[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SECOND IN SERIES ON WELFARE REFORM: WORK REQUIREMENTS ON THE TANF CASH
WELFARE PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 3, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-10
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
74-216 WASHINGTON : 2001
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
BILL THOMAS, California, Chairman
PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
E. CLAY SHAW, Jr., Florida FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
AMO HOUGHTON, New York WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania
WALLY HERGER, California SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
JIM McCRERY, Louisiana BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
DAVE CAMP, Michigan JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
SAM JOHNSON, Texas RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
JENNIFER DUNN, Washington MICHAEL R. McNULTY, New York
MAC COLLINS, Georgia WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania XAVIER BECERRA, California
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
JERRY WELLER, Illinois EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado
RON LEWIS, Kentucky
MARK FOLEY, Florida
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin
Allison Giles, Chief of Staff
Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Human Resources
WALLY HERGER, California, Chairman
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
JIM McCRERY, Louisiana JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
DAVE CAMP, Michigan LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania
RON LEWIS, Kentucky
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published
in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the official
version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare both
printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of
converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Advisory of March 27, 2001, announcing the hearing............... 2
WITNESSES
Library of Congress, Vee Burke, Specialist in Income Maintenance,
Congressional Research Service................................. 69
______
Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, Father
Robert A. Sirico............................................... 56
Center for Law and Social Policy, Steve Savner................... 60
Michigan Family Independence Agency, Douglas E. Howard........... 36
New York City Human Resources Administration, Jason A. Turner,
accompanied by Lisa Falcocchio, New York City Parks Department. 13
Welfare to Work Partnership, Rodney J. Carroll, accompanied by
Takia Roberts, CVS Pharmacy.................................... 41
YWCA of Greater Milwaukee, Julia Taylor, accompanied by Dorothy
Taylor, Generation 2 Plastics.................................. 7
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Community Voices Heard, New York, NY, statement and attachments.. 88
National Employment Law Project, New York, NY, Maurice Emsellem,
statement...................................................... 96
NETWORK, statement............................................... 100
Noble, Deborah, Willimantic, CT, statement....................... 101
NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York, NY, statement and
attachments.................................................... 102
Wider Opportunities for Women, Diana Pearce and Jennifer Brooks,
statement and attachments...................................... 109
SECOND IN SERIES ON WELFARE REFORM: WORK REQUIREMENTS ON THE TANF CASH
WELFARE PROGRAM
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 2001
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Human Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:02 p.m., in
room B-318 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Wally Herger
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]
ADVISORY FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
CONTACT: (202) 225-1025
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 27, 2001
HR-2
Herger Announces Hearing Series on
Welfare Reform
Congressman Wally Herger (R-CA), Chairman, Subcommittee on Human
Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the
Subcommittee will hold the second day in a hearing series on welfare
reform issues. This hearing will focus on work requirements in the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash welfare program, as
well as other means-tested benefits programs. The hearing will take
place on Tuesday, April 3, 2001, in room B-318 of the Rayburn House
Office Building, beginning at 3:00 p.m.
In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral
testimony at this hearing will be from invited witnesses only. However,
any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may
submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for
inclusion in the printed record of the hearing.
BACKGROUND:
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996 (P.L. 104-193), commonly referred to as the 1996 welfare reform
law, made dramatic changes in the Federal-State welfare system designed
to aid low-income American families. The law repealed the former Aid to
Families with Dependent Children program, and with it the individual
entitlement to cash welfare benefits. In its place, the 1996
legislation created a new TANF block grant that provides fixed funding
to States to operate programs designed to achieve several purposes: (1)
provide assistance to needy families, (2) end the dependence of needy
parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and
marriage, (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock
pregnancies, and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-
parent families. Associated changes included individual time limits and
work requirements intended to reinforce the new focus on work and
independence for families needing assistance.
The TANF program's focus on work has played an important role in
helping more than two million individuals enter the workforce or avoid
the welfare rolls altogether. This hearing will examine the lessons
learned from the history of American social policy regarding work and
programs that expect work in exchange for benefits. The hearing also
will examine specific work requirements in TANF and other programs.
Finally, the hearing will consider whether work requirements should be
modified to send an even stronger pro-work message to current and
would-be beneficiaries.
In announcing the hearing, Chairman Herger stated: ``When President
Franklin Roosevelt spoke about welfare before Congress in 1935, he said
`To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle
destroyer of the human spirit. . . . It is in violation of the
traditions of America.' FDR was right. Yet for too long providing
benefits without promoting or requiring work reinforced a cycle of
dependence. That was how welfare operated prior to 1996. Now under
welfare reform we have begun to set our social policy back on course.
This hearing will examine past approaches, and consider our next steps
to promote work so all parents can support their families.''
FOCUS OF THE HEARING:
The focus of this hearing is on work requirements in TANF and other
anti-poverty programs. The Subcommittee will seek information on prior
efforts to require work in exchange for benefits, and also consider the
record of current programs that promote work.
DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Any person or organization wishing to submit a written statement
for the printed record of the hearing should submit six (6) single-
spaced copies of their statement, along with an IBM compatible 3.5-inch
diskette in WordPerfect or MS Word format, with their name, address,
and hearing date noted on a label, by the close of business, Tuesday,
April 17, 2001, to Allison Giles, Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways and
Means, U.S. House of Representatives, 1102 Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. If those filing written statements
wish to have their statements distributed to the press and interested
public at the hearing, they may deliver 200 additional copies for this
purpose to the Subcommittee on Human Resources office, room B-317
Rayburn House Office Building, by close of business the day before the
hearing.
FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:
Each statement presented for printing to the Committee by a
witness, any written statement or exhibit submitted for the printed
record or any written comments in response to a request for written
comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any statement or
exhibit not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed,
but will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the
Committee.
1. All statements and any accompanying exhibits for printing must
be submitted on an IBM compatible 3.5-inch diskette in WordPerfect or
MS Word format, typed in single space and may not exceed a total of 10
pages including attachments. Witnesses are advised that the Committee
will rely on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing
record.
2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not
be accepted for printing. Instead, exhibit material should be
referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material not meeting
these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for
review and use by the Committee.
3. A witness appearing at a public hearing, or submitting a
statement for the record of a public hearing, or submitting written
comments in response to a published request for comments by the
Committee, must include on his statement or submission a list of all
clients, persons, or organizations on whose behalf the witness appears.
4. A supplemental sheet must accompany each statement listing the
name, company, address, telephone and fax numbers where the witness or
the designated representative may be reached. This supplemental sheet
will not be included in the printed record.
The above restrictions and limitations apply only to material being
submitted for printing. Statements and exhibits or supplementary
material submitted solely for distribution to the Members, the press,
and the public during the course of a public hearing may be submitted
in other forms.
Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on
the World Wide Web at ``http://waysandmeans.house.gov''.
The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons
with disabilities. If you are in need of special accommodations, please
call 202-225-1721 or 202-226-3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four
business days notice is requested). Questions with regard to special
accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee
materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as
noted above.
Chairman Herger. The subject of today's hearing is work
requirements and welfare reform. At our first hearing, we heard
that welfare reform has had a number of positive effects.
Caseloads are down 50 percent, incomes are up, and more than 2
million children have been lifted out of poverty nationwide.
There are many factors behind these impressive results, but
none more important than work. Since States started reforming
welfare and the 1996 law took hold, a new ethic of work has
swept over America's welfare system and the families who had
come to depend on it. The best measure of this change is what
happened among low income workers, especially women. Today
single mothers are more likely to work than even married
mothers, with working never-married mothers close behind. That
is a dramatic shift from the early nineties when fewer than
half of never-married mothers worked.
The result? According to the Urban Institute, mothers, even
in the bottom two-fifths of income earners, have gained ground.
How? Because they are working and so earning more. And in place
of welfare, they are earning new benefits like the earned
income credit which rewards work.
The purpose of today's hearing is to help us better
understand this renewed work ethic, the implications for
former, current and would-be recipients, and what this all
means as we take a look at more reforms in the coming year.
First we will hear from practitioners and beneficiaries in
cities and States around the country. They will tell us how the
most aggressive work programs have changed the lives of
beneficiaries and entire communities. Next, we will hear how
the business community has stepped up to help put former
recipients in jobs. Then we will get some perspective on moral
issues involved in requiring work for benefits. And finally, we
will hear from experts about work requirements, both under the
new cash welfare block grant and related programs.
Considering the changes we have seen and our hopes for
future progress, this is an exciting topic. We thank all of our
witnesses for being here today to explore these issues with us.
Without objection, each Member will have the opportunity to
submit a written statement and have it included in the record
at this point.
[The opening statement of Chairman Herger follows:]
Opening Statement of the Hon. Wally Herger, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Human Resources
The subject of today's hearing is work requirements and welfare
reform.
At our first hearing, we heard that welfare reform has had a number
of positive effects. Caseloads are down 50 percent, incomes are up, and
more than two million children have been lifted out of poverty
nationwide. There are many factors behind those impressive results, but
none more important than work.
Since States started reforming welfare and the 1996 law took hold,
a renewed ethic of work has swept over America's welfare system and the
families who had come to depend on it. The best measure of this change
is what happened among low-income workers, especially women. Today
single mothers are more likely to work than even married mothers, with
working never-married mothers close behind. That is a dramatic shift
from the early 1990s, when fewer than half of never-married mothers
worked.
The result? According to the Urban Institute, mothers even in the
bottom two-fifths of income earners have gained ground. How? Because
they are working and so earning more. And in place of welfare they are
earning new benefits like the Earned Income Credit, which rewards work.
The purpose of today's hearing is to help us better understand this
renewed work ethic, the implications for former, current and would-be
recipients, and what this all means as we take a look at more reforms
in the coming year.
First, we will hear from practitioners and beneficiaries in cities
and states around the country. They will tell us how the most
aggressive work programs have changed the lives of beneficiaries and
entire communities. Next, we will hear how the business community has
stepped up to help put former recipients in jobs. Then, we'll get some
perspective on moral issues involved in requiring work for benefits.
And finally, we will hear from experts about work requirements, both
under the new cash welfare block grant and related programs.
Considering the changes we have seen and our hopes for future
progress, this is an exciting topic.
Chairman Herger. Mr. Cardin.
Mr. Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for convening this hearing and I also want to compliment you on
the panels that we have before us today. I am pleased that we
are focusing today on the most important component on welfare
reform: That is work. Enabling people to make the transition
from welfare to work is the first critical test of any welfare
reform initiative. I believe the 1996 welfare law is passing
that test. In fact, the employment rates for poor single
mothers with young children increased 23 percent between 1996
and 1999.
However, our enthusiasm about these results should be
tempered by three facts: First, we still have about one-third
of people that are leaving welfare and are not going into the
work force. We don't have much information about this group. We
should find out what is happening to them. Second, there is a
growing proportion of people that are currently on the caseload
that have severe barriers to finding employment. They lack high
school diplomas, they have, in some cases, drug addiction
problems, they have poor work history and have sometimes mental
or physical disabilities.
So I think we need to understand that we have to devote the
necessary resources to deal with the people that remain on cash
assistance.
And third, Mr. Chairman, there is the uncertainty of our
economy and what impact that will have on our work with welfare
reform.
The second major test of welfare reform is whether former
recipients are keeping their jobs and whether they are moving
up the employment ladder. In this regard, we are not able yet
to give a grade to the 1996 law as to whether it has been
successful or not. We just don't have enough information.
As the Congressional Research Service told us during our
last hearing, most welfare leavers are not increasing their
income when they leave welfare for work. If this trend
continues, the final legacy of welfare reform will be that we
replaced a generation of welfare poor with a generation of
working poor. We can and must do better than that.
There are several remedies for this problem: Some are
outside jurisdiction of the Subcommittee such as increasing the
earned income tax credit or improving our Nation's educational
system or expanding investments in inner city neighborhoods.
But other reforms are directly relevant to this panel's
reauthorization of TANF. First, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest
we must maintain the Federal financial commitment to TANF. Let
us make sure that the dollars that we are currently making
available to our States are retained to deal with these
problems.
Second we should help individuals take advantage of some of
the positive steps taken by most States under welfare reform,
namely, raising the so-called earnings disregard so that we can
increase the income for people that are in the work force. And
we should adopt a national policy of work-stops-the-clock so
that a person is not under a disincentive to take advantage of
higher earnings disregards.
Third, we must do a much better job ensuring that
individuals who are leaving welfare for employment are
receiving the work supports that they are entitled to such as
food stamps, Medicaid and child care. Fourth, the restrictions
on training and education contained in the 1996 law must be
revisited. And finally we should encourage States to consider
the impact of TANF policy on poverty.
I have talked about this before, but we should encourage
our States to be more aggressive in not only getting people off
of cash assistance and dependency on Federal support, but also
getting people out of poverty.
Before I conclude, let me quickly comment on the issue of
Workfare, which is one of issues that this hearing will focus
on. The goal of work experience programs should not be to
discourage needy families from obtaining assistance nor to
provide a source of cheap labor for city or State projects.
Work programs should be specifically designed to help
individuals make the transition into wage-paying jobs.
Furthermore, recipients of work programs must be treated with
dignity and respect as well as being afforded all the
protections provided to other workers.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing our witnesses and
working with you so that when we reauthorize TANF, we certainly
maintain the focus on employment, but also deal with the
problems that we have identified in getting people out of
poverty and making sure that they are able to succeed in the
workplace.
[The opening statement of Mr. Cardin follows:]
Opening Statement of the Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Maryland
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we are focusing today on the most
important component of welfare reform--work. Enabling people to make
the transition from welfare to employment is the first critical test
for any welfare reform initiative. I believe the 1996 welfare law is
passing this test. In fact, the employment rate of poor single mothers
with young children increased 23% between 1996 and 1999.
However, our enthusiasm about these results should be tempered by
three facts. First, about a third of those of exiting welfare are not
going into work, and we have very little research about their well-
being. Second, a growing portion of the current welfare caseload has
more severe barriers to employment, such as the lack of a high school
degree, no work history, problems with substance abuse, and mental or
physical disabilities. These problems will demand more attention and
more resources if this population is expected to make the transition
from welfare to work. And third, the current uncertainty about the
economy raises particular risks for those who have recently left
welfare for work.
The second major test of welfare reform is whether former
recipients are keeping their jobs, and whether they are moving up the
employment ladder. The 1996 law has not yet made the grade is this
area.
As the Congressional Research Service told us during our last
hearing, most welfare leavers are not increasing their income when they
leave welfare for work. If this trend continues, the final legacy of
welfare reform will be that we replaced a generation of welfare poor
with a generation of working poor. We can and must do better.
There are several remedies for this problem. Some are outside the
jurisdiction of the Subcommittee, such as increasing the earned income
tax credit, improving our Nation's educational system, and expanding
investment in inner city neighborhoods.
But other reforms are directly relevant to this panel's
reauthorization of TANF. First, we must maintain the Federal financial
commitment to TANF so that States can invest not only in job placement,
but also in job retention and wage progression. Second, we should help
individuals take advantage of one of the positive steps taken by most
States under welfare reform, namely raising their so-called earnings
disregards, which allow recipients to subsidize very low wages with a
partial welfare benefit. One way to pursue this goal would be to
establish a National policy of ``work stops the clock,'' meaning that
periods of employment do not count against an individual's five-year
time limit on TANF.
Third, we must do a much better job of ensuring that individuals
who are leaving welfare for employment are receiving the work supports
they are entitled to, such as food stamps, Medicaid and child care.
Fourth, we should evaluate the restrictions on training and
education contained in the 1996 law to ensure that we are not limiting
the future earning potential of welfare recipients.
And finally, we should encourage States to consider the impact any
TANF policy has on poverty.
Before I conclude let me quickly comment on the issue of
``workfare,'' which is one of the issues this hearing will focus on.
The goal of work experience programs should not be to discourage needy
families from obtaining assistance, nor to provide a source of cheap
labor for State or City projects. Work programs should be specifically
designed to help individuals make the transition into wage-paying jobs.
Furthermore, recipients in work programs must be treated with dignity
and respect, as well as being afforded all of the protections provided
to other workers.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the testimony of the
witnesses. Thank you.
Chairman Herger. Thank you very much, Mr. Cardin. And now
we will have our first panel, please. First we will hear from
Julia Taylor, the executive director of the YWCA of Milwaukee,
who is accompanied by Dorothy Taylor a former welfare recipient
who is now working. Next will be Jason Turner, commissioner of
the New York City Human Resources Administration. He is
accompanied by Lisa Falcocchio. Then we will have Doug Howard,
director of the Michigan Family Independence Agency. And our
last witness of this panel is Rodney Carroll, who is president
and chief executive officer of the Welfare to Work Partnership,
and he is accompanied by Takia Roberts, who has gone to work
with the help of the Welfare To Work Partnership. Would our
first panel be seated, please. Thank you.
Ms. Taylor.
STATEMENT OF JULIA TAYLOR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, YWCA OF GREATER
MILWAUKEE, ACCOMPANIED BY DOROTHY TAYLOR, EMPLOYEE, GENERATION
2 PLASTICS, MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
Ms. Julia Taylor. Good afternoon, Chairman Herger and
Members of the Subcommittee on Human Resources. Thank you for
the opportunity to speak today. I am Julia Taylor, chief
executive officer of YW Works and president of the YWCA of
Greater Milwaukee. I am pleased to be here to respond to the
Subcommittee's request for information on work requirements of
TANF and to share with you our experiences while operating
Wisconsin's TANF programs, W-2, since 1997. We knew that
implementing W-2 would be an awesome responsibility as well as
a challenge to operate a program that meets the vast range of
needs of our customers. The resources provided by the Federal
Government are essential in our efforts to move people toward
self-sufficiency. Your commitment to supporting TANF and other
antipoverty programs is critical to our customer's success and
it is greatly appreciated.
W-2 funded through TANF provides cash assistance case
management job placement and retention services. Additionally,
the Food Stamp and Employment Training, known as FSET receives
TANF dollars. Currently, there is very little funding for the
FSET program, which serves primarily men. It serves a large
percentage of homeless individuals. Under the current work and
education programs for the FSET program, it is mandated by the
State of Wisconsin, the Federal Government does not match the
amount of food stamp benefits an individual receives with the
amount of work they are required to do, thereby creating a
disincentive to participation.
The services that YW Works provides is delivered through a
comprehensive one-stop job center model. It is designed to meet
the needs of employers searching for skilled workers in
training and education and employment needs of the community.
In 2000, we served over 27,000 customers, 703 attending job
clubs, 12,378 utilizing our job net, and 1,258 attending on-
site employer recruitments and 1,359 assessments.
When the AFDC programs ended in Wisconsin in the fall 1997,
there were 34,650 cases statewide. At that time at YW Works, we
served 2,420 customers. Our average starting wage at placement
at that time was $6.87. As of February 2001, there were 10,853
cases statewide, of which almost 76 percent remain or are in
Milwaukee County.
We currently serve 909 customers in our program with an
average starting wage of placement of $7.45.
Those figures demonstrate a significant drop of individuals
on welfare. However, they also show that the vast majority of
the remaining customers reside in one area of Wisconsin,
Milwaukee County, and we are also witnessing that these
remaining customers have increased barriers to successful
employment, including lower education and literacy levels,
mental and physical health issues, alcohol and drug abuse and
criminal records that make it difficult to secure a job. With
the dynamics of a caseload constantly changing, our programs
must continue to evolve to meet the demands of the customers we
serve.
We believe that the work requirements are beneficial to our
efforts getting people engaged in work is the first step in
self-sufficiency, and our program has been successful in
placing customers in jobs. From January 2000 to February 2001,
we have helped 2053 customers secure employment with an average
wage of $7.54. In order to build upon this requirement and
improve our customers' ability to retain employment, we have
created specialized work settings that provide customers with
assessment, soft skills, and on-the-job training and support
services that go hand in hand with the work requirements.
