Welfare Reform Priorities Neil Gilbert O ut of wedlock birth is a serious problem. On that score Charles Murray is dead right. Convinced that reducing illegitimacy should be the central objec- tive of welfare reform, he would encourage states to experiment with tough policies that prohibit additional support to mothers on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) who have another child and even do away with welfare entirely. As for the impact of these measures on the well-being of children, Murray is will- ing to bite the bullet: If things must get worse for chil- dren in AFDC families before they get better, so be it; these children are already in distress. But sometimes things just get worse. To date the results of the New Jersey cap on benefits to mothers who have additional children while on welfare have turned out to be much less impressive than the early reports of a 16-29 percent cut in birthrates. The more recent figures for the first year from the Rutgers five- year evaluation show no statistical difference between the birthrates of the experimental and control groups. The final results are several years off, and in time the policy may show greater effects. Yet even if the birth- rates declined by as much as 15-25 percent, a thought- ful assessment of the policy's success would factor in the costs to the children born to the other 75-85 per- cent of mothers whose behavior was not responsive to the penalty. These children are born into households with fewer resources, where things just got worse. Although reducing illegitimacy is surely important, it should not be the overriding priority of welfare re- form. The dilemma is more subtle than a zero-sum choice between reform measures to lower illegitimacy rates, which may harm millions of children in the pro- cess, and continuation of the status quo, under which millions of children are already suffering. Three objectives should guide policy for welfare reform: inhibiting out of wedlock birth, protecting chil- dren, and rewarding work more than welfare. It is dif- ficult, if not impossible, in a free society to maximize all three objectives at the same time. But there may be a way to fashion welfare reform that will increase the protection of children while inhibiting the lifestyle that helps to sustain out of wedlock births. Since I agree with Murray that the parental competence of many young unwed mothers on AFDC is severely deficient and that their children pay the price in physical abuse, emotional neglect, and impaired cognitive development, I would take efforts to increase the protection of chil- dren as the critical starting point of welfare reform. (In the beginning, that is what AFDC, originally Aid to Dependent Children, was all about.) The Need to Hold Modest Expectations Proposals to limit or eliminate AFDC in the hope of curtailing illegitimacy overlook the fact that welfare as we know it often works well as a social safety net. For many families, AFDC serves not as an induce- ment to procreation but as a temporary support in hard times. Findings based on annual data indicate that about 48 percent of all AFDC spells last less than two years