Creative Workshop is a workplace that creates wearable art, and
Generation 2 Plastics is a plastic injection molding company
with an emphasis on recycling. These training workplace
environments ensure that our customers receive ongoing
training, intensive and specialized job coaching, supportive
services on site and sustained case management. Both Generation
2 Plastics and Creative Workshop offer the training and
sustained social support needed by many customers with multiple
barriers such as lack of transportation, child care, alcohol,
drug abuse and mental health issues.
In order to strengthen the TANF program, we recommend that
service providers be offered increased flexibility within the
first year of a customer's participation to concentrate on
intensive education and training needs. In addition, the funds
need to be set aside for work force advancement that can
provide education and training opportunities for individuals
currently in lower paying jobs. The hours for the FSET program
also need to be incorporated with short-term training and
supportive services that will address the barriers experienced
by the specific population.
In addition to the programs already mentioned, YW Works
offers other programs that increase our customers ability to
gain employment. The State of Wisconsin has secured money from
the U.S. department of Labor to focus on services for non-
custodial parents and hard-to-serve W-2 customers. YW Works
Welfare To Work program serves the non-custodial parent in
those hard-to-serve W-2 customers. We have enrolled and served
the most Welfare to Work customers in Milwaukee County. Out of
387 enrolled customers, 36 percent were referred to alcohol and
drug treatment. 259, or 60 percent, were placed in jobs of
which 156 percent had completed job training programs--or 156,
I am sorry, 60 percent.
Of the employed customers in Children's First, a court
ordered support program for non-custodial parents and Welfare
to Work, 42 are now paying child support, many for the first
time. These customers participate in the same intensive case
management and training as our W-2 customers and also part
split in the Fatherhood program, which teaches dads how to be
good fathers and increase their involvement with their
children. There are many more challenges ahead and as we
continue to meet the needs of our communities, such as bridging
the digital divide, providing business with a skilled and
trained labor force, assuring affordable housing, education and
training for career advancement of low income individuals
currently in the work force, continuing support for fathers,
and getting employers more involved, the TANF programs in
Wisconsin have been successful in engaging people in the work
force, and we believe there is still a lot more to do.
We strongly encourage you to support the TANF
reauthorization which is making a significant difference in
people's lives. This Federal program has helped thousands of
Wisconsin residents to enter the work force and to begin to
break the cycle of poverty.
Once again, we thank you for the opportunity to share with
you our experiences. I would like to introduce Dorothy Taylor
to share with you her story.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Julia Taylor follows:]
Statement of Julia Taylor, Executive Director, YWCA of Greater
Milwaukee
Good afternoon Chairman Herger and members of the Subcommittee on
Human Resources. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I am
Julia Taylor, Chief Executive Officer of YW Works and president and CEO
of YWCA of Greater Milwaukee. I am pleased to be here to respond to the
Subcommittee's request for information on the work requirements of TANF
and to share with you YW Works' experiences while operating Wisconsin's
TANF program--W-2--since 1997.
We knew that implementing W-2 would be an awesome responsibility as
well as a challenge to operate a program that meets the vast range of
needs of our customers. The resources provided by the federal
government are essential in our efforts to move people toward self-
sufficiency. Your commitment to supporting TANF and other anti-poverty
programs is critical to our customers' success, and is greatly
appreciated.
W-2, funded through TANF, provides cash assistance, case
management, job placement and retention services. Additionally, the
Food Stamp and Employment Training (FSET) Program receives TANF
dollars. Currently, there is very little funding for this program,
which serves a large percentage of homeless individuals. The current
work and education requirements under FSET mandated by the federal
government do not match the amount of food stamp benefits individuals
receive, thereby creating a disincentive to participation.
Another service that YW Works offers is a comprehensive One-Stop
Job Center. It is designed to meet the needs of employers searching for
skilled workers and training, education, and employment needs of the
community. In 2000, we served over 27,000 customers, 703 attending job
clubs, 12,378 utilizing job net (electronic job search program), 1,258
attending onsite employer recruitments and 1,359 assessments.
When AFDC programs in Wisconsin started in Fall of 1997, there were
34,650 cases statewide. At that time, we served 2,420 customers.
Average starting wage at placement was $6.87. As of February 2001,
there were 10,853 cases statewide of which almost 76% (8,199) were in
Milwaukee County. We currently serve 909 customers in our program with
an average starting wage of $7.45.
Those figures demonstrate a significant drop in individuals on
welfare. However, they also show that the vast majority of the
remaining customers reside in one area of Wisconsin--Milwaukee County.
We are also witnessing that these remaining customers have increased
barriers to successful employment including: lower education and
literacy levels, mental and physical health issues, alcohol and drug
abuse, and criminal records that make it difficult to secure a job.
With the dynamics of the caseload constantly changing, our programs
continue to evolve to meet the demands of all of the customers we
serve.
YW Works believes that the work requirements are beneficial to our
efforts. Getting people engaged in work is the first step toward self-
sufficiency, and our program has been successful in placing customers
in jobs. From January 2000 to February 2001, we have helped 2,053
customers secure employment with an average wage of $7.45. In order to
build upon this requirement and improve our customers' ability to
obtain and retain employment, we have created specialized work settings
that provide customers with assessment, soft skills and on-the-job
training, and support services that go hand-in-hand with the work
requirements. The Creative Workshop is a workplace that creates
wearable art and Generation 2 Plastics is a plastic injection molding
company with an emphasis on recycling. These workplace environments
assure our customers ongoing training, intensive and specialized job
coaching, supportive services on site and sustained case management.
Both Generation 2 Plastics and Creative Workshop offer the training and
sustained social support needed by many customers with multiple
barriers such as lack of transportation and child care and alcohol and
drug abuse and mental health issues.
In order to strengthen the TANF program, we recommend that service
providers be offered increased flexibility within the first year of a
customer's participation to concentrate on intensive education and
training needs. In addition, funds need to be set aside for workforce
advancement that can provide education and training opportunities for
individuals currently in lower paying jobs. Furthermore, the work hours
required under FSET should be reduced or eliminated and replaced with
short-term training and supportive services that will address the
barriers experienced by this specific population.
In addition to the programs already mentioned, YW Works' offers
other programs that increase the customers' ability to gain employment.
The State of Wisconsin has secured money from the U.S. Department of
Labor to focus on services for non-custodial parents and hard-to-serve
W-2 customers. YW Works' Welfare to Work Program serves the non-
custodial parent and those hard-to-serve W-2 customers. YW Works has
enrolled and served the most Welfare to Work customers in Milwaukee
County. Out of 387 enrolled customers 36% were referred to AODA
treatment and 259 or 60% were placed in jobs of which 156 or 60% had
completed job-training programs. Of the employed customers in
Children's' First (a court ordered child support for non-custodial
parents) and Welfare to Work, 42% are now paying child support. These
customers participate in the same intensive case management and
training as our W-2 customers and also participate in the Fatherhood
Program, which teaches dads how to be good fathers and increase their
involvement with their children.
There are many more challenges ahead as we continue to meet the
needs of our communities such as; bridging the digital divide gap,
providing business with a trained and skilled labor force, assuring
affordable housing, educating and training for career advancement of
low-income individuals currently in the workforce, continuing support
for fathers, and getting employers more involved. TANF programs in
Wisconsin have been successful in engaging people in the workforce and
we believe there is a lot more to do. We strongly encourage you to
support the TANF reauthorization, which is making a significant
difference in people's lives. This federal program has made helped
thousands of Wisconsin residents' break the cycle of poverty.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to share with you our
experiences.
Ms. Dorothy Taylor. Good afternoon, Chairman Herger and
members of the Subcommittee on Human Resources. Thank you for
the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Dorothy
Taylor. I am 40 years old. I have three children, two
grandchildren. I work at Generation 2 Plastics in
Milwaukee,Wisconsin where I drive a forklift, operate plastics
machinery. I am here today because of the W-2 program. I spent 10 years
of my life on welfare, taking odd jobs here and there, until W-2 came
around.
I didn't think much of W-2 a couple of years ago until my
last unemployment check ran out. I thought to myself, I have
got to feed these kids. I went through the whole program at the
YWCA including the pre-Academy, the Academy of Excellence,
Creative Workshop and Generation 2 Plastics. I worked hard and
was offered a full-time job at Generation 2 Plastics. I took
the job. Now I have benefits, medical insurance, and a pension.
It is important for me to have this chance and to have
people behind me. Excuse me, I am kind of nervous.
Chairman Herger. You are doing great.
Ms. Dorothy Taylor. I am going to show everyone that I am
not going to fail. If I hadn't joined W-2, I would probably be
homeless, walking the street, going to churches to eat. I see a
lot of that. Some people just don't want to try anymore.
Some people blame their situation on W-2, but it is not W-
2. It is them. I tell them you can't get something for nothing.
I tell them to get up and get what W-2 has to offer. And it
does have a lot to offer.
There is training and help to get you your GED. You need an
education. I tell my children that you need an education just
to sweep the sidewalk. I am working on my GED. I am almost
ready to start taking my tests. I want to wait just a little
while longer because the one thing I hate is failing on the
first try. But if I can get my GED, I can keep my kids on track
so they don't wind up like the old me. Maybe some day I will
take some college courses. If I wind up doing that, I will know
I have done my best.
My 14-year-old son is proud of me. I was interviewed by the
Los Angeles Times and some other newspapers. They took my
picture. My son has my picture up on his wall. You don't know
how much this means to me, that my 14-year-old son is so proud
of me.
I tell my children that it is not necessarily what you
learn in school that helps. It is how you use what you learn in
everyday life that means something. W-2 isn't like AFDC. You
can't just sit at home and keep having babies. W-2 stopped that
and that is the best thing. It used to be that kids as young as
12 years old were pregnant. That was alarming. And those girls
weren't going to school. If I had the resources, I would have
helped those girls. W-2 got those people back to work and got
their children well cared for.
Keep the program going. If the program helps me, it can
help a whole lot of other people. If the program stops, it will
hurt all the little people. It will hurt our children. If the
programs don't keep going, a whole lot of people are going to
suffer. Thank you.
Chairman Herger. Dorothy, thank you. We want you to know
not only is your 14-year-old very proud of you, but we are all
very proud of you as well for what you are doing.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dorothy Taylor follows:]
Statement of Dorothy Taylor, Employee, Generation 2 Plastics,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Good afternoon Chairman Herger and members of the Subcommittee on
Human Resources. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name
is Dorothy Taylor. I'm 40 years old and I have three children and two
grandchildren. I work at Generation 2 Plastics in Milwaukee, Wisconsin
where I drive a forklift and operate plastics machinery. I'm here today
because of the W-2 program. I spent 10 years of my life on welfare,
taking odd jobs here and there, until W-2 came around.
I didn't think much of W-2 a couple of years ago, until my last
unemployment check ran out. I thought to myself, ``I've got to feed
these kids.'' I went through the whole program at the YWCA, including
the pre-Academy, the Academy of Excellence, Creative Workshop, and
Generation 2 Plastics. I worked hard and was offered a full-time job at
Generation 2 Plastics. I took the job. Now I have benefits, medical
insurance and a pension.
It's important for me to have this chance and to have people behind
me. I'm going to show everyone that I'm not going to fail.
If I hadn't joined W-2, I'd probably be homeless, walking the
street and running to the churches to get something to eat. I see a lot
of that. Some people just don't want to try anymore.
Some people blame their situation on W-2, but it's not W-2 that's
the problem. It's them. I tell them you can't get something for
nothing. I tell them to get up and get what W-2 has to offer. And it
does have a lot to offer.
There's training and help to get your GED. You need an education. I
tell my children that you need a GED just to sweep the sidewalk at some
job. I'm working on my GED now. I'm almost ready to start taking my
tests. I want to wait just a little while because the one thing I hate
is failing on the first try. But if I can get my GED, I can keep my
kids on track so they don't wind up like the old me. Maybe some day
I'll take some college courses. If I wind up doing that, I'll know I've
done the best with my life.
My 14-year-old son is proud of me. I was interviewed by the LA
Times and some other newspapers. They took my picture. My son has my
picture up on his wall. You don't know how much this means to me, that
my 14-year-old son is proud of me.
I tell my children that it's not necessarily what you learn in
school that helps. It's how you use what you learn in every day life
that means something.
W-2 isn't like AFDC. You can't just sit at home and keep having
babies. W-2 stopped that and that's the best thing. It used to be that
kids as young as 12-years-old were pregnant. That was alarming, and
those girls weren't going to school. If I had the resources, I would
have helped those girls. W-2 got these people back to work and got
their children well cared for.
Keep the program going. If the program helped me, it can help a
whole lot of other people. If the program stops, it will hurt all the
little people. It will hurt our children. If the programs don't keep
going, a whole lot of people are going to suffer. Thank you.
Chairman Herger. And with that, next is Mr. Jason Turner,
Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources
Administration. And he is accompanied by Lisa Falcocchio.
Mr. Turner.
STATEMENT OF JASON A. TURNER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK CITY HUMAN
RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY LISA FALCOCCHIO,
DIRECTOR, WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM, NEW YORK CITY PARKS
DEPARTMENT
Mr. Turner. You got her name right. That is really good. It
took me a while to do that myself. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. I am pleased to have this opportunity to present
before the Committee, and representing Mayor Giuliani. At the
onset of his administration in 1994, Mayor Giuliani decided he
wanted to have two emphases, one on crime reduction and the
other on welfare reform. Today, tens of thousands of
individuals who are temporarily receiving welfare are engaged
in work activity, contributing to the city and making a
difference in their own lives.
Although work while on welfare was not--although, work
while on welfare for those not in the private sector was one of
the central goals of the PRWORA legislation, this Committee may
be interested to know that there is--it is not a significant
component of what most people do during the day. What I mean by
that is the caseloads have gone down and private employment has
gone up. Most of those are the central successes of welfare
reform to date.
But of those who are not working in the private sector at
the moment, very few are working in the work experience
programs. And it is, I believe, very important for us as a
country to create work opportunities while individuals are
waiting to go into the private sector. And Lisa will talk about
how we operate our parks deputy program in just a moment.
Actually, only 4 percent of the entire welfare caseload of
2.1 million adults is engaged in work activity right now who
are not in the private labor market. Since welfare reform,
there has been only an increase from about 35,000 to 78,000
people in work activity nationwide. Clearly, States as a group
have exercised their option under the TANF caseload reduction
credit to focus their attention on other aspects of the
program. A major management commitment is necessary to mount a
large and ongoing work experience program for a high proportion
of recipients. And in New York City, and in Wisconsin, they
each run programs which share the aspiration to have a fully
work-based system. What that means is that those people who are
not privately employed, a 35-hour simulated workweek is
created, which is a blend of actual work in the Parks
Department, or it could be in a welfare office or a nonprofit
facility of three days a week, and usually two days is
dedicated to other related things like helping look for private
employment, or maybe getting a GED or going to ESL class.
So what we like to do in New York and in Wisconsin is the
same in many respects, is blend--create a real workweek but
blend that workweek between actual work and skills upgrading.
And it is those two things, actual work which is practicing the
skills and habits of showing up to work on time and getting
your children to school, and the skills upgrading which allows
you to use some of the education or ESL training that you have
got in an actual work site.
Those two things together create the best opportunity for
people with very, very low work histories to move up into the
labor force. But that is not happening. It really isn't
happening on a very large scale. What we believe should occur,
is that work experience play a larger role in most State's
welfare operations. As it relates to what our recommendations
are for this Committee, is, number one, we should increase the
proportion of TANF recipients participating in work experience.
We believe that every State should be required to have a
substantial proportion of its caseload engaged in real work
activity on an ongoing basis, if they are not privately
employed while they are on welfare.
We all agree, if you are working part-time and you are
still receiving welfare, leave you alone. Because you are doing
the right thing and we hope you increase your hours and get off
of welfare. But if you are doing nothing and you are able-
bodied, you should be engaged in work activity, and that is not
currently the case.
Second, we should enforce the provision of the TANF law
that requires sanctions for non participation applied on a pro
rata basis. Let me explain what that means. When the Congress
passed welfare reform in 1996, it said they wanted the welfare
benefit to act like a wage so that just like if you show up at
your work site and you only show up half of the time, you take
home half of the paycheck, they wanted welfare benefits to
operate in much the same way so that people would get used to
going to a work site and earning their benefits.
Actually the way the Clinton administration interpreted
that law, they didn't enforce it so that at the moment in many
States, including New York, California and many other States,
if you don't go to your work assignment, very little--there is
very little benefit change.
Currently in New York City, for instance, we have 40,000
people actively participating in work activities, but an equal
number, about 40,000 who have been asked to come in and
participate in work activities who are sitting at home and not
doing anything, and there is very little that we can do to
encourage them to come in because we don't have--they are still
receiving almost their entire welfare check. That provision
should be enforced.
Third, States should be able to merge their work
obligations under Food Stamps and those under TANF. And since
Food Stamps is not a program responsibility of this Committee I
won't spend too much time on that. But finally, the constraints
imposed on work experience programs by Federal regulations
should be lifted through legislative clarification. And what I
mean by that is that the Clinton administration, in its
regulations, imposed the requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and other requirements, such as OSHA, on those
individuals who are in a work experience activity where they
clearly don't apply.
Let me give you an example of how that can be harmful. For
instance, the minimum wage provisions of Federal law, mean that
you could be working almost at a schedule of 35 hours a week
and be in a simulated work environment. But if the provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act were invoked, the individual
participant would have to work far fewer hours and not get that
practice.
Finally the promise of welfare reform has been achieved to
a far larger degree than was anticipated, but we should be
concerned that States are not developing the work programs and
infrastructure necessary to constructively engage those who
remain on assistance. It is often asked what will happen when
the economy declines. What will happen to welfare reform. The
right answer is that work experience should act like an
accordion and absorb people who are temporarily out of the
private labor market, while keeping their work habits and
skills moving forward so that when the economy improves, they
can move right back.
And now I would like Lisa to talk a little bit about how we
run a very large work program in the Parks Department.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Turner follows:]
Statement of Jason A. Turner, Commissioner, New York City Human
Resources Administration
I am pleased to have this opportunity to present to this Committee
information on how work requirements in TANF are being carried out in
the country's largest local welfare program, and what our experience
means for reauthorization in this area. The specific subject of my
remarks revolve around the provision of PRWORA requiring states to
engage recipients not in private employment in work experience.
At the onset of his administration in 1994, Mayor Giuliani made
welfare reform and crime reduction the central aspects of his new
administration. Specifically, for welfare he set out to create a large
program to allow recipients the opportunity to practice work while
returning valuable services to the city while receiving benefits. In
New York this is called ``WEP,'' or the Work Experience Program. The
Mayor's program was set in motion fully two years before being required
under PWRORA.
Today, we have seen the merit of work experience on a large scale.
Caseloads have dropped by more than half since their peak in March of
1995, while follow-up surveys show high rates of employment and
retention. Moreover every day New York City employs tens of thousands
of welfare recipients in work activities which help them get ready for
private employment, while benefiting all New York citizens in the form
of improved city services.
Work Experience Today
Work experience is defined as unpaid work activity by adults
receiving benefits who are not generally employed in the private
economy. Work experience can have one or more of the following
objectives.
1. Increasing the employability of participants by offering
opportunities to practice work and to learn the habits and
social skills necessary to succeed in entry level employment;
2. Reducing welfare dependency by improving employment
prospects and by altering the work/leisure tradeoff;
3. Fulfilling a social and moral obligation of recipients to
contribute to society in exchange for benefits;
4. Attacking the culture of poverty, which is related to the
notion of social obligation above, but is not the same.
Although work while on welfare for those not privately employed was
one of the central goals of PRWORA, it is not now a significant
component of the welfare reform programs that most states offer. Given
the goals of TANF, this is a surprising and important fact which is not
widely recognized and to which we will return.
Congressional expectations regarding the inclusion of work experience
under TANF were much higher than in the earlier JOBS program
The authors of TANF clearly intended that work, even while still
receiving benefits, should transform the meaning of temporary
assistance, and they signaled this by setting high levels of weekly
work levels and participation rates. In addition, the TANF authors took
special care to observe the lessons from past failed attempts to
legislate work requirements, for instance that unless clearly defined,
states would not actually require work. Notwithstanding the flexibility
otherwise inherent in the TANF block grant, the work requirements and
measurements are very specifically spelled out. By contrast with
earlier federal legislation, especially in light of the disappointing
Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program (JOBS) created by
the Family Support Act in 1988, TANF drafters attempted to lock in
higher work levels. They did so in four ways:
First, they insisted on honest counting. The participation
standards written into the earlier JOBS program had been beset by the
phenomenon of the ``shrinking denominator,'' or the ability of states
to exclude large numbers of individuals from being counted as available
for work-related activities. Thus states were allowed to announce work
participation rates which were misleadingly high. TANF helped resolve
this by keeping a broad definition of who is available for work,
including nearly all adults minus only those cases with a child under
age one (at state option for a period of up to 12 months per family)
and those cases in sanction status (for no more than three months
within the preceding 12 months). Thus, few cases can be removed from
the denominator of the ratio of those actually working.
Second, the TANF statute defines precisely what counts as work (in
the numerator of the calculation), rather than leaving this definition
to the states. The definition of work under TANF conforms to the common
sense meaning of the word, rather than absorbing into it education,
training, and other assorted activities.
Third, the legislation includes substantial required participation
rates, beginning with 25 percent of the caseload in 1997, and
increasing to 50 percent by 2002 (and higher for two-parent families).
Required hours also increase over time, rising from 20 hours per week
in 1997 to 30 hours in 2000 and thereafter. Penalties assessed to
states for non-compliance with the above standards were set at a
realistically low level (5 percent the first year increasing by 2
percentage points for each consecutive year of failure). This was
intended to increase the probability that the penalty would actually be
imposed and collected (thereby signaling that program adherence is
expected), rather than blocked in Congress by home state members.
Fourth, TANF imposes more severe financial penalties (sanctions)
against participants who do not comply with program requirements.
Surprisingly, there is a very low rate of usage of work experience by
states.
With all the attention paid to work participation standards by the
drafters of TANF, a provision was included in the bill which made
achieving high work rates less imperative than it seemed at the time
the legislation was enacted. This provision is the caseload reduction
credit, which reduces the participation rate requirement by one
percentage point for each percentage point a state's welfare caseload
falls below 1995 levels. Thus, if a given state's caseload were to fall
by 25 percent between 1995 and 1999, the TANF work requirement would
fall from the required 1999 level of 35 percent to 10 percent (35
percent - 25 percent = 10 percent). Since many states already have well
over 10 percent of their caseload combining private employment with
welfare, states such as the one in this example would not need to have
any welfare recipient in a work program to meet the 35 percent work
standard.
Not surprisingly, given the caseload reduction credit, national
data for 1999 show that the typical state had very few welfare
recipients in a work experience program. Although over 40 percent of
the adult caseload in the average state is involved in some required
activity, nearly 70 percent of these are in unsubsidized employment;
i.e., they are collecting welfare while working at a regular job. By
contrast, under 10 percent of all adults who are participating in any
activity while receiving welfare benefits are in work experience of any
kind. This figure translates to just 4 percent of the entire caseload
of 2.1 million adults. Thus, the number of adults on TANF who
participate in work experience is exceedingly low by any standard. Even
the Family Support Act enrolled an estimated 20,000 to 35,000 in work
experience on an average monthly basis in 1994, as compared to 78,000
now.
Clearly, states as a group have exercised their option under the
TANF caseload reduction credit to focus management attention on other
parts of the program. The significant efforts which would be necessary
to organize state programs around a substantial commitment to work has
evidently not been generated by TANF as it is currently configured.
How one views this development depends partly upon one's judgment
as to the relative value of maximizing state program flexibility as
compared to that of requiring full engagement in work activity as a
primary goal of welfare reform. Our view is that real reform means
that, for those unable to work in the private economy, work in exchange
for benefits is the next best alternative.
A major management commitment is necessary to mount a large and
ongoing work experience program for a high proportion of recipients,
and although the policy makers who drafted the TANF program may have
anticipated that most recipients would be involved in actual work,
implementation by states has simply not produced this result.
Running a Work Experience Program: Lessons from New York City and
Elsewhere
New York City and Wisconsin each run programs which share the
aspiration to have a fully work-based welfare system, which means that
for those not in private employment, work-experience makes up the
greater part of a full-time simulated work-week, with other activities
such as job search and education included as lesser parts. The work
obligation applies to all adults with almost no exceptions,
andsubstantial management attention is devoted to attendance, tracking,
and monitoring of sites. In order to assure suitable work assignments
for those of all capabilities, provisions for specialized work sites
are made which incorporate vocational rehabilitation. Taken together,
Wisconsin and New York's work experience programs offer guidance as to
what might be expected as a result of a more extensive national
program, as reflected in the observations below.
Work experience should constitute genuine practice for private
employment.
While empirical evidence is lacking, certain features of work
experience appear to make it more effective in preparing people for
actual jobs.
The program should operate on a standard full-time
workweek which conforms to the expectations of private employment. This
allows participants to practice organizing their lives around a
realistic work schedule of eight hour work days and five day work
weeks;
Real work must be accomplished. Nothing is more
dispiriting to those expecting to work than to remain idle on the job
or worse, ignored. By contrast, the pride and satisfaction of
successfully mastering work tasks often results in a big psychological
lift and translates into confidence in the search for private
employment;
Third party medical review must be available to determine
work capability. Medical reviews are essential for the health and
safety of participants, and to maintain a uniform work standard not
subject to ``doctor shopping'';
Work assignments must include close supervision and
regular feedback. Those who lack work histories are often not familiar
with workplace norms of professionalism and conduct, and frequently
find it difficult to submit to supervisory authority or get along with
co-workers. Good supervisors who agree to make part of their task the
acculturation of participants play a large role in the success of their
charges;
There must be swift consequences for non-attendance
without cause. Consequences can be a new experience for those used to
being involved in a bureaucratic welfare system in which not much
changes. Thus, the importance of reliability must be taught, and for
this to occur benefits must be closely tied to attendance.
Work experience is the operational component which best allows for
the goal of replacing cash assistance with work. Work experience
expands or contracts to accommodate the ebbs and flows of the private
economy like an accordion. It is always there to absorb those outside
of the labor force while keeping work habits and skills in good repair.
As compared to other work related component activities such as grant
diversion or public service employment, work experience has these
characteristics: it can be operated on a large scale; can constitute
the major part of a full-time program week (e.g. 35 hours); can
accommodate participants who remain in the component for extended
periods; and provides an immediate and ever-present work option for
individuals rotating into and out of assistance.
Work experience probably exerts its greatest net caseload impact at
the time of enrollment. Where work experience has been required of
applicants who do not find private employment within a certain period
of time, the number of actual slots used by participants is almost
always far fewer than anticipated. Fewer slots are necessary because
individuals who know they must work in exchange for benefits frequently
elect not to enroll in the program in the first place. Instead, they
find immediate employment or increase their hours of part-time jobs. In
other instances they rely on alternatives which were already present,
such as combinations of unreported work, doubling-up, help from
relatives, and help from friends.
The phenomenon of lower than expected work experience usage was
much in evidence in the transition from the AFDC entitlement program to
the completely work-based W-2 program in Wisconsin. There, of the
26,000 AFDC families with an adult head who were obligated to enroll in
the new W-2 program in which near full-time work-experience was
required, 45 percent elected not to transfer and closed their case.
Another 16 percent accepted W-2 case management services but did not
wish to engage in work experience in order to receive cash benefits.
Universal work programs require work slots for individuals of all
capabilities. In New York, excluding child-only cases in which there is
no adult, fully 87 percent of the TANF caseload is deemed
``engageable,'' meaning that they are ready for some kind of work
assignment. Having a near-universal expectation of work helps change
the culture of the system and channels the energy of recipients in a
constructive direction away from attempting to qualify for exemptions.
A work experience program which aspires to have close to universal
applicability must also have an inventory of assignments suitable for
participants of varying ability levels. Both New York City and
Wisconsin provide for a ``ladder'' of work options which provide real
work for adults with all levels of experience and job readiness.
Standard work assignments range from outdoor physical work to office
jobs in government or non-profit agencies. For adults with mild
disabilities, vocational rehabilitation agencies such as Goodwill can
provide work in specialized settings. In New York City, roughly one
third of the mildly disabled who enroll in work rehabilitation have
orthopedic limitations such as back weaknesses, another third have
mental health problems, especially depression, and the balance have
mostly asthma or cardiovascular limitations.
The incremental costs of running a work experience program are
manageable, particularly in light of increased resources available as a
result of significant recent caseload reductions. The research
organization, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC),
studied early work experience programs and found the annual costs per
filled slot in work experience programs to range from $700 to $8000. In
New York City, the incremental cost of running its large-scale program
is within the lower part of the range found by MDRC. Total 1999
expenditures on work experience were about $43.1 million or about $1400
annually per filled slot excluding child care (because each slot turns
over multiple times per year, the cost per participant is lower than
the annual amount). Of the $1400 cost, 67 percent goes to payments to
other government agencies for direct costs, including timekeepers,
coordinators, and field supervisors as well as tools and equipment
(non-profit agencies that host work experience participants often
absorb these costs). Another 24 percent of costs go for third party
medical assessments. The remaining nearly 10 percent is used for
welfare agency administrative costs.
There can be significant benefits to participating agencies which
offset some of the costs, and can provide real improvements in the
services delivered by government and non-profits. Most New York city
agencies were reluctant to take on the responsibility for managing
large numbers of work experience participants until Mayor Giuliani
himself made it clear that work opportunities for welfare recipients
was a city priority. Once set up to accommodate work experience
participants however, these same agencies came to see significant
improvements in the level of service they were able to provide the
public. To take one example, immediately prior to the introduction of
large numbers of work experience participants, the city's parks had an
``acceptable cleanliness'' rating of 74 percent. Largely as a result of
the additional labor available beginning in 1995, which peaked at more
than three thousand full-time worker equivalents, the acceptable
cleanliness rating of the city's parks climbed to 95 percent. More
recently the sharp caseload declines have resulted in fewer work
experience participants for Parks, prompting the department to request
an increase in referrals from the city welfare agency.
The productivity of work experience participants as compared to
regular employees was estimated in MDRC's 1993 evaluation of work
experience programs. MDRC surveyed supervisors, who overall said work
experience participants were as productive, or nearly as productive, as
regular employees.). Based on our New York City experience, it seems
likely that productivity is somewhat lower than that of regular
employees because of higher turnover, more frequent absences, and a
tendency for welfare recipients to bring at-home problems to the
worksite.
Sanction policies play a large role in achieving high levels of
participation. High non-participation rates are a feature of most
mandatory programs. In Wisconsin, where the W-2 program pays cash
benefits only to those who first participate in work activities,
compliance by definition is high. However, in states like New York that
do not use a version of full-check sanction for non-participation, a
large proportion of families may accept a lower TANF payment rather
than engage in work. In a high intensity program, the number of
recipients who accept sanctions to avoid work can actually exceed the
number of recipients who meet the participation requirement. For
instance, in New York recently there were 17,000 active TANF work
experience participants, along with 15,000 engaged in other primary
activities, for a total of 32,000. At the same time, there were 17,500
individuals in sanction status for non-participation, with an
additional 17,000 in the sanction determination process, for a total of
34,500, or a number slightly higher than those properly engaged in work
experience.
However, even strong sanction policies will not encourage all
potential participants to meet their work obligation. In order to reach
greater numbers of non-participants, New York City contracted with
several faith based organizations to make home visits to counsel and
assist families with problems in an atmosphere of greater trust. Church
counselors say that they are usually welcomed into these homes and
develop positive relationships with recipients. However, a minority of
those they encounter have remained isolated at home for such long
periods that they lack minimal will and confidence to enter the
program. Many of these adults believe that even if they did participate
in work experience, they would fail. For this subset, a longer period
of relationship building combined with special interventions, perhaps
with non-government counselors, may be beneficial.
High turnover rates present management problems but lower the
number of required work slots. In addition to high initial no-show
rates, work experience turnover rates are high for those who do enroll.
In New York, for those who begin a work experience assignment, the 1996
TANF drop out rate was 38 percent after one month, 53 percent after two
months, and 61 percent after three months. Since 1996 the turnover rate
has increased even further as the system has approached near universal
enrollment and the caseload has declined further.
The high turnover rate has at least two causes. One cause is that
those who reliably participate in their work assignments, even for
short periods, find they can obtain private employment (experience
shows that private employers like to receive attendance information and
recommendations from work experience supervisors and take them into
account). Fully half of all individuals who participated in New York's
work experience program for any period during the first quarter of 2000
found employment the same calendar year. In addition, normal caseload
dynamics in which recipients leave the rolls, further increases
turnover.
The high work experience turnover rate means that far fewer actual
slots are needed to run a universal program than would otherwise be
required. For its TANF caseload of 161,000, of which 128,000 have an
adult in the household, New York City is able to run a mandatory
universal work program with only 17,000 slots, (with the caveat that
many are not participating even though required to do so), with an
additional 15,000 slots for other primary activities such as high
school, post-secondary education or training, and initial-stage
substance abuse treatment. An additional 10,000 work experience slots
are sufficient for a general assistance caseload of 75,000.
Considerations for Reauthorization
The analysis of work experience presented in this paper, combined
with our experience in administering these programs, leads us to make
several recommendations to Congress as it pursues welfare reform
reauthorization over the next two years.
Increase the proportion of TANF recipients participating in work
experience. First and foremost, we strongly recommend that Congress
take action to increase the proportion of adult welfare recipients who
are subject to a work experience requirement. The level of work
experience participation should be increased simply by requiring a
higher percentage of the caseload to meet the work requirement so that
work becomes an expected standard for those receiving benefits. Every
state should be required to have a substantial proportion of its
caseload, say 35 percent to 45 percent, in a work program.
Enforce the provision of TANF requiring that sanctions for non-
participation be applied as a pro-rata reduction of family benefits.
The statutory text of the TANF program requires that full-check
sanctions be applied to cases in which there is a complete failure to
participate without good cause. In the case of partial participation,
the legislation requires reductions equal to the portion of hours of
activity missed without good cause. This interpretation of the term
``pro rata'' (see Section 404(e)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act) was
made explicit in the conference report for the 1996 welfare reform
legislation. However, in its regulations HHS chose to permit states
wide latitude in interpreting the provision, even to the extent of
ignoring the provision entirely and retaining the sanction provisions
of the former AFDC program.
As a result, several states, including large states like New York
and California, do not as a practical matter require participation in
work activities for those who elect to opt out and accept slightly
lower benefits. For work to become a meaningful and integrated part of
receiving welfare, the original intent of the TANF provisions must be
restored so that all states will be required to terminate cash benefits
for recipients who refuse to participate in work requirements.
States should be able to merge work obligations under the Food
Stamp program with those under TANF. TANF made several important
changes to the Food Stamp law in order to make administration of the
two programs more compatible. For instance, the ``Simplified Food Stamp
Program'' option is intended to allow states to have greater procedural
flexibility in the process of determining benefits, so that there is
greater compatibility with TANF. Other provisions of the new law allow
for greater compatibility with TANF's work program. However, these
statutory changes have been interpreted narrowly by the Department of
Agriculture, and the statutory changes themselves do not go far enough.
Constraints imposed on work experience programs by Federal
regulations should be lifted through legislative clarification. The
interpretation of various federal statutes bearing on work experience
programs, issued by both the Departments of Labor and Health and Human
Services, interfere unnecessarily with the operation of these programs
and should be clarified by legislation. Among the workplace laws which,
according to departmental regulations, can have applicability to work
experience programs, are the Fair Labor Standards Act (especially the
minimum wage); Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules;
Unemployment Insurance (at certain non-government sites); the Americans
with Disabilities Act; titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act; the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act; and the Equal Pay Act. With the
TANF program being in its early life and with work experience not
heavily used, many of the above provisions have not yet generated
litigation, but experience predicts that litigation can be expected.
The minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which
constrain the number of hoursrecipients can be required to participate
in work activity, is being averted in states which have deemed work
experience a training activity. Other states are restricting the
scheduled hours of work experience. However, this rule, after a court
test, may constrain work experience in every state because the courts
may not agree that work experience is training. Because, as we have
argued, work experience is most powerful when it parallels a full-time
work schedule of 35 hours per week, these rules on allowable hours of
work directly reduce the program's effectiveness.
The current federal interpretation of the applicability of
workplace law is out of place in the context of state run work
experience programs under TANF. Participants in work experience are
already covered by the same program standards and protections afforded
those in side-by-side activities such as job search, training, and
education. Applying federal employment laws to these program operations
was clearly not intended under the TANF statute, and opens up a whole
range of new conflict and litigation based on decades of overlapping
laws, regulations, and legal precedents which may have nothing to do
with welfare-to-work programs. The Family Support Act, which preceded
TANF, had specific exemptions from several requirements of labor law.
These exemptions, which were originally included in the Community Work
Experience Program (CWEP), specified that AFDC benefits were not to be
construed as compensation for work performed. The logic of this
provision was that work experience assignments for those receiving
welfare payments are intended to be educational in the sense of
preparing adults to take private employment. Congress should revert to
its earlier explicit exemption of work experience from employment law.
Conclusion
The promise of the welfare reform law has been achieved to a far
greater degree than was anticipated by most of its critics. Its most
distinctive achievement, as shown by the papers in this volume, has
been to greatly increase the number of single mothers who are working
in the private economy and who have brought their families out of
poverty. Ironically, the large number of mothers who have left welfare
has served to reduce the need for states to maintain high levels of
participation in work experience programs because of the caseload
reduction credit. We should be concerned that states are not developing
the work programs and infrastructure necessary to constructively engage
those who remain on assistance and those who are sure to return in the
next business cycle. For those not able to move to work quite yet, work
experience remains the next best alternative. It can transform the
meaning of welfare and may even be capable of affecting the larger
culture of poverty, yet the low level of participation in this
important activity means that this part of the promise of the welfare
reform revolution remains unfulfilled.
City of New York Parks & Recreation
Work Experience Program Procedures Manual for Crew Chiefs
rudolph w. giuliani, mayor
henry j. stern, commissioner
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: January 3, 1995
REVISED: May 15, 1998, October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #1
District Orientation
New WEP participants report to Borough Orientations every other
Monday (Tuesday when there is an official City holiday). Participants
listen to a three hour information session on topics such as Time
Limits, Park Policies, Procedures, and Safety in the Workplace.
Participants are then assigned to the District to which they are
expected to report the following day--Tuesday (Wednesday, if Monday was
an official City holiday).
When WEP participants first report to their district, the Crew
Chief is responsible for providing them with a comprehensive District
Orientation based on an orientation script (see Appendix A for District
Orientation Script).
The District Orientation should cover the following topics:
Rules & Regulations of the District
Chain of Command & District Contact Information (Phone
and Pager Numbers)
Medically Limited (EII) Participants (see Procedure #8)
All WEP Participants will be treated Equally and Fairly
(see Procedures #11 and #12)
District Work Policy (see Procedure # 2)
Issue Uniforms and Demonstrate Tool Use (see Procedure
#6)
Safety in the Workplace (see Procedure #13)
Getting Help In Finding A Job (see Procedures #20 and
#21)
Awards (see Procedure # 19)
Question/Answer session
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: 1989
REVISED: May 15, 1998, October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #2
Work Policy
The following work policy is enforced at Parks. Crew Chiefs must
ensure that participants:
follow their work schedule
work their assigned amount of hours within the two week
period
notify their supervisor if they will be late or absent
arrive to work drug and alcohol free
complete their assigned duties
provide original, dated documentation on letterhead when
absent
do not operate Parks motor vehicles
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: January 3, 1995
REVISED: May 15, 1998, October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #3
Crew Chief Responsibilities--Chronological Daily Checklist
The following is a checklist to help Crew Chiefs keep track of
their daily responsibilities.
{time} Confer with Park Supervisors or Principal Park Supervisors
for daily district assignments.
{time} Set up time sheets for participants to sign.
{time} Monitor sign-in to verify time of arrival.
{time} Return time sheets to file.
{time} Transport workers to sites as required.
{time} Assign locations and work duties to participants.
{time} Sign out all tools, supplies, and garments accordingly (see
appendix for sample Uniform Sign-Out sheet).
{time} Give clear instructions and demonstrate how to perform
assigned work duties.
{time} Schedule lunch breaks (see Procedure #4).
{time} Perform duties along with participants and supervise
activities.
{time} Report any accidents or problems to a supervisor (worker's
compensation, fights, etc.).
{time} Collect and sign-in all tools, supplies, and garments
accordingly.
{time} Transport participants back to districts as necessary.
{time} Observe sign-out of each participant.
{time} Document successful clean-ups.
{time} Return logs of work completed to Park Supervisors and/or
Principal Park Supervisors.
{time} Follow all time-keeping procedures (see Procedure #4).
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURE
ISSUED: 1989
REVISED: May 15, 1998, October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #4
Work Schedules, the Concurrent Workweek, and Time Regulations (Page 1
of 3)
WORK SCHEDULES:
When arranging work schedules, Crew Chiefs must keep in
mind that participants may not work more than eight hours per day.
Crew Chiefs must assign WEP participants they supervise
only to work the days that they are scheduled to work. Crew Chiefs may
not assign participants to work on their own Regular Day Off (RDO).
When participants are scheduled to work more than four
hours a day, a lunch break must be scheduled for a minimum of 30
minutes and a maximum of one hour.
Participants may be scheduled to work weekends, but not
when it conflicts with a religious observance (unless the participant
agrees to work). Note: Any questions regarding religious observance
should be brought to the attention to the Borough WEP Coordinator.
Participants with children on their public assistance
case (FA/ADC) may not be required to work weekends when HRA only
provides child care money Monday-Friday.
JOB SEARCH & THE CONCURRENT WORKWEEK:
Be aware that many participants are engaged in a
concurrent workweek. In addition to their WEP assignment, they are
assigned to a job search program. This requirement can be fulfilled
either through the Parks run Job Assistance Center (JAC) Program (see
Procedure #21) or another non-Parks affiliated job search program (e.g.
Goodwill Industries, Americaworks).
A participant must bring in a letter stating what days
they are engaged in job search. A Crew Chief may not schedule a
participant to work on the days the participant is assigned to job
search.
The Crew Chief is not responsible for timekeeping related
to job search. Job Search does not take the place of a WEP assignment
but is in ADDITION to the WEP assignment.
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: 1989
REVISED: October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #4
Work Schedules, the Concurrent Workweek, and Time Regulations (Page 2
of 3)
JOB SEARCH & THE CONCURRENT WORKWEEK continued:
Participants who are enrolled in a job search program
must complete their WEP assigned hours as they appear on the timesheet.
Note: A participant can be terminated for not attending
his/her job search program even if s/he continues to complete his/her
WEP hours. Crew Chiefs should call their Borough Coordinator's Office
if they have any questions about a participant who is attending a job
search program.
Participants may be scheduled to work on City holidays
unless they have children on their case. However, if a participant is
scheduled to work a holiday, s/he must be allowed a different day off
during that bi-weekly period.
TIME SHEETS:
Time sheets must be carefully and accurately completed. They serve
as the only documentation of the hours worked by each WEP participant.
Any partially or incorrectly completed time sheet may jeopardize a
participant's benefits and unnecessarily decrease our head count. It is
vital that time sheets are completed and returned on time.
Only WEP Supervisors (PRMs, PPSs, PSs, APSWs, and Crew Chiefs) are
permitted to sign participants' time cards unless otherwise noted by
the borough Supervisor of WEP (Chief of Operations and/or Chief of
Administration).
The accuracy and timeliness of timesheets will contribute to Crew
Chief's performance evaluations.
While timesheets should be stored in a secured location to prevent
fraud, timesheets should also be available when the Crew Chief is not
in.
Crew Chiefs are required to submit a timesheet for all WEP
participants assigned to their district--even those who never reported
to the District. The Crew Chief should note zero hours worked/excused
and sign off on the timesheet for any participant who did not show up
during the biweekly.
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: 1989
REVISED: October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #4
Work Schedules, the Concurrent Workweek, and Time Regulations (Page 3
of 3)
DOCUMENTATION:
Documentation for excused absences must be attached to the time
sheet for the period in which theabsence occurred. If documentation
arrives after time sheets have been submitted, inform the Borough WEP
Office.
The following absences are excused, and do not require
documentation:
Observed City holidays
Religious holidays
The following absences are excused, but require original (not
photocopied), dated documentation:
Illness--doctor's note on letterhead
Jury Duty-jury summons
Job Interview--business card/note from company with name
of the interviewer
Family Emergencies-note from appropriate agency
Day Care/Day Camp closings (FA/ADC only)
School Closings (FA/ADC only)
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: 1989
REVISED: October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #5
Time Sheet Checklist
To ensure that time sheets are maintained properly, Crew Chiefs
should follow this checklist when organizing and completing time
records for WEP participants. These procedures are arranged in order of
importance. Crew Chiefs must:
{time} Confirm that they have a time sheet for each worker on the
roster (see appendix for sample Time Sheet).
{time} Notify the Borough WEP Office if they did not receive a
time sheet for a participant.
{time} Note: Every active participant should have a time sheet.
Notify the borough WEP office if the participant does not bring/ have a
time sheet. If directed by the WEP office, create a time sheet for any
participant who reports without one.
{time} Ensure that time sheets are accessible each day for
signing-in and out.
{time} Be present during sign-in and out times to monitor the
accuracy of time sheets.
{time} Keep all time sheets organized and in a secure location to
prevent loss or falsification.
{time} Verify that all hours, working or excused, have been
recorded on the time sheets and totaled properly.
{time} Attach documentation of absences to the time sheets.
{time} Submit a timesheet for all assigned WEP participants--even
if they did not report to the District.
{time} Submit all time sheets accurately and on time to your
Borough WEP Office. Crew Chiefs should check with the Borough WEP
Office to confirm when time sheets are due.
Note: Late timesheets can result in unnecessary termination of
participants from Parks WEP.
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: 1989
REVISED: May 1, 1999, October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #6
WEP Uniforms (Page 1 of 2)
All participants should be provided with the mandatory WEP uniform
for identification purposes during the workday. The uniform includes:
summer or winter hats
green or orange vest or WEP T-shirts
pair of gloves
The WEP uniform must be worn at all times by working participants.
A participant has an option of wearing either a WEP vest, WEP T-shirt,
or WEP coat. However, s/he must wear one of these two items. Note: If a
WEP participant is working near vehicular traffic, s/he must wear an
orange vest.
In times of inclement weather, the following items may also be
distributed:
winter jacket
pair of overboots
raincoat or rainsuit
WEP participants are only allowed to take home hats and T-shirts.
All other uniform items must be signed-in and out every day.
Jackets may be labeled with removable tape or adhesive nametags for
WEP participants who have worked at Parks for an extended period and
wish to wear the same jacket each day. Each Crew Chief may, at his/her
discretion, decide on a policy to assign jackets to those participants.
Worn-out gloves may be returned to the supervisor and exchanged for a
new pair.
WEP participants should be offered personal protective equipment if
asked to perform relevant tasks.
Note: WEP uniforms should be used exclusively by WEP participants.
They should not be worn by any Parks employees. WEP participants should
be advised to not wear their uniform when they are off duty. Issue WEP
uniforms accordingly.
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: 1989
REVISED: May 1, 1999, October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #6
WEP Uniforms (Page 2 of 2)
UNIFORM DISTRIBUTION PROCEDURE:
When uniform items are distributed, Crew Chiefs must:
{time} Fill-in their name, borough, district, and the date at the
top of the Uniform Sign-Out Log (see appendix).
{time} Print the WEP Participant's name in the first column of the
Uniform Sign-Out Log.
{time} Check the appropriate boxes for the uniform items borrowed.
{time} Ensure that WEP participants sign their name in the ``OUT''
column, acknowledging receipt of the uniform items. ID Cards may be
collected as collateral for the borrowed uniform items.
{time} At the end of the day, the Crew Chief must collect all
uniform items, with the exception of the hats and T-shirts. The Crew
Chief must sign his/her name in the ``IN'' column, acknowledging the
return of the borrowed uniform items.
{time} Store the WEP uniforms in a safe area overnight.
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: January 3, 1995
REVISED: May 15, 1998, October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #7
Termination
WEP participants can be terminated for any of the following
reasons:
Not working their total number of assigned hours
Poor work performance or leaving the work site without
authorization
Falsifying time sheets, medical documentation or other
documents
Consistently being late or absent without informing their
supervisor in advance
Not providing written documentation for absences
Vandalizing Parks property
Verbal or physical abuse of another person
Appearing to be under the influence of alcohol or illegal
drugs
Loss of uniform items
If a Crew Chief believes a participant should be terminated for any
of these reasons, s/he should fill out a ``Termination Request'' form
(see appendix for sample Termination form), and submit it to the
Borough WEP Coordinator immediately. The Coordinator will take the
appropriate action.
The Human Resource Administration (HRA) will terminate, at the end
of a two-week period, any participant who does not work the full number
of hours and does not provide proper documentation for missed hours.
When a participant is terminated for this or any other reason, the
participant will receive a notice of conciliation to discuss the
termination and its effect on the participant's benefits. If the
hearing is not found in favor of the participant, a participant will be
sanctioned and will not receive any cash assistance, Medicaid and/or
Food Stamp benefits (depending upon the type of sanction received).
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: August 4, 1997
REVISED: May 15, 1998, October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #8
Participants with Medical Limitations (Page 1 of 4)
If a participant presents a completed Physician's Assessment of
Client's Employability (EII) form at either their Borough or District
Orientation, s/he should be assigned to appropriate tasks as prescribed
by the HSS doctor. These tasks are to be considered light duty.
When assigning light-duty work, Crew Chiefs should use their
judgement and take into account the specific medical condition of each
participant.
Crew Chiefs should:
Note the working environment (weather, temperature, etc.)
Ensure that the medically limited participants take
sufficient breaks, have access to water, and are not on their feet for
too long.
If a Crew Chief is unsure as to what tasks to assign, it is best to
assign a medically limited participant to a task that is less
strenuous.
APPROPRIATE TASKS FOR WEP PARTICIPANTS WITH MEDICAL LIMITATIONS:
Outdoors (Only acceptable in moderate weather
conditions):
Sweeping playground areas
Bagging and stabbing litter
Reporting dangerous conditions and defective
equipment
Touch-up painting jobs
Simple gardening work
Indoors/Maintenance:
Wiping down, cleaning walls or flat surfaces
Dusting and polishing furniture and fixtures
Sweeping and mopping floors
Replacing restroom supplies
Emptying small waste baskets
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: August 4, 1997
REVISED: May 15, 1998, October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #8
Participants with Medical Limitations (Page 2 of 4)
Indoors/Clerical:
Organizing and maintaining time cards
Answering phones, reception
Typing, faxing, copying
Assisting in after school programs, summer school,
seniors' activities
Sorting mail
Assisting in translation for non English speaking
participants
Assisting in inventory of supplies
Replacing and sorting office supplies
If a Crew Chief is unsure whether a participant is medically
limited or what duties to assign a medically limited participant, s/he
should immediately contact his/her WEP Borough Coordinator for further
guidance.
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: August 4, 1997
REVISED: May 15, 1998, October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #8
Participants with Medical Limitations (Page 3 of 4)
DOCUMENTATION AND MEDICALLY LIMITED WEP PARTICIPANTS:
Crew Chiefs must create files for participants with medical
limitations which include the:
EII forms or Doctor's note
Copy of Duty Description form
Crew Chiefs must make sure that they receive from their Borough
Coordinators the EII and assignment forms for every WEP participant
with medical limitations. Duty Description forms must be filled out by
Crew Chiefs and a copy must be sent to their Borough Coordinator within
24 hours of the participant's arrival in the District.
Crew Chiefs must note participants' EII status on all biweekly
schedules and time sheets so that substitute supervisors are aware of
medically limited participants' conditions. Once it is determined that
a participant is medically limited, the classification will appear on
each participant's time card.
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: August 4, 1997
REVISED: May 15, 1998, September 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #8
Participants with Medical Limitations (Page 4 of 4)
WHEN A PARTICIPANT CLAIMS TO BE MEDICALLY LIMITED:
If a participant claims to be medically limited after arriving in
the District, the following procedures must be followed:
If the participant presents a completed EII form, s/he
should be assigned to appropriate tasks according to his/her HSS doctor
and the Appropriate Duties for Medically Limited Participants form.
Crew Chiefs must immediately send a copy of the EII form to the Borough
Coordinator.
If a participant presents a private doctor's note, but
does not have an EII form, the Crew Chief must immediately contact the
Borough Coordinator for further guidance and send him/her a copy of the
documentation.
If the participant does not present any documentation,
but s/he claims to be ill, the Crew Chief should send the participant
home and give him/her 24 hours to present a doctor's note to the
Borough Coordinator.
If the participant is not able or refuses to obtain a
doctor's note, the Crew Chief should immediately contact the Borough
Coordinator.
Crew Chiefs must announce the Parks policy on medical limitations
at District Orientations. At these orientations, Crew Chiefs must
ensure that they have all participants' medical limitation
documentation.
The proper documentation from a doctor must be printed on
letterhead and have the doctor's signature. It must state the
participant's medical condition in detail and give the date that s/he
will be able to work without any limitations. This note must be dated
within the last 30 days.
Crew Chiefs must read all Assignment forms, including the comment
section of these forms, to make sure that they have a record of all
participants with medical limitations.
If at any time during the workday, a participant suffers from an
illness, nausea, dizziness, heat stroke, etc., the Crew Chief should be
sure to take all necessary precautions to help the participant. For
example: move the person out of the sun, get the participant water,
call an ambulance, send him/her home.
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: February 14, 1995;
REVISED: May 15, 1998, October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #9
Participant Injury on the Job
If a participant sustains an injury on the job, the Crew Chief
must:
{time} Ensure that the participant gets proper medical treatment
immediately (call Central Communications and 911).
{time} Inform Central Communications, the District Supervisor, and
the Borough WEP Coordinator, of the incident as soon as possible.
{time} Travel with the participant to the hospital (if the
participant requires medical attention) and stay there until his/her
status is known. If the Crew Chief is unable to accompany the
participant, s/he must make arrangements for another Parks employee to
go with the participant to the hospital.
{time} Complete the Worker's Compensation C2 form and addendum
(see appendix for sample Worker's Compensation C2 form).
{time} Submit the original C2 form and addendum to the Borough WEP
Office. The Crew Chief should retain a copy of the forms for his/her
own records.
{time} Complete the participant's time sheet, recording the date
and nature of the incident.
{time} Keep the Borough WEP Coordinator informed of the
participant's status following the incident.
{time} Submit a Parks Incident Report to the Borough WEP Office
(see appendix for sample Parks Incident Report form).
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: February 14, 1995
REVISED: May 15, 1998, October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #10
Participant Illness on the Job
If a participant becomes ill on the job (i.e. suffers a seizure, or
passes out), the Crew Chief must:
Ensure that the participant gets proper medical treatment
immediately (call Central and 911).
Inform the Central Communications, the District
Supervisor, and the Borough WEP Coordinator of the incident as soon as
possible.
Travel with the participant to the hospital (should the
participant require medical attention), and stay there until his/her
status is known. If the Crew Chief is unable to go with the
participant, s/he must make arrangements for another Parks employee to
go with the participant to the hospital.
Complete the participant's time sheet, recording the date
and nature of the incident.
Keep the Borough WEP Coordinator informed of the
participant's status following the incident.
Submit Parks Incident Report to the Borough WEP Office
(see appendix for sample Parks Incident Report form).
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: January 3, 1995
REVISED: May 15, 1998, October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #11
Fair Treatment Policy
The work rules and standards of conduct that Parks employees follow
also apply to WEP participants. A successful working relationship with
WEP participants is achieved when they feel like they are a part of the
Parks team. Crew Chiefs should stress that participants' contributions
are valuable and enhance the quality of life in New York City. Crew
Chiefs should keep the following things in mind:
Participants are not to be assigned to perform tasks
alone; they must be assigned as a team of at least 2.
WEP participants should follow the same work and break
schedule as Parks employees.
All participants should be provided with the proper tools
and equipment to perform their duties safely.
Work assignments should not be hazardous or endanger
participants' health.
Participants are expected to achieve the same levels of
performance as Parks' employees.
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: January 29, 1996
REVISED: May 15, 1998, October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #12
Discrimination/Sexual Harassment Prevention (Page 1 of 2)
It is the policy of Parks & Recreation to provide a work
environment free from discrimination and sexual harassment. This policy
is not designed to regulate or interfere with voluntary social
relationships between fellow employees, but it does prohibit those
actions and behaviors that are unwanted and unwelcome, and/or create an
intimidating and hostile work environment.
Granting professional benefits or favors on the basis of race or
creed or to an employee who has accepted sexual advances is as much an
act of misconduct as refusing to grant such benefits on the basis of
race or creed or to an employee who has resisted such advances.
Anti-discrimination protection applies to all of the terms and
conditions of employment, including, but not limited to:
Recruitment
Testing
Hiring
Salary and Benefits
Work Assignments
Performance Evaluations
Promotions
Transfers
Discipline
Termination
Working Conditions
Training Opportunities
It is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of:
Age
Alienage or Citizenship
Color
Creed
Disability
Gender
Marital Status
Race
Prior Record of Arrest or Conviction
Religion
Sexual Orientation
National Origin
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: January 29, 1996
REVISED: May 15, 1998, October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #12
Discrimination/Sexual Harassment Prevention (Page 2 of 2)
Sexual harassment is any repeated or unwelcome sexual advance,
request for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a
sexual nature. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEO) defines such conduct as sexual harassment when:
Submission to such conduct is made, either explicitly or
implicitly, a term or condition of an individual's employment.
Submission or rejection of such conduct by an individual
is used as a basis for employment decisions affecting such individual,
or such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering
with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating,
hostile or offensive work environment.
Any Crew Chief who is aware of active discrimination,
sexually intimidating or hostile work environment, should take
immediate action to correct such situations. The Crew Chief should keep
a written record of the situation and the proposed solution. If the
solution fails to address the matter to the satisfaction of the people
involved, the Borough Coordinator should be contacted. Contact the
Parks Borough Office to find out the name and number of the appropriate
EEO Coordinator.
All complaints of sexual harassment made either to a Crew
Chief or to an EEO Officer will be addressed with confidentiality, and
immediate and appropriate action will be taken.
Harassment and retaliation against those who press
charges of discrimination or harassment is unlawful. Any employee who
retaliates against another employee for filling a discrimination or
sexual harassment complaint, or for cooperating in the investigation of
a complaint, will be subject to disciplinary action.
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: June 26, 1996
REVISED: May 15, 1998, October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #13
Safety Procedures for Hazardous Materials
While Borough WEP Orientations cover the procedures for safely
dealing with hazardous materials, Crew Chiefs must reinforce these
rules to their crew. Hazardous materials may include, but are not
limited to:
Drugs or drug-related paraphernalia
Weapons, including knives or blades of any sort
If hazardous materials are encountered on the job site, the
following steps should be taken:
WEP participants are not to pick up or handle hazardous
materials.
Any WEP participant discovering a hazardous object should
immediately notify his or her Crew Chief or any other Parks employee or
call 1800-201-PARK.
The Park Supervisor or Crew Chief will ``flag'' the area
using either a small red flag or cone (provided at each location) and
call Central Communications at (718) 383-6363 and provide the following
information:
Park where ``flag`` is located
Nearest landmark
Object being flagged
Caller's name and title
Central Communications will then notify the nearest
trained sector mobile crew to respond and dispose of the material.
``Flagging'' is done to prevent children or other workers from coming
in contact with the material. The Borough Health and Safety Manager
should be contacted if a particular site does not have flags or cones.
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: August 4, 1997
REVISED: October 20, 1999, October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #14
Inclement Weather
EXTREME WEATHER CONDITIONS:
Only the Chief of Operations can authorize participants
to go home early in extremely hot/cold weather conditions.
If any WEP participants are excused due to inclement
weather, it must be noted on their time sheets and they will be given
credit for all hours which they were scheduled to work that day. Crew
Chiefs must note the credited hours in the hours worked column on the
time sheet. Participants who report to work will receive a full day's
carfare.
Participants are not expected to work in conditions under
which other Park employees are not expected to work.
INCLEMENT WEATHER WORK PLANS:
All Crew Chiefs must have inclement weather work plans
that can go into effect when it rains or snows, or when the weather is
particularly hot or cold. The following is a list of possible indoor
assignments.
Cleaning indoor facilities
Cleaning bathrooms
Taking inventory of materials
Washing windows
Painting trash barrels
Servicing mechanical equipment
Being trained in the use of mechanical equipment by Crew
Chiefs
WEP participants who are suitably dressed for inclement
weather (rain gear or winter clothing) may also be assigned to outdoor
work on cold and rainy days. However, participants should be given
ample breaks from work in such harsh weather.
On hot days, water should be readily available. Crew
Chiefs should also make certain that participants take sufficient
breaks in shady areas.
If, after implementing inclement weather work plans,
there are still participants who cannot be utilized, the Chief of
Operations can authorize a Crew Chief to excuse them for the day.
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: May 15, 1998
REVISED: October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #15
Authorized Inspections
A WEP site may be visited at any time by inspectors from:
Parks & Recreation
Human Resources Administration
Other City, State or Federal Agencies
If an inspection of your site occurs, inform your Borough WEP
Coordinator immediately. You should work with your Borough WEP
Coordinator to comply with any requested follow-up action.
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: August 29, 1997
REVISED: May 15, 1998, October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #16
Unauthorized Site Visits
The following procedures are to be observed when any unauthorized
representative visits a WEP site.
Note: The Crew Chief should call Central Communications and inform
them of the visit.
The Crew Chief should inform the representative that s/he may only
speak to WEP participants during times not scheduled for work. These
times are:
before their assigned reporting times
at official break times
after their tour of duty
If the representative refuses to leave, inform him/her that the
Parks Enforcement Patrol (PEP) will be called to escort him/her off the
premises. If the representative does not leave, call Central
Communications at (718) 383-6363 or (800) 201-PARK to have PEP
dispatched to the site. Crew Chiefs should call their Borough WEP
Coordinator and Chief of Operations immediately afterwards to report
the incident.
Note: You should direct members of the press or anyone else seeking
extensive information to the public information office (212) 360-8311.
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: November 28, 1995, May 25, 1999
REVISED: October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #17
State Motor Vehicle Inspections and Preventive Maintenance Inspections
on Leased WEP Vans
The following procedures should be followed for State Motor Vehicle
Inspections and Preventive Maintenance Inspections on leased WEP
vehicles.
STATE MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTIONS:
State inspections must be conducted once a year on the date
indicated on each vehicle's state inspection sticker. To receive a
state inspection, the Crew Chief responsible for the vehicle should
call the WEP office or the dispatcher to make an appointment for an
inspection. The vehicle should be driven to Cartov Leasing's Fort
Hamilton Parkway location (address listed below), where the inspection
will be conducted while the Parks vehicle operator waits.
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE INSPECTIONS (PMI):
Each leased WEP vehicle is required to have three PMI's per year.
Dates for these PMI's are assigned in the ``PMI schedule for leased
vans.'' The Crew Chief responsible for the vehicle should make an
appointment with Cartov Leasing to have the inspection done during the
week the vehicle is assigned in the ``PMI schedule for leased vans.''
If the Crew Chief responsible for the vehicle is unaware of the
assigned PMI dates, s/he should request a schedule from his/her Borough
WEP Coordinator. PMI's are performed at Cartov Leasing's Fort Hamilton
Parkway location, while the Parks vehicle operator waits. Cartov will
note body damage on the PMI forms and will leave PMI receipts on the
dashboard of the vehicle. Once a PMI has been completed, it should be
recorded in the monthly ``WEP van breakdown and PMI report'' (see
appendix sample WEP Van Breakdown and PMI form), which is sent to the
Borough WEP Coordinator at the end of each month.
Cartov's Fort Hamilton Parkway location: 3475 Fort Hamilton
Parkway (between 36th Street and Chester Avenue)
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: November 28, 1995
REVISED: May 25, 1999, October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #18
Leased WEP Vehicle Breakdown (Page 1 of 3)
REPAIRS:
WEP vehicles may also be sent to Cartov Leasing for repairs.
Contact the following people to coordinate repairs for your vehicle:
Bronx: John Condon (718) 430-1873 and/or Elliott Sykes
(718) 430-1896
Brooklyn: Kent Stridiron (718) 965-8929
Manhattan: Melissa Mendez (212) 408-0225 and/or the
Manhattan WEP Office (212) 408-0228
Queens: Bob Gervasi (718) 699-4242 and/or Linda Koenig
(718) 520-5930
Staten Island: Jack Guidotti (718) 816-9166
TOWING:
During the day, contact the borough dispatcher or Central
Communications.
At night or weekends, contact the dispatcher or Central
Communications at 1-800-201-PARK.
Cartov Leasing can tow a vehicle to its Fort Hamilton
location. Call (718) 972-4990.
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: November 28, 1995
REVISED: May 25, 1999, October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #18
Leased WEP Vehicle Breakdown (Page 2 of 3)
DOCUMENTING REPAIRS:
Keep a running log of all vehicle breakdowns.
Record the date on which the vehicle is first brought in
for repair, and track the number of days that it remains out of service
in the WEP Van Breakdown and PMI report.
At the end of the month, send the WEP Van Breakdown and
PMI report (accompanied by receipts for the work done) to your Borough
WEP Coordinator.
Note: Because Parks does not own its WEP vehicles, their
out-of-service rates can not be tracked on the city's MCMS (Maintenance
Control Management System).
ACCIDENT & VANDALISM PROCEDURE
If the vehicle was just involved in an accident with another
vehicle, fixed object, or pedestrian:
Contact Central Communications immediately (1-800-201-
PARK) and follow any instructions they give.
Obtain all relevant information regarding the other
driver(s) involved in the accident (i.e. name, address, Driver's
License #, license plate, vehicle info, insurance info, etc.). If the
other driver(s) involved in the accident requests insurance information
from you, inform them that any claim for damage or injury must be sent
to:
City of New York/Office of the Comptroller, Bureau of Law and
Adjustment, 1 Centre Street, Room 1225, New York, NY 10007
Your supervisor must be notified of the accident, even if
no violations are issued and there are no injuries.
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: November 28, 1995
REVISED: May 25, 1999, September 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #18
Leased WEP Vehicle Breakdown (Page 3 of 3)
ACCIDENT Continued
Fill out the Parks Driver Accident Report Form and the
N.Y State Department of Motor Vehicles Accident Form (MV 104) located
in the glove compartment of the vehicle (they are also available at the
dispatch office). These forms MUST be filled out within twenty-four
(24) hours of an accident. The Parks form must be submitted to your
Supervisor for completion. The DMV form must be sent to the state (as
indicated on the form), with a copy going to your Supervisor.
VANDALISM
A ``A Property Damage/Theft Report'' must be filed
regarding each incident of vehicle vandalism or vehicle abuse.
Vandalism report should be reported to the Police and Central
Communications. Copies must also be submitted to garage dispatch and 5-
boro.
An ``injury/illness/incident report'' must be filed for
each case of vehicle abuse or suspected abuse. These are to be reported
to garage dispatch and to the appropriate supervisor.
Note: Under no circumstances are WEP participants allowed to drive.
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: April 1, 1996
REVISED: May 15, 1998, October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #19
WEP Appreciation (Page 1 of 1)
As part of Parks & Recreation's effort to provide incentives to
outstanding WEP participants, the following WEP Appreciation programs
have been implemented:
DISTRICT WEP PARTICIPANT OF THE MONTH:
Crew Chiefs should receive a District WEP Participant of the Month
nomination form from their WEP Borough Coordinator (see appendix for
sample WEP Nomination Form). Crew Chiefs should complete the form to
nominate an outstanding WEP participant from their district, and return
it to the WEP Borough Coordinator. Call your Borough WEP Coordinator's
office to find out when the Nomination Forms must be submitted. Upon a
favorable review of the nominated participants from each district, an
individual will be selected as the District WEP Participant of the
Month, and his/her Crew Chief will be contacted with the results.
Winners also become candidates for the Borough WEP Participant of the
Month award. A district recognition ceremony should be arranged during
which the appropriate district manager presents the participant with a
certificate and a Parks T-shirt.
BOROUGH WEP PARTICIPANT OF THE MONTH:
The WEP Participant of the Month for each Borough is selected from
the recipients of District WEP Participants of the Month. Each of these
five outstanding participants is awarded a certificate of achievement,
a Parks T-shirt, and a check for $30.00. Call your Borough WEP
Coordinator's office to find out when the T-shirts, certificates, and
checks will be available for distribution.
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: April 1, 1996
REVISED: May 15, 1998, October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #19
WEP Appreciation (Page 2 of 2)
BI-ANNUAL BOROUGH WEP PARTICIPANT OF THE MONTH LUNCHEON:
Every six months, a luncheon is arranged through the Central WEP
Office to honor the Borough WEP Participants of the Month. Held at the
Arsenal in Manhattan, this ceremony is attended by the Parks
Commissioner, First Deputy Commissioner, and Deputy Commissioner,
various District Managers, Borough Commissioners and/or Chief of
Operations.
ZAP AWARDS:
ZAP Awards (food, event tickets, T-shirts, etc.) are solicited from
major corporations so that WEP Crew Chiefs can provide instant rewards
for outstanding work. Contact your Borough WEP Coordinator for more
information.
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: 1994
REVISED: May 15, 1998, October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #20
Parks Career Training Program (PACT)
PARKS CAREER TRAINING PROGRAM (PACT)
WEP participants interested in moving into full-time employment
should be encouraged to apply to PACT. Those individuals accepted to
the program agree to work 35 hours per week, in exchange for job
counseling, skill building, driver training, and job placement services
that are designed to help them find full-time employment in the private
sector. Additionally, PACT participants have access to General
Equivalency Degree, Basic Education, and English as a Second Language
classes.
PACT job skill training is primarily on-the-job and takes place in
parks and park facilities throughout the five boroughs. This hands-on
training is supplemented with workshops ranging from computer classes
to chain saw use. The PACT training period varies from one to eight
months.
The PACT major training areas include, but are not limited to, the
following:
Custodial/Maintenance
Clerical
Horticulture
Security
Handyman/Fix-it
Approximately half of the PACT participants are assigned to PACT-
supervised training crews and half are assigned to individual
apprenticeship assignments.
To be considered for the PACT program, a WEP participant must:
Have a strong desire to move from public assistance to
employment in the private sector.
Be willing to work 35 hours per week.
Each year PACT places over 300 participants into full-
time jobs.
Crew Chiefs should encourage participants to call the PACT office
at (212) 830-7778, or to contact their Borough WEP Coordinator for more
information.
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: October 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #21
Job Assistance Center (JAC)
JOB ASSISTANCE CENTER (JAC)
The Job Assistance Center (JAC) is Parks' own concurrent job search
program (see procedure # 4 for more information on concurrent job
search).
Participants are assigned to JAC by HRA and are required to spend
21 hours a week at their WEP assignment and 14 hours a week at their
JAC assignment. WEP participants may also volunteer to be enrolled in
JAC by contacting their borough WEP office.
JAC offers workshops and job placement assistance. WEP participants
who are assigned to JAC have access to:
Board of Education Certified GED and ESL classes
Clerical Academies
job shadowing program
interview appropriate attire through our in-house
clothing closet and through Dress For Sucess
Each year JAC places over 200 participants into full-time jobs.
Crew Chiefs who are interested in learning more about JAC should
call the Central Office at (212) 360-8130.
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: 1994
REVISED: May 15, 1998, September 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #22
College WEP
College WEP is designed for participants who:
Are presently in college.
Have a college degree or some college background.
The program places eligible Parks WEP participants in WEP
assignments that use their skills and are related to their field of
study or extra curricular interests. Current placements include:
Administrative offices
Telecommunications
Horticulture
Environmental education
Pre-school and after-school children's programs
Computer resource centers
Recreational activities
Senior citizen programs.
Crew Chiefs should encourage eligible WEP participants to apply for
this program. Interested WEP participants should call their Borough WEP
Coordinator.
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: July 17, 1996
REVISED: May 15, 1998, September 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #23
Business Link
Business Link was established by the Human Resources Administration
(HRA) to assist WEP participants in their search for outside
employment. It is very important that participants be made aware of the
employment opportunities offered through Business Link. Business Link
periodically issues job notices with information regarding jobs
currently available to WEP participants. There is usually a deadline
for responses, so immediate action is required. Upon receipt of the
Business Link posting, Crew Chiefs are expected to do the following:
Immediately post Business Link notices in areas
accessible to all WEP participants.
Encourage participants to respond to job notices.
Permit participants to use Parks telephones to arrange
Business Link appointments.
WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ISSUED: April 21, 1996
REVISED: May 15, 1998, September 1, 2000
PROCEDURE: #24
Blood Drive Policy
Parks & Recreation conducts blood drives semi-annually, and all WEP
participants should be encouraged to participate. Those who participate
will receive credit for three hours of earned time. If a participant
attends the drive, confirmation of his/her attendance will be sent to
the Borough WEP Office by the blood drive coordinator. If the
participant donates blood and leaves prior to his/her tour, the three
hours of earned time will be applied to complete that day. If the
participant returns to the job site directly after attending the drive,
his/her three hours should be granted at a later date.
Information regarding time and location will be made available to
the Borough Offices prior to each blood drive.
Ms. Falcocchio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee on Human Resources. My name is Lisa Falcocchio. I
am from the Parks Department. I was asked to come here today to
talk a little bit about how we run our Welfare to Work program
operationally.
The Parks Department is a unique city agency in that we
have really embraced Welfare to Work and Workfare. In 1994, we
had a work experience program or a WEP participant head count
of a little bit over 1,000, and we peaked in 1998 with almost
7,000, which is equivalent to about 3,000 full-time employees.
For us, this has been a big undertaking, but the work we
put that setting up the program has proved enormous. Our
cleanliness ratings, which is one of the ways that we rate how
effective this program has been for us is, as a city agency,
have shot up. 1994 there were 75 percent cleanliness ratings
with the parks and playgrounds, and currently we are at about
95 percent. And our WEP head count today is about 3,000. One of
the things that we are able to do is the way the program is
structured, is every 2 weeks we get referrals from HRA from
each of the boroughs.
From day one, when participants come into our program, we
wanted it to be very clear to them that they are part of the
Parks Department. They are part of our work force. We explain
to them that this is not a permanent job, that is, probably
won't lead to permanent employment, but we offer them the
different tools that are there to help transform them into
private sector employment.
We have two job training programs that are part of their
time while they are in the parks Welfare to Work program. And
since 1994 we have placed over 2,000 people in full-time
private sector employment. And our retention rate is about 86
percent for over 3 months. And the average rate is a little bit
more than $8 an hour.
The way the work site is actually set up is each of our
boroughs are separated into districts. We have trained
supervisors who are called crew chiefs. They were in-line
workers. Their responsibility before they were promoted to
supervisor was basically the position of a city park worker to
do maintenance jobs in the parks, to maintain the parks and
playgrounds. Before or while they were promoted, we realized
that it was very important for them to receive additional
training. Initially when they were promoted to supervisor of
our WEP group and they are about 15 to 25 participants per
group, depending on our head count and operational needs, they
go through initially about 6 days of training, and then each
year it depends, sometimes it is three days, sometimes it is
one day, depending on the needs.
When participants come into the program, we make sure we
explain to them about HRA policy, about park policy. And then
they usually get assigned to a work assignment that is closest
to where they live. Sometimes, depending on child care and
other issues, it makes more sense for there to be an assignment
closer to where their child goes to school. We try to
accommodate those needs.
We make sure they have their safety equipment they need,
the uniforms they need, and that they understand that there are
different options available to them. They have the option to
get assessed. Every participant who comes through our program
we do a self-assessment with them, usually through one of our
job training programs to see what their skills are. If people
have special skills or are in college, we try give them an
assignment that reflects their scheduling needs, or if they
know computers, to help them get up to date in whatever the
latest technology is so that that becomes a marketable skill.
In addition, we give driving training for people to get
their license or commercial driver's license where they can
practice on the parks' trucks. It is sort of the bigger
picture, how can this really be a work experience? I mean, that
sort of is the presentation.
And I think the final thing to say, though, is that our
supervisors who have such an influential role because they are
with our participants 3 days a week, they are trained very much
in how to make this a real work experience.
Chairman Herger. Thank you very much.
Next I would like the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Camp, to
introduce our next witness.
Mr. Camp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to welcome and
introduce Doug Howard, who is the director of the Michigan
Family Independence Agency, and also to mention that under his
leadership, Michigan has experienced the lowest welfare
enrollment since 1969, and under his leadership also under
Michigan's Project Zero Initiative, more importantly, the
number of families without earned income has been reduced to
zero in 86 out of 104 sites in Michigan. So we look forward to
your testimony and thank you for being here, Doug. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS E. HOWARD, DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN FAMILY
INDEPENDENCE AGENCY
Mr. Howard. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Herger and your
colleagues, and a special thank you to Congressmen Camp and
Levin for their interests in not only what we do in Michigan,
but how it is affecting children and families. I know you all
share that interest. I also want to thank you, ChairmanHerger,
for continuing what many of your colleagues have done before you in
coming and reaching out to the States.
You recently appeared at an American Public Human Services
Association meeting where we had the opportunity to interact. I
am a Member of the board of directors for that association. One
of the things the States have done is try to come together on
consensus on a number of social policy issues. Some of you are
familiar with the recent publication, Crossroads-New Directions
in Social Policy. It is broader ranging than today's
discussion, but there are a number of references in here to
TANF and work requirements. And if it is appropriate and if
there is no objection, I would like to ask if we could submit
this as part of the record. We can make it available in
electronic format.
Chairman Herger. Without objection.
Mr. Howard. Thank you. I appreciate it. Michigan is a State
that began down the path of moving towards work-based reforms
as early as 1992 under Governor John Engler's leadership. Along
with a number of other States in the early and mid 90s, we
really began moving into that environment through a number of
State waivers. And we have had great success, as Congressman
Camp has pointed out, we have seen very sharp declines in the
cash assistance caseload. We have seen a decline of nearly 70
percent. That doesn't mean that we are serving 70 percent less.
What we are doing are moving people from a pure reliance on
cash assistance into the work force. In some cases they are
leaving all programs, in other cases we are still providing
supports.
I would like to put up a chart reflecting the shift from
cash grants to work support--yes, that chart. This is an
example of the types of support we are providing for work and
an example of how the flexibility of TANF has allowed us to
focus more on work-base supports. This is included in a
separate exhibit from the testimony I have submitted. The upper
dark blue line that is on a downward trend reflects the annual
payout in cash assistance grants in the State of Michigan.
The lower kind of mauve colored line that is increasing
represents child care assistance. You will see that last year
those lines actually crossed, and we are now paying out more in
a service such as child care to support families in the work
force than are actually paying for families who may be staying
at home. We are seeing those same type of upward trends in
other States. We see those same type of upward trends in a
number of other services, transportation, some programs perhaps
with lower cost but upward trends in mentoring, parenting
skills and other services that help families keep their family
structure intact so they can remain in the work force.
So we believe that the flexibility under PRWORA has really
allowed us to do that reinvestment. The whole centerpiece in
this is, of course, the work requirements. We do believe very
strongly that the focus on work requirements has helped us
change the culture of the program, not only for staff, but also
for the clients and the general public. If nothing else, it has
helped us create the opportunity for families to make good
business decisions.
I would like to jump to the next poster board as an example
of what I referred to in the way of good business decisions.
Under the old ADC program, which essentially is represented by
the first column entitled ``welfare,'' there was not a lot of
incentive to go to work. Families would lose their benefits
nearly as fast as they gained income. Between cash assistance
and food stamps, these are Michigan specific numbers, they had
roughly $800 in disposal income a month.
As we move into the work requirements under TANF,
essentially matching up the welfare and work column to the
current 30-hour work requirement looking at minimum wage,
adding in earned income tax credit, the employment and the
continued eligibility for food stamps and cash we see in
Michigan, that their disposable income has climbed to over
$1,300. Finally if they go to work full-time, even at minimum
wage, that further increases their income. Obviously, the
higher the income level, the better off that family is.
So we know that this has certainly created value for the
family. There are a number of studies out there that show that
the most common reason for leaving welfare is work. We have
seen over 260,000 families leave assistance just due to work in
the State of Michigan. Their wages have ranged from minimum
wage all the way up to $25 an hour. We think one of the
opportunities before us in work-based reforms that we are
trying to integrate locally is a focus not just on job
placement, but on retention and advancement activities.
One of the things we have often said is that we believe
work strengthens families. But sometimes to help with that
retention and advancement, we need to put some things in place
to strengthen the family so they can keep the job. So we have
seen an expansion of the messages we think about, how we
support families and work, child care, transportation, helping
them deal with issues at home. We have seen clear success
stories where parents have relayed, as you are hearing today,
that they are doing this for their family and children.
One of the things we do in Michigan we are quite proud of
because it puts a face on this every month, is hold an
achiever-of-the-month ceremony around the State in which a
current or former recipient tells their story. And the most
common thread in those stories is that they have done this for
themselves and their children, the message that they are
sending for their children is very important.
I think, in conclusion, I would just say that there are
continuing issues under the work requirements. We need to keep
the focus on work. We would ask Congress to continue with the
things you have done under PRWORA around the ability to
reinvest funding, the flexibility States have been given which
will allow us to focus not only on placement, but retention and
advancement, and ultimately on strengthening families. Thank
you for your time.
Chairman Herger. Thank you very much, Mr. Howard.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Howard follows:]
Statement of Douglas E. Howard, Director, Michigan Family Independence
Agency
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. Thank
you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding work requirements
in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) welfare program.
I am Doug Howard, Director of the Michigan Family Independence Agency
(MFIA). MFIA helps to improve the quality of life in Michigan by
protecting children and vulnerable adults, delivering juvenile justice
services, and providing support to strengthen families and individuals
striving for independence.
In the mid-1990s, states began significant work-related reforms, a
process accelerated in 1996 by the TANF federal block grant. The block
grant--which required strong work requirements for those receiving
aid--was a historic step in allowing states the flexibility needed to
establish effective welfare policy. Coinciding with these changes was
an unprecedented drop in the cash assistance caseload, which has
declined nationally by some 50 percent from its peak level in March
1994. Nationally, the rolls have now declined for five consecutive
years. In 1992--well before the federal reforms--Governor Engler
introduced significant work-related reforms. Since then, Michigan's
cash assistance caseload has declined by nearly 70 percent, and the
rolls have now declined for eight consecutive years.
Healthy debate has emerged concerning the causes of such large-
scale caseload decline. Some argue that declines are driven by policy
changes while others believe the strong economy of the 1990s is the
major factor. But one thing is clear--the availability of jobs,
combined with work requirements that reduce the economic incentives of
being on welfare, have played an important role in moving recipients
into the workforce.
As summarized by the Brookings Institute, studies of mothers who
left cash assistance find that about 60 percent are employed and about
75 percent have been employed at some time since leaving cash
assistance. After a decade of relative stability, the number of single
mothers working rose by about 25 percent between 1993 and 1999. Even
more impressive was a 50 percent increase in the number of never-
married mothers who had a job. That these are the mothers who have had
the biggest increase in employment in recent years suggests that even
poorly educated mothers that used to stay on welfare for long periods
are proving themselves capable of succeeding at work in the private
sector, at least during a period of low unemployment.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Haskins, Ron, Isabel Sawhill, and Kent Weaver. 2001. ``Welfare
Reform: An Overview of Effects to Date,'' Brookings Institute
Publications, Brief #1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 1999 study by the Urban Institute found that work is the most
common reason for leaving cash assistance. More than two-thirds (69
percent) reported leaving cash assistance because of increased earnings
or hours on an ongoing job or because of a new job. The Urban Institute
study also found that the types and quality of jobs held by former
recipients are similar or better than those held by other low-income
mothers (mothers with incomes less than 200 percent of the poverty
rate).
More recent work on wage growth over time among less-skilled women
suggests that experience in the labor market does increase earnings. In
fact, wages of less-skilled women grow as fast with experience as do
those of more educated women, but from a much lower starting point. In
Michigan, we have had more than 266,000 families leave cash assistance
due to earnings since 1992. We know that their wages have ranged from
minimum wage to up to $25 per hour.
These data indicate an amazingly rapid shift in work behavior over
a relatively short period of time. Overall, the data is generally
consistent in finding that most families who have left welfare for work
have more money than they had when they were on welfare.
Welfare Reform's Impact on Children
Simultaneous with these historic declines in cash assistance, both
overall child poverty and black child poverty have declined
substantially. In fact, declines in poverty among black children in
1997 and 1999 are the biggest single year declines on record and the
1999 level of black child poverty is the lowest ever. Similarly, the
overall child poverty rate in 1999 is lower than in any year since
1979.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Haskins, Ron. 2001. ``The Second Most Important Issue: Effects
of Welfare Reform on Family Income and Poverty,'' New World of Welfare
Conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both the 1980s and 1990s saw substantial progress against poverty.
However, the drop in poverty during the six years of the 1990s economic
expansion is more than twice as great as the drop during the six years
of 1980s expansion. The explanation of this remarkable difference
cannot be greater job growth during the 1990s because the net increase
in employment was around 20 million during both periods.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Haskins, Ron. 2001. ``The Second Most Important Issue: Effects
of Welfare Reform on Family Income and Poverty,'' New World of Welfare
Conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Researchers Rebecca Blank and Ron Haskins believe there are
families at the bottom (5 or 10 percent of the income distribution)
that appear to be worse off without cash welfare. These mothers have
numerous barriers to employment such as three or more young children to
care for, learning disabilities, mild retardation or health or
substance abuse problems.
A recent study by the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation
found that requiring single mothers to work as a condition of receiving
cash assistance did not hurt their children. Rigorous evaluation of 11
welfare programs in six states provided ``strikingly consistent
evidence'' of the benefits to children.
Looking at children of all ages, the Brookings Institute concluded
from a variety of TANF-like experiments that were conducted under
waivers prior to welfare reform that the effects on children were
small. Child participation in organized activities, center-based child
care, and health insurance programs generally increased. Academic
achievement, behavior, overall health, and the home environment of the
child, however, changed very little or not at all.
In the case of elementary-school children, the picture is fairly
positive. There is strong evidence that welfare reform can be a potent
force for enhancing achievement and positive behavior. When welfare
reform packages do not appear to help younger children, there is little
evidence of harm. The only bad news is that decreased supervision may
increase adolescent risk behavior.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Duncan, Greg J. and P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale. 2000. ``Welfare
Reform and Child Well-being,'' Northwestern University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the majority of data suggests, a large portion of families who
have left cash assistance for work have a distinct advantage over those
who continue to collect welfare checks. This is reflected by the fact
that as the nation's caseloads have sharply declined, more people--
particularly single-parent families and black children--have advanced
out of poverty.
Working Toward the Future
Even though everyone can work at some level, there are going to be
people who need help. The American people want us to help the needy as
long as they are doing something to help themselves. With the new
policies and perspectives granted by Congress, states have successfully
shifted away from a program that once paid people to stay home to one
that provides incentives and supports for working. The statistics show
we are on the right track. The myths about the impossibility of
reducing dependence have been shattered. Yet, there is more work to be
done.
Work requirements are proving to be extremely effective in reducing
dependence and promoting self-sufficiency. There is now an opportunity
to align other public assistance programs, including food stamps and
public housing, to the principle of work.
States believe that next year one of the biggest opportunities
during TANF reauthorization is the potential for alignment of programs,
both in HHS and other federal agencies, that effect the TANF
population. The most often mentioned program among my colleagues, from
other state social services directors to front line workers, is the
need to simplify and add flexibility to the Food Stamp Program
administered by the US Department of Agriculture. That program is also
due for reauthorization next year. This provides Congress with an
excellent opportunity to apply some of the lessons learned over the
last five years in TANF to households that receive food stamps. Work
requirements in the food stamp program are much less rigorous than
under TANF; assets that a family is encouraged to acquire under TANF,
such as a vehicle, can make a low-income working family ineligible for
food stamps once theyleave cash assistance. Different reporting
requirements and different standards for verification of income,
shelter, utility and medical costs make it extremely difficult for
customers and for staff to be certain benefit amounts are accurate. I
urge you to take every opportunity to reduce bureaucratic burdens on
low-income families and seniors, and on the states, by aligning program
requirements or allowing additional flexibility within programs that
serve low-income populations.
Today, most states are serving as many, if not more, families
through an array of work supports such as childcare, transportation,
and mentoring. Part of our future challenge is to reduce reliance on
Non-TANF programs by increasing job retention and advancement for those
who have left cash assistance.
But Government cannot and should not be expected to do this alone.
Many of our best successes occurred because individuals displayed
personal responsibility and communities have accepted ownership of
problems and solutions. The flexibility under TANF has made this
possible.
On the heels of these sweeping changes, the next round of national
debate is now beginning. In 2002, Congress must decide the future
direction of welfare reform. This is the time to increase state's
flexibility, simplify and align federal requirements and provide an
adequate funding level that will pledge continued success. Our progress
in Michigan--and nationally--argues for a continuation of what has
worked and new initiatives so that no families are left behind.
Congress deserves credit for contributing to the national success
of welfare reform by giving states the flexibility and authority to
advance the value and expectation of work. As Congress reflects on the
success of welfare reform, I encourage you to continue to rely on the
experience of Governor's and the states. The state experiences and
challenges of the last five years can prove invaluable as Congress
considers the role of work requirements in public assistance programs.
[The attachment is being retained in the Committee files.]
MICHIGAN FAMILY INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM MONTHLY FAMILY BENEFITS--WELFARE
VERSUS WORK--FAMILY OF THREE IN DETROIT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welfare &
Welfare Work Work Only
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Assistance.................. $459 $88 ...........
Food Stamps...................... 341 296 269
Employment....................... ........... \1\ 664 \2\ 886
Earned Income Credit............. ........... 266 324
--------------------------------------
Total Family Benefits...... 800 1,314 1,479
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Part time (30 hr/wk) at minimum wage ($5.15/hr).
\2\ Full time (40 hr/wk) at minimum wage ($5.15/hr).
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY CASH ASSISTANCE (FIP) AND CHILD DAY CARE
(CDC) ANNUAL EXPENDITURES FY 1994-FY 2002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4216A.001
Chairman Herger. Our concluding witness for this panel will
be Mr. Rodney Carroll, the president and chief executive
officer of the Welfare to Work partnership. He is accompanied
by Takia Roberts, who has gone to work with the help of the
Welfare to Work partnership. Mr. Carroll.
STATEMENT OF RODNEY J. CARROLL, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, WELFARE TO WORK PARTNERSHIP, ACCOMPANIED BY TAKIA
ROBERTS, LEAD PHARMACY TECHNICIAN, CVS PHARMACY, MARYLAND
Mr. Carroll. Thank you and good to see you again Mr.
Chairman. Mr. Cardin, Mrs. Johnson and other distinguished
Members of the Committee, I am delighted to be here to
represent the American business community. I would like to also
commend you on having this hearing and taking the important
steps to fixing the 60-year-old problem.
As I was preparing my notes and preparing to talk today, I
wasn't quite sure what I was going to say. I was going to tell
you about the Welfare to Work Partnership and how we started
with five companies, and that we now have over 22,000
companies, and those 22,000 companies have hired 1.1 million
people, and 40 percent above the minimum wage average salary,
and 83 percent promotion track jobs and so forth. But I figured
I didn't want to tell you that.
I also was going to tell you about our recommendations that
we have and we have a book that we handed President Clinton
last year on our recommendations, but you have a copy of that
book in front of you, so I guess you could look at that at your
leisure.
I also could tell you about the two biggest problems that
we have found, which are child care and transportation, but
everybody knows that. So as I began to think about what I was
going to say, how I was going to say it, I thought that I would
tell you about nobody. That is right, I said nobody. You know
when I was growing up in Philadelphia, I was 16 or 17 years
old, grew up in a family on welfare. I guess I thought I was
probably nobody. You see, nobody really had anybody, any plans
for my life. Nobody was expecting anything from me. Nobody felt
that I was going to make anything. Just wanted me to stay out
of trouble, stay out of the way, you know, don't really do
anything. Because as growing up on welfare, nobody really
believed that I was ever going to do anything to make any
difference in life and be a good citizen.
But you see, deep down inside, I knew differently. And I
knew that if I could get an opportunity, a chance to do
something in my life, that I could make a good life of it.
So as I went to high school and I eventually went to
college, and at some point I got a job. And I got this job at
UPS. And I worked at UPS for 22 years up until last year when I
left UPS to be the chairman of the Welfare to Work Partnership.
When I came into UPS, I didn't come into UPS with a suit and
tie on, I started in the trucks unloading and loading boxes,
like most of the UPS people do. As I go through the Partnership
and I go around the country and I talk to companies and people
all around, you know what they tell me? They tell me the same
thing: welfare recipients, by and large whatever race or color,
they all are looking for a chance. They are looking for an
opportunity. They want to make something out of their lives.
They want to do something. And many times it is just a barrier
that causes them not to be able to reach these goals.
You remember Mr. Cardin said that although the rolls have
been cut in half we have impressive numbers all around the
country, certainly impressive numbers in Michigan and Wisconsin
and certainly New York City, we still have about 2 million
people that are still looking for that same opportunity. It is
not time to raise the flag now and say hey, we have won. We
have still got a long way to go. The question begins how are we
going to get there? But first, we need to recognize that we do
have some distance to travel and we do need to make some more
gains as we go along. You see, my experience has been that the
people that have not yet made the transition, those people even
have more difficulties. They may even have more challenges
ahead. There may need to be more resources put toward those
people so that they will have the same opportunity that I had
and the same opportunities that perhaps you had. The Welfare to
Work Partnership is very proud of its record so far. We are in
five cities on the ground. And the objective, again, as Mr.
Cardin, said is not only getting a job, going from welfare to
the working poor, but also it is really about going from
dependence to independence.
And in order to do that, you not only have to get a job,
but you have to be retained on the job and you also have to
advance on the job. So as I go around the country and talk to
businesses all around, I talk to them about why it is smart for
them to hire people from welfare. I never tell them about
charity or social responsibility. I tell them why it is a smart
solution for their business. I tell them about people like
Takia Roberts, I tell them about myself.
One of our business partners is CVS Pharmacies. CVS
Pharmacies sits on our board. I am proud to say that CVS has
hired an estimated 12,000 people in the last couple years from
Welfare to Work. They hire many times entry level, but they
have programs that allow people to come in entry level and if
they work hard, if they do a good job, they can advance and
they can make something out of their lives.
As I told you earlier, I came here not only to tell about
those things, but to tell you about nobody. But now I would
like to introduce you to somebody.
Sitting to my right is Takia Roberts. I would like for her
to tell you about her life and her story and where she is going
and where she hopes to be.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carroll follows:]
Statement of Rodney J. Carroll, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Welfare to Work Partnership
``We cannot be the kind of country we want to be if we're content
to leave people behind . . . We have the knowledge. We have the
resources . . . What we need now is commitment. We're asking every
company across the country to join our Partnership.''
--Gerald Greenwald, Chairman Emeritus, United Airlines Chairman,
The Welfare to Work Partnership
``Welfare to work is the perfect example of how two supposedly
diametrically opposed goals of business--making money and being
socially responsible--can intersect in a meaningful way.''
--Jonathan Tisch, President and CEO, Loews Hotels Vice Chairman,
The Welfare to Work Partnership
Good afternoon Congressman Herger and members of the Human
Resources subcommittee. I thank you all for inviting me to testify
about the business perspective on welfare reform and the
reauthorization of the Temporary Aid to Needy Families program.
It is a rare moment when a vexing social problem and a compelling
business need align to create positive change. Such an opportunity
presented itself in 1996, when this subcommittee wrote and the full
Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act, reversing six decades of welfare policy. The new
law created a historic challenge for the business community to hire
those who would be leaving the welfare rolls in large numbers. And,
fortuitously, it created an unprecedented chance for employers to fill
their payrolls with new workers, just as a booming economy was making
that job more difficult than ever.
As you well know, welfare caseloads have plummeted by half since
1996, and the majority of adults who are now off the welfare rolls have
gone to work. In May of 1997, The Welfare to Work Partnership was
created by five corporations--United Airlines, Burger King, Monsanto,
Sprint, and UPS--to educate and encourage other employers to consider
hiring this new pool of workers. More than 20,000 employers have
answered our challenge and committed to hire and retain former welfare
recipients. In fact, we can now estimate that these companies have
hired 1.1 million new workers from the public assistance rolls--mainly
for good, full-time jobs offering full medical benefits. We are pleased
to be at the forefront of this quiet social revolution.
The Partnership takes great pride in the progress our employers
have made. Still, we are quick to acknowledge that the job of ending a
failed welfare system is far from complete. Important challenges lie
ahead. More than two million families remain dependent on the federal
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and, as
employers, we are well aware that many of them face the most difficult
barriers on their road to work. We also know that too many individuals
who have left the rolls eventually return. Perhaps the most daunting
challenge, however, is in supporting large numbers of our fellow
Americans who have ``done right'' by their families and worked hard to
leave welfare, only to find themselves struggling to make ends meet. As
a nation, we owe these individuals more; together, we can do more to
help them achieve lasting independence.
To move the agenda forward in pursuit of that goal, we offer a
series of policy recommendations to you and your colleagues in
Congress. The Partnership and our Business Partners believe that only
by working together--with neither partisan nor ideological
differences--can we complete the ambitious agenda of welfare reform.
Our recommendations include the following:
Reauthorize the 1996 welfare law and hold the line on
funding to assist those still in need. When Congress revisits the 1996
law, it should not reduce TANF block grant funding despite large
declines in welfare cases. The nation's investment should be sustained
to help states tackle the difficult barriers faced by the ``hardest to
serve'' recipients remaining on the rolls and those who have already
left. States, for their part, should move expeditiously to spend their
TANF allocations on services most vital to welfare recipients and to
all low-wage workers. Any effort by states to use TANF money for other
purposes should be strongly discouraged.
Do more to prepare welfare recipients for long-term
success before their first day of work. Lawmakers should also find a
better balance between the strict ``work first'' philosophy at the core
of the 1996 law and more intensive efforts to prepare welfare
recipients for reliable and better-paying jobs. While The Partnership's
companies believe most recipients should be required to work and are
eager to employ these new workers, many have come to see the practical
limitations of a program that, in some cases, pushes recipients into
jobs before they are prepared to succeed in them.
Help us address the biggest obstacles to work--child care
and transportation--and to maximize small business involvement in
welfare to work. Lawmakers should sustain or, ideally, increase
resources for a range of programs that help former welfare recipients
stay on the job. Partnership companies call for increased emphasis on
child care and transportation aid, as they are consistently the two
biggest challenges facing new workers. We also ask for help by
government bodies and other employers to ensure that small businesses--
the engine of job growth in America--can successfully hire
disadvantaged workers.
Relax strict time limits on welfare for people working at
least part time. Congress should seriously consider changing the 1996
law to ``stop the clock'' on welfare benefits for individuals who are
working but earning so little money that they continue to receive a
partial wage supplement. In a recent survey, nearly two thirds of
Partnership employers supported such a proposal.
Do more to ``make work pay'' for employees leaving the
welfare rolls. Congress, state and local lawmakers, and service
providers must maximize a range of supports that help former recipients
keep their jobs and leave welfare behind for good. Partnership
companies call on Congress to increase the Earned Income Tax Credit for
low-wage workers, and on states to enact such refundable credits of
their own. We also urge stakeholders to aggressively promote valuable
work supports like Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program
and food stamps for all families who need extra support on the road to
permanent self-sufficiency.
These recommendations and others are included in a report we issued
this past summer called The Bottom Line for Better Lives. In this
document, The Partnership and its business leaders share other
recommendations with those in a position to affect change, including
strategies to streamline the workforce and training systems, to reach
out to the fathers of children on welfare, and to build on the progress
to date with efforts to assist millions of other disadvantaged
Americans in need of decent jobs.
A few years ago, welfare to work was little more than a slogan.
Today it is a reality across America. Companies have proven that
welfare to work is as good for their business as it is for the
community. And welfare recipients have proven that, when given a chance
and the right employment-related supports, they can make the successful
transition from welfare to work.
We are happy to report that businesses will remain engaged in the
welfare to work effort despite recent concerns about an economic
slowdown. In fact, nearly three quarters of Partnership companies
report continued difficulty finding reliable, entry-level employees and
most intend to hire welfare recipients in the coming year. In the
process of building their business with dedicated and reliable workers,
these companies will help hundreds of thousands of Americans begin the
transition from dependence to independence. These new workers, in turn,
will gain valuable skills and experience they never had before. Welfare
to work has helped--and will continue to help--countless Americans be
productive citizens, provide for their families, and be role models for
their children.
There are two unanticipated benefits of the welfare to work
initiative. First, it has generated deep support in the American
business community. Second, it has increased the likelihood that the
lessons we have learned in moving welfare recipients toward productive
lives can be applied to many other groups of citizens--like ex-
offenders, non-custodial parents and people with disabilities--who have
lived too long in the shadows of the American dream. With the help of
wise policy makers and committed service providers, we can open the
doors of opportunity to millions more of our fellow citizens.
Mr. Chairman and other members of the subcommittee, I thank you for
your time today, and would behappy to answer any questions.
For a full copy of The Bottom Line for Better Lives, please visit
The Partnership's Web site at www.welfaretowork.org and click on
``What's New.''
Ms. Roberts. Good afternoon. I really don't have anything
prepared. I just want to tell you a little bit about myself. I
grew up in the projects as some of these people in the panel. I
was a high school dropout. I went back to school, which was a
nice school. I was working in a fast food restaurant. When I
went back to school to get my high school diploma, I met a
young man with an apprenticeship program who introduced me to
Welfare to Work.
Before I started, I was just like, well, it is just another
job. It wasn't anything to me. And now, you know, since I have
been working there, I am a lead pharmacy technician, I work
with doctors, pharmacists, a lot of different people. My job
includes filling prescriptions, now I know what I want to do
out of life. I want to go to school and become a pharmacist. It
is just--I just really don't have anything prepared, you know,
I just wanted to tell you all that I am really nervous, excuse
me. So I just--you know, if it wasn't for the program, I really
don't know what I would be doing right now.
You know, I came from working in the fast food restaurant
to a lead pharmacy technician. So I just want to thank them for
having this program because I now have a career not just a job.
That is it. Thank you.
Chairman Herger. Thank you very much, Mr. Carroll and Ms.
Roberts. We are also very proud of you. You are really a role
model, both you and Ms. Taylor, to show that if you are willing
to work and become involved, you can make something of
yourselves. And it is not just you. We believe everyone out
there can do it. The goal of this Committee, and certainly I
believe of our country, is to help everyone be able to enjoy
the American dream. Maybe with that we will turn to some
questions.
Ms. Julia Taylor, a key outcome of Wisconsin's program has
been a staggering caseload decline of over 90 percent. That has
meant increased work by those who left the rolls, but another
key outcome has been that Wisconsin has the resources and the
capacity to focus intensive individualized services on those
still remaining on the rolls who often have difficult issues to
overcome.
Ms. Taylor, I would assume you agree that Wisconsin's work
requirements and time limits in keeping with the national
welfare reform law are key components driving the caseload
decline, but can you tell us more about these key features of
Wisconsin's welfare law?
Ms. Julia Taylor. Certainly. Actually the largest drop in
the caseload occurred during pay for performance, which was
actually just prior to W-2, which was when we first began
putting a work requirement in place under the initial jobs
program. When W-2 began, we saw another substantial caseload
dropoff, and a lot of it, part of it was indication load
cleanup. We go out and visit houses where we had not even a
response. And we would find that there was no house at that
address or that person was no longer residing there.
We also found that there were a lot of people that just
need a little bit of help to go to work and be successfully
attached to the workplace. So the very first, I would say,
first massive dropoff happened in the first 6 months. Actually,
for the last year and a half to 2 years, we have not seen a
significant dropoff in the caseload. Part of that is that the
people that are remaining in the caseload are much more multi-
barriered, are much harder to serve, often have a family Member
with a disability, very low reading skills and math skills.
So being able to provide the supportive services has been
critical in terms of helping people move toward employment. I
don't want to sound like people still don't move toward
employment in the caseload, because they do and they are often
very successful. It just takes a longer period of time and it
takes more much more intensive counseling. Because often we are
working with the entire family not just with one individual.
And we have also been working a lot more with men recently
particularly men just getting out of prison, men who are
identified as noncustodial parents, to try to get them employed
not just to help with the child support, but also to work with
the family and to understand some more responsibilities about
being a father other than just the responsibility of paying
child support.
Chairman Herger. Well, thank you. In your estimation, would
relaxing work requirements in general make the task of helping
the hardest to serve easier or tougher?
Ms. Julia Taylor. I think it depends on how you define work
requirements. We have often defined work requirements as having
a substantial training base and supportive services so people
might be in a GED program. They also might be working in the
Creative Workshop, which is more of an assessment program as
part of their work requirement.
So I think some of it is in how it is defined. Part of it
is also creating a real life work environment so people know
what it is like to go to work, so they are getting used to the
discipline of work. The reason we created Generation 2 Plastics
was rather than put a person with an employer and have them
fail, we would rather have them learn what the workplace is
like before they were permanently attached to the workplace.
That has been a pretty successful process for us. We have a
fairly high rate of retention, about 76 percent and a higher
rate of placement.
Chairman Herger. Mr. Turner, would you mind answering the
same question?
Mr. Turner. Let me start by answering that by elaborating
on what Ms. Taylor just said. Because I am somewhat familiar
with the Wisconsin program. She said that much of the caseload
decline occurred right after pay-for-performance. And
translated, that means the pro rata provisions that the
Congress inserted for the entire welfare reform bill were
actually tried before the Welfare Reform Bill passed in 1996 on
a waiver in Wisconsin. Once you connected the benefit with an
obligation to participate, all of a sudden the things that she
was describing, people who really didn't need the money and
really had other options, didn't come on the caseload or leave
the caseload right away. And of the remaining ones, they got
the practice of what it means to show up to an assignment and
get a benefit. So a lot of the success was contained in that
provision itself.
The other aspect that I would like to elaborate on is that
now there is a very low proportion of individuals that are
remaining in the caseload in Wisconsin. The same can't be said
in New York, yet although we have reduced the caseload 52
percent since its high. But for those individuals who were
participating, only work experience really gives them the
practice that is necessary to work out issues that they need
before they succeed in private employment.
It is very easy to get a private job right now. The problem
that we have with welfare recipients is they don't keep the
jobs. The reason they don't keep the jobs is not usually
because they can't master the tasks that are asked of them but
they don't have the habits. Getting to work on time, getting
along with coworkers, showing up the next day, doing it day
after day, making the arrangements to get your kids to school
on time. We don't want to burn out our employer community by
having welfare recipients move totally into employment and then
have the employers disappointed.
One thing a work program does is allows all these issues to
be worked out in a practice motion before they are launched
into private employment. And that is why it is so critical to
have a large and ongoing work experience program in addition to
private preliminary.
Chairman Herger. Thank you, Mr. Turner. You mentioned you
are familiar with Wisconsin. Would you like to tell us why you
are familiar with Wisconsin?
Mr. Turner. Well, I was very flattered to have the
opportunity under Governor Thompson as a State employee in
Wisconsin, back in the early 1990's and into the mid 1990's, to
be the director of the Welfare Reform Project that made
recommendations that became Wisconsin Works.
Chairman Herger. So you actually worked there or were very
instrumental in putting together that work program initially?
Mr. Turner. Well, it was the Governor's program, but I was
happy to help out.
Chairman Herger. Thank you. The gentleman from Maryland,
Mr. Cardin.
Mr. Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me, once
again, thank all of our witnesses here, and particularly those
who have experienced the system first-hand. Your testimony here
is very important to us. You put a face on the issues. We hear
about the numbers. But we don't always see the people. And it
is very helpful to us. I know it is not easy to testify before
our Committee, but I want to personally thank you all for being
here. It has made a difference in this hearing.
I want to talk a little bit, Mr. Turner, about your
testimony, because I am somewhat confused on a couple points
maybe you could help clarify. I thought you made a good point
about the mixed workweek for the people in Workfare in that
they have a work experience, plus they do other assignments
during the week to find private sector employment or to gain
additional skills. Now, if the minimum wage law were not
applicable, wouldn't that just encourage the system to have the
individual participate in work activities for a longer period
of the workweek?
Mr. Turner. No, not necessarily.
Mr. Cardin. Then why are you concerned about the minimum
wage applying?
Mr. Turner. Because when the minimum wage is applied where
welfare benefits, for instance, in a small household don't
allow you to, for instance, put together a workweek which
includes three days of actual working plus two days of other
activities, it becomes very, very difficult. And much--many low
benefit States--New York is not a low benefit State--you can't
really create a simulated workweek with a 3-day, 3-plus-2 the
way I described it. You have to cut back on the work. What you
want to do to have a successful program is simulate an actual
workweek. That is why we object to it.
Mr. Cardin. I am still not sure I fully appreciate that.
Mr. Turner. You want to have a 35 hour----
Mr. Cardin. If you were not subject to the minimum wage,
then you could have the person participate in a 35-hour work--
direct workweek, could you not? Could you not? Am I correct on
that?
Mr. Turner. Let me see if I understand your question.
Mr. Cardin. If you are not subject to the minimum wage, you
could then have the person participate in a work activity for
35 hours.
Mr. Turner. What we do in New York and what Wisconsin did
is create 3 days of work plus 2 days of other activity.
Mr. Cardin. But you were subjected----
Mr. Turner. If you retain the minimum wage provision, that
is--as interpreted in the current law in many States, you can't
run a simulated workweek.
Mr. Cardin. Currently you cannot do a 5-day workweek,
correct, of all work if you are under the benefits you are
providing?
Mr. Turner. You can, but only if you have a high benefit
State plus you add the food stamps, and together, then you can
do the 5 days. But many low benefit States you can't do that.
Mr. Cardin. I understand what you are saying. I still
question whether the incentives might be just the reverse if
the minimum wage laws were not applicable. But let me get on to
some other issues. Because I am somewhat confused by why you
were so concerned about protecting the people that participated
in your program from the protections that are in the law, you
want work experience, you want to protect the individuals in
the work experience. I know that New York has had alleged
problems with sexual harassment. The City has suggested Title 7
of the Civil Rights Act does not apply. I know you are
contesting that currently. What protects the people from being
sexually harassed?
Mr. Turner. Let me answer that very simply: First, the
application of workplace laws, basically creates a work
training program that leads to crazy outcomes. For instance,
you don't want to have crazy things going on such as welfare
recipients treating welfare benefits as though it is income and
having wage income. And you don't want to have unemployment
insurance----
Mr. Cardin. I don't mean to interrupt you but we are on a
limited time here. Are you suggesting that because the person
is, under your definition, not an employee, it is permissible
for to you sexually harass that individual?
Mr. Turner. Oh, that is nonsense. I am not going to even
bother with that question.
Mr. Cardin. I know that is nonsense. But I asked a specific
question. Wait a minute, sir.
Mr. Turner. Sexual harassment is not permissible under
any----
Chairman Herger. Mr. Cardin.
Mr. Camp. If the witness would be allowed to answer.
Mr. Cardin. Yes. If I could ask the question first.
Mr. Camp. Well, you keep interrupting.
Mr. Cardin. Mr. Turner, my question dealt with protection
against sexual harassment.
Mr. Turner. It is already in the law.
Mr. Cardin. What law?
Mr. Turner. You cannot be part of any welfare program in
New York City or be an employee, either one, and be subject to
sexual harassment without having your rights protected.
Mr. Cardin. Under what law?
Mr. Turner. If you go to----
Mr. Cardin. Then what is the problem with Title 7?
Mr. Turner. If you go to City University of New York, and
you are in a training program or in a class and you are
sexually harassed, you are not at work but your rights are
protected. My point is it is totally superfluous, but it has
crazy unintended consequences. One wants to use the laws that
already apply to people in training programs and apply them
while they are in work experience. That is the comparability,
not workplace law. It doesn't make any sense.
Mr. Cardin. It doesn't make any sense because the Federal
remedy doesn't work in the--for people in your program, but it
works for people in the work force or it doesn't work for
people that are normally in the work force?
Mr. Turner. I started to give you some examples, but I was
cut off.
Mr. Cardin. Give me some examples.
Mr. Turner. Some of crazy things that happen, if you apply
workplace laws to a training program, which doesn't apply, is
you have people getting welfare benefits, counting it as wage
income and having all of the different--there are 25 different
programs, 25 different laws that the GAO came up with that
apply in the workplace that don't currently apply when you are
running a welfare program. Do you want to have all these laws
apply? They don't all apply. Some of them do. Some of them
don't. But what you do have already in place are protections
that are endemic--in Michigan, in New York, and in Wisconsin,
we have run training programs for many, many years. And we have
laws that apply there. The comparability is between somebody
who is in a work assignment, and that is part of his Welfare to
Work program, and somebody who is in a GED class. That is the
comparability. Not somebody who is working at McDonalds and has
workplace laws apply to them and somebody in a training
program. That is thing I am trying to get across. The
provisions are right there.
Mr. Cardin. Do you supervise the people that are in this
program?
Mr. Turner. I lost you.
Mr. Cardin. Do you supervise the people that are in the
work force program?
Mr. Turner. I still don't understand the question. Do I
personally?
Mr. Cardin. Is there supervision?
Mr. Turner. Of course.
Mr. Cardin. Is there direction given to the individuals
that participate in the program?
Mr. Turner. I don't know what you mean by that. Obviously,
if you are going to run a program, you have to manage it. And
that is what we do.
Mr. Cardin. And that is to use similar supervision to
someone who is in the GED program?
Mr. Turner. Absolutely. We supervise people that are in the
GED program. They have to show up and participate. Their
benefits are reduced, and they are in a training program and we
try and move them to work. That is the same thing. The
difference is they are in a simulated work activity. That is
the comparability.
Mr. Cardin. What type of work activities are we talking
about? Aren't we talking about working?
Mr. Turner. We just had a description of some of the things
that we do. The best kind of training for work is actual
participation in a real work-like activity, not something where
you are sitting in class. Most welfare recipients who have
never been in a work environment before don't know how to act,
they don't know how to get ready for work, and they don't know
what to do in a work environment and work site. That is the
kind of practice they need.
Mr. Cardin. And therefore, it is adequate for you to figure
out how to protect their interest in regards to the laws that
you do not believe should be applicable to this type of a
circumstance.
Mr. Turner. The system already protects them throughout
their participation whether they are in GED or working at the
Parks Department.
Mr. Cardin. Perhaps you will just make available to our
Committee an explanation to that statement. I would appreciate
it if you would provide that in writing to the Committee.
Chairman Herger. Thank you. The gentleman from Oklahoma,
Mr. Watkins, to inquire.
Mr. Watkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the
Committee. Let me say to Mr. Carroll, I will ask you a
question. I would like to say to Mrs. Taylor and Mrs. Roberts,
I salute you and I commend you. I know it takes a lot of guts.
I think about my own mama, who was a forced single mother,
trying to raise three kids, and she said that we weren't going
to go on welfare. And I realize what she meant by that when I
was working three part-time jobs to try to get through school.
But also, I would like to say to you, don't underestimate your
role as a mother. That 14-year-old son that is proud of you, I
can assure you my mother was a lady with very little formal
education, but a woman with a world of wisdom and the stigma of
welfare she wasn't going to have us be in the welfare.
But she had little formal education. But she kept preaching
education, education, education. And I reflect on my mama and
realize that she didn't know what college was, but all three of
her children received advanced degrees. And all of them are
participating, I would like to think, maybe all except me, in a
constructive role in life.
But Mrs. Taylor, Ms. Roberts, I just cannot emphasize
enough what you can stand for where your families, as you
develop your families in life, whatever you do. And so, I hope
you will carry that with you. And I know I, when 10 years of
school after coming back from California, my family has broken
up because of economic instability. My father became an
alcoholic and died an alcoholic. They went to California three
times before I was 9 years of age. We came back to Oklahoma.
But I say this because itis important that you carry that with
you because keep those young people in school.
I want to ask Mr. Carroll, I don't come from a large city,
I grew up outside of the community of less than 200 people. And
one time though, when I was a youngster about the time I was
leaving, we had two banks and two streets of businesses. Now,
we have one store in that small rural area. So we don't have
jobs, but we have people who are on welfare and I devoted my
entire public life to try to build jobs and build the economy.
I am very interested when you said you started five new
companies under the partnership under the program. Could you--
would you maybe let me know, or what are those five companies
and what do they do?
Mr. Carroll. I think I tried to say we started with five
companies. And we began the partnership about five companies.
Mr. Watkins. Okay.
Mr. Carroll. The five companies were United Airlines,
Monsanto, Burger King, UPS and Sprint. And then we grew slowly
but surely, and we now have over 22,000 companies throughout
the U.S.
Mr. Watkins. These are companies that started working with
you as a partnership trying to take people off welfare, which
is tremendous. That is a great, great partnership if you can
have it. I don't have Fortune 500 companies in my district.
Mr. Carroll. Over half of these companies are small
companies that we may not have heard of, so about half the
companies, 12,000 or so are small, less than 50 employees.
Mr. Watkins. I have been working, starting up companies and
literally, in rural economic depressed areas trying to build
jobs from scratch. What I was wondering, if there was any you
might--could spare. I will commend you, UPS, you said you had
22 years. I always thought if I could get a team of workers
like those UPS workers, I could do a great deal more. You know,
I might amount to something too by that time.
Mr. Carroll. Let me say what I am gathering is that there
could be people in a very rural area, and there is not a lot of
job opportunities in that particular area. The Internet offers
tremendous possibilities.
Mr. Watkins. If I can get Internet in that rural area.
Mr. Carroll. Now with wireless you can get Internet
everywhere. So I am more than happy to share information on
companies that would be willing to assist you.
Mr. Watkins. I would welcome if you would have any
companies that would help in the rural areas. Because we are
left behind in the digital divide. I am trying to work to
bridge that gap because it is a different situation out there
in economic depressed rural areas. There are many of them that
have not recovered since the Great Depression. And we have got
to build off farm jobs because we cannot save them, which is
Ag, which I have two degrees in Ag, we cannot do it.
Mr. Carroll. I would be more than happy.
Mr. Watkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Herger. Thank you, Mr. Watkins. Next to inquire is
the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Levin.
Mr. Levin. I will be brief, I know Mrs. Johnson also has to
go to another meeting. Let me make a couple of comments then I
will leave and turn over my time to you Nancy, whatever other
time you have left.
First of all, I want to say, Mr. Turner, when we were
considering welfare reform, went into this issue of exemption
from Federal law in great detail. I don't remember all of the
back and forth. We rejected the notion of a blanket exemption.
And I want to go back and read some of the documents relating
to it. I remember that the reference to see what wasn't a
decisive, by any means, precedent for that kind of exemption.
And I missed some of the back and forth. But I remember having
long, long discussions about worker safety issues, et cetera.
So I may be back in touch with you. But I want everybody to
know we have looked into this and there were serious questions
we had about your proposal.
Let me--Mr. Howard and I have had a chance to talk about
this. I want to refer to one piece of your testimony, Mr.
Howard, to emphasize what I think is the challenge ahead, and
actually the response of Ms. Taylor referred to it. On page 4
you talked about wages have ranged from minimum wage up to $25
per hour. You and I have talked about this. I had a meeting
with the program in Macomb County, and from their records, the
best they could tell the average wage for someone who had moved
from Welfare to Work was under $7 an hour. And I do think the
studies that we have indicate that that is much more prevalent
than $25 an hour.
Indeed, one of the real problems is people move to Welfare
to Work which has, I think, very substantial benefits, and the
core of welfare reform is that it is essential that people, as
they move from welfare to work, make a living in colloquial
terms. And when people are making 7 bucks an hour and have a
couple kids, it is very tough going, to put it mildly. And
especially when the evidence is that a lot of them, though
eligible for food stamps, never apply.
And also the disturbing fact that a lot of them do not have
health care after the year. So I just want us to realize that a
good part of the challenge remains ahead to make sure that as
people move from welfare to work, they are in positions that
pay them a living wage. Ms. Taylor, that really refers to your
response, which I think was interesting and I think
enlightened.
In terms of people's placement, it is important to keep in
mind training and retraining that moves them up the ladder
economically. With that, I will turn the balance of my time
over to Mrs. Johnson. Thank you for letting me go before you.
Chairman Herger. Thank you, Mr. Levin. The gentlelady from
Connecticut.
Mrs. Johnson. Thank you. First of all, I do want to say to
Ms. Taylor and Ms. Roberts how helpful your testimony is
because for those of you who have been in this business for
long times and been through several rounds of welfare reform,
and how many women have looked at me, it is such a trap, I
can't get out, I can't get medical coverage, I can't this, I
can't that. It is really wonderful to see that the kind of
things that we have been able--people have been able to offer
you, have actually helped you see that there are careers out
there. And things you would be good at that would give you a
good income, a good living and a good group of people to work
with, and that this does matter to your kids.
So it is really wonderful to hear your testimony. And I
congratulate both of you on how far you have come, and I hope
your friends are doing as well.
Also I want to put in the record, Mr. Turner what a very
good procedures manual that you have for your work experience
program. And how clearly you spell out that sexual harassment
is not allowed and discrimination is not allowed on the basis
of age, citizenship, color, creed, disability, gender, marital
status, race, religion, prior record of arrest or convicts,
sexual orientation or national origin, and that you do actually
have a very good procedure here for your supervisors as to what
should happen when there is an injury on the job and how they
should complete the workmen's comp forms and all those things.
So we will try to figure out the law, the legal issue of
making sure that all programs would have such good procedures
and why students are covered this way and the difference
between this and being sort of caught in the employment laws
which catch you the same way the old welfare program caught
women on welfare.
So I think, I don't want people to be able to be
discriminated against because I also want us to be able to give
people voluntary work experience, combine it with other things
and help them move on in life. Sometimes the constraints of
laws that were written for full-time employees are a hazard to
your health if you are trying to just move forward. Then I just
want to ask two questions, and since I am way behind on time
too, do you think the system has--if we just fund it at the
current level and we allow flexibility, is there enough money
for day care, substance abuse treatment and to deal with the
mental health issues that you are getting into as you reach,
you know, those who are unemployed? And then the other part of
my question is the work opportunities tax credit helpful to you
at all? So just quick responses.
Mr. Turner. Well, speaking for New York City on the first
issue, is there, now that we are getting to the lower levels,
is there sufficient funding for some of those other activities
that you described? The short answer is yes. In New York City,
we used to spend $217 per adult per year on non-benefit related
services, like job training and child care. Today, because of
the TANF block grant and the combined reduction in the
caseload, we spent $3,200 per adult per year on those
activities. We currently have no shortage of substance abuse
slots in New York City. We have--child care is made available
for everyone going to work. We are very happy with that.
Mrs. Johnson. Work opportunities, tax credit?
Mr. Turner. We have not found employers clamoring for the
work opportunities tax credit.
Mrs. Johnson. Do you educate them about it?
Mr. Turner. No, we don't. We probably should.
Mr. Carroll. I would say that as far as the funding, sure
we would love to see the funding stay the same. The people that
are remaining do have multiple barriers. But even the people
that are just off are barely just off. And they are going to
need some additional training and some support. The people that
Mr. Watkins is talking about is rural America, they may need
some special assistance to get from where they are connected
with the economy at large.
The American business we have a split, we have some
companies that are taking advantage of the Welfare to Work tax
credit like you wouldn't believe, into the millions. I could
even give small businesses like Burger King franchises, they
swear by it. It has to do with education. You have to be able
to explain what it is and how it is. There is a perception to
some how this is going to be so difficult to hand out and so
difficult to access, that particularly a small business says I
don't want to deal with it. We talk to them and tell them why
they should do that and how this tax credit may offset some of
the costs they may put out, it is a win-win.
Mr. Howard. I would say on the funding, if I put on my
ADHSA hat, there are probably some States that may have some
disagreement on whether you stay the same or think about an
index to inflation. But generally I think I would agree with
what I have heard. We have seen some increased barriers in the
remaining caseload. It is not a blanket statement. There will
be people that can move through quickly. We are able to refocus
more resources on job retention and job advancement.
So I think generally, funding is probably adequate for the
path we have been on, for the path we want to go as long as we
retain the flexibility. The flexibility may be just as key to
the States, if we start seeing carveouts and mandates that may
affect our ability to do things and my answer changes.
The work opportunity tax credit, I am aware that employers
are using it. I don't know to what extent that is driving the
decision right now. I would say, probably, the labor market
demand we have seen over the last couple of years has been more
critical in their decision to hire recipients and partnerships
like the Welfare to Work partnership and some things we have
going on with employers in the States where they have actually
done this. We have seen some experiences of employers where
they have job retention rates go from 20 percent up to 85
percent when we have targeted services. So they are recognizing
the benefit they get from targeting individuals who need the
work and then working to keep them in the work force. So it may
be important to some employers, but I don't know to what
extent.
Mrs. Johnson. Thank you very much. And thank you all for
your testimony. I appreciate the good work you are doing out
there.
Chairman Herger. Thank you, Mrs. Johnson. The gentleman
from Michigan.
Mr. Camp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Howard, I just
wanted to ask you since welfare was enacted, welfare reform in
1996, what surprised you the most about its impact on work and
welfare recipients?
Mr. Howard. I think, to some extent, the speed with which
we have been able to succeed and our ability to reinvest. It
has been a very pleasant surprise. I don't want to leave the
impression that I don't think there aren't a few problems and
there aren't opportunities for improvement. We know there are
still families struggling.
But I firmly believe with all of my heart that this program
is so much better than the old ADC program. It helps more
families. It moves more people to work. It sends the right
message. It has been tremendous. The speed with which things
have happened, I have referred to obviously, the economy has
contributed to a great extent. I would tell you it is not just
the economy. I also ran a welfare reform program in Iowa before
I came to Michigan. And one of the earlier experiments we did
under waivers was looking at the job entry rate. Same people in
the same economy in the same counties, when they had welfare
reform policy, were entering the work force at over twice the
rate of those who continued to get the old ADC policies.
So we know the policies clearly have advanced work, but we
knew we could bring the rolls down. We knew we would move more
people into work. I think as administrators we look back we see
that it was real, but I don't know anyone would have estimated
it would have happened this fast. I am very pleased that we
have thus been able to refocus on helping remaining families
and continuing to focus on job retention and advancement
instead of only what does it take to get someone in any job.
Mr. Camp. What do recipients say about that focus?
Mr. Howard. There is mixed reaction, but generally it is
very positive. One of the things I haveincluded in my written
testimony is a set of vignettes on some of the--I mentioned earlier,
the achiever of the month. And generally, we get very positive
feedback. There may be always an individual here or there that may have
fallen through the cracks or who may not have taken advantage of an
opportunity. But I would tell you the majority clearly believe that
this has provided them the support to go to work. You saw our chart on
day care investment.
We are clearly putting support in place. Our achievers of
the month always talk about the focus on the children. You
heard that today. That is critical, the message they are
sending. I would tell you, some of the proudest people in the
room at those ceremonies are the kids. They are watching their
mother, or two parents in some cases, at the front of the room
talk about it. So we get very good feedback.
One of the very first pieces of feedback I ever had from a
recipient was something that stuck in my head, it was a comment
that the toughest thing about welfare reform isn't that you are
making us do something, the toughest part is you are making us
make decisions about it because under ADC, you never made us do
that before, you just told us what to do and when to do it.
That tells me we are engaging people in taking charge of their
lives.
Mr. Camp. Thank you very much. I also want to thank Ms.
Taylor and Ms. Roberts for their testimony. Thank you for
coming here today. Appreciate it very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Herger. Thank you, Mr. Camp. I want to join in
thanking each of you for being here and again particularly it
is great to see the success stories. And certainly, Ms. Taylor
and Ms. Roberts, you two are outstanding examples and just keep
up the good work. As we mentioned before, we are very proud of
you. And we are also very pleased and very proud of the job
that all of you are doing in administering this.
So with that, I would like to thank you and call up our
second panel to testify at the witness table, please. Our first
witness on this panel is Father Robert Sirico, president of the
Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty. Our next
witness is Steve Savner, senior staff attorney, Center for Law
and Social Policy; and our third witness is Vee Burke,
specialist in income maintenance at the congressional research
service. Father Sirico.
STATEMENT OF FATHER ROBERT A. SIRICO, PRESIDENT, ACTON
INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF RELIGION AND LIBERTY, GRAND RAPIDS,
MICHIGAN
Mr. Sirico. Thank you.
Mr. Camp. If I could just welcome Father Sirico from
Michigan from the Acton Institute and he is a well-known
lecturer, and really a commentator on important issues
involving not only welfare reform, but also economic civil
rights and other issues and has been a former Member of the
Civil Rights Commission. I welcome you to the Subcommittee
today, and look forward to hearing your testimony.
Mr. Sirico. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Congressman
Camp, ladies and gentlemen of the Committee. I have submitted
prepared testimony but I will try to summarize that. It is
difficult for a preacher, when you put a clock in front of him,
but we will see what we can do. The test of any moral society
is how it treats its most vulnerable members. But this test is
not one merely of sentiment nor of intention alone. It must be
considered rationally, it must be looked at with a cool and
objective eye. Others have already dealt with the question of
the economic efficiency of the Workfare programs in terms of
the material results.
But I would say that before even these things can be
considered, the moral question must be addressed. Some have
called Workfare ``slavery.'' Admittedly, this is a somewhat
emotive term that has been applied to it. But nonetheless, it
undermines and calls into question the moral validity of such
programs as Workfare.
I would like to focus my testimony on two moral issues: the
first being the nature of obligation, and secondly, the
importance of reciprocity or what might also be called
solidarity, human reciprocity and community. First there is an
obligation to the poor. Our society has this obligation to the
most vulnerable, to the most defenseless. But there is also an
obligation by the poor, that is, an obligation that the poor
themselves have. And to disregard this obligation I think is to
disregard the integrity and the dignity of the people who are
vulnerable. In this regard, I think how one goes about
implementing programs such as Workfare is very important, and I
would advocate an implementation of the principle of
subsidiarity, which basically says that needs are best met at
the most local level of their existence. I have elaborated on
that in my prepared remarks.
Secondly, with regard to obligation, perhaps the passage
from Saint Paul's letter to the Thessalonians speaks at least
for the Christian tradition with regard to assistance. He says
``if a man will not work, neither let him eat.'' There is
another ancient Christian text dating from about the first
century, or perhaps the early second century, known as the
Didache. And there we find some advice that modern policy
planners might do well to adapt for use within the contemporary
and secular context. It reads, ``let everyone who comes to you
in the name of the Lord be received but after testing Him, you
will know Him. If the one who comes to you is a traveler help
him as much as you can but he shall not remain with you more
than 2 or 3 days unless there is need. If he wishes to settle
among you and is a craftsman, let him work and eat. If he has
no trade, provide according to your conscience, so that no
Christian may live among you idle. If he does not agree to
this, he is trading on the name of Christ. Beware of such
men.''
Now of course the Didache was addressed to a group of first
century Christian believers, but I think the principles that it
articulates and the sentiment of the obligation of the poor
that it outlines with regard to a respect for the poor who have
an obligation to work for what they receive, is something that
should inform the contemporary debate as well.
While there is obligation, there is also reciprocity, which
is important. We are, after all, talking about human beings.
People who have needs, who have rights, and who have an
inalienable dignity by virtue of who they are as human beings.
It is in this regard that I think it is important for
people who receive welfare to have an opportunity provided for
them to work. There are many ways there which work benefits the
community generally by augmenting the amount of human capital
that exists. I think in this regard we are, again, focusing on
the dignity of the people who may find themselves marginalized
and vulnerable for a period of time, but who nonetheless are
seen to have something to contribute.
In this regard, we must prepare them for responsibility and
the responsibility of long hours that are usually associated
with higher paying jobs. What we are talking about here is
something that has already been alluded to: habits. I use the
word ``habit'' deliberately because it underlines another
dimension of my thoughts about why people on welfare should be
required and expected to work.
We must learn, all of us, how to manage our time, how to
balance our responsibilities, and how to be more creative in
whatever it is we do. And in this regard, we can develop many
virtuous habits of action that express our development as
persons.
The results of Workfare programs promise to help the
unemployed in ways, however, that go beyond the mere material.
Virtuous habits, moral habits of action will serve people in
good stead no matter what situation they find themselves in. In
an economy in which human capital continues to assume great
importance, the necessity of possessing such virtues will only
increase. As such, Workfare does not amount to an attack on
poor people but rather is very much in the best interests of
those who, for whatever reason, find themselves without paid
employment. Thank you very much.
Chairman Herger. Thank you, Mr. Sirico.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sirico follows:]
Statement of Father Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for
the Study of Religion and Liberty, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, I thank
you for asking me to testify today.
For several years now, the question of welfare reform has figured
prominently on the public policy agenda in our country, with people
from all political persuasions recognizing that it is neither
economically possible nor morally sensible to continue with the type of
welfare initiatives bequeathed to us by the New Deal and Great Society
programs of the past.
An integral part of the resulting debate has been the issue of
whether people who are in receipt of public benefits should be required
to work. Others will be able to testify as to the relative economic
efficiency of workfare programs, both in terms of concrete material
results and the cost of such programs to the taxpayer.
But before these issues can even be considered, it is vital that
the moral questions raised by workfare be addressed. In some parts of
our country, workfare has been described, in rather emotional terms, as
being akin to a form of slavery. Not for the first time, we observe
that, at the heart of a public policy debate, there are profoundly
moral issues at stake, and until these are settled, there will always
be questions about the basic ethical legitimacy of workfare programs.
Today, I would like to focus your attention on two of the most
important of these moral issues. The first concerns the nature of the
obligations that we accept when we receive assistance from others. The
second is why it is important for people receiving welfare benefits to
work if they are able to do so.
Let us begin with the first of these questions. People in receipt
of welfare payments are effectively being paid an income by the
community, just as public officials, military personnel, and
politicians are paid an income by taxpayers. There is no reason why
welfare recipients should not also give something back to the community
that is, one hopes temporarily, sustaining their material existence. I
appreciate, of course, that different circumstances will dictate how
much work should be required from different people. No one has a desire
to place unbearable burdens, for example, on women who have been
deserted by their husbands and who are struggling to raise, often
single-handedly, young children. I am also conscious of the potential
sacrifices that workfare asks employers to undertake. Nonetheless, when
such programs are administered in accordance with the social principle
known as subsidiarity, that is, administered at the level closest to
the person in need, the likelihood of this being done in an intelligent
and appropriate way will increase. The basic principle that people in
receipt of payments from others should be, as a normative matter of
justice, give something in return, reflected in public policy.
Many will be interested to know that this position has been
integral to the Christian tradition from its very beginning. Some of
you will recall St. Paul's insistence that `If a man will not work, let
him not eat'. In the ancient Christian text, the Didichade (probably
dating from the first century), we find some advice that modern policy
planners might do well to adapt for use within a contemporary context.
It reads: ``Let everyone who comes to you in the name of the Lord be
received; but, after testing him, you will know him. . . If the one who
comes to you is a traveler, help him as much as you can; but he shall
not remain with you more than two of three days unless there is need.
If he wishes to settle among you and is a craftsman, let him work and
eat. If he has no trade, provide according to your conscience, so that
no Christian shall live among you idle. If he does not agree to do
this, he is trading on the name of Christ; beware of such men.''
Society does have an obligation to assist those who are in need.
Those who can work but cannot find a job, however, also have an
obligation to those who are assisting them to meet their basic needs.
Workfare, in this sense, is an expression of the essential justice that
underlies this mutual obligation. At the same time, it also integrates
the charitable impulse with realism about the negative effects of
constantly giving people something for nothing. St. Paul was not naive
about humanity's capacity to use and abuse the good will of others.
Moreover, to disregard this reality in the formation of public policy,
is in essence to disrespect the creative capacity of the very people we
seek to assist.
This brings us to my second point: why it is important for people
receiving welfare to work. There are many ways in which workfare
benefits the community, such as augmenting the amount of human capital
that exists in society. But perhaps more important is the effect of
workfare on the personality and moral habits of the recipients
themselves. Depending upon the type of work that is undertaken by
workfare participants, there is an increased likelihood that they will
learn new skills that will assist them in finding and keeping non-
workfare employment. In short, workfare will help them to prepare for
the responsibility and long hours that are usually associated with
higher paying jobs. It is difficult to underestimate the benefit that
this can have upon people, especially those who have never seen anyone
in their family or immediate community in permanent employment. To this
extent, workfare can have a role to play in enhancing the skill-base of
those who have had little opportunity or incentive to develop the type
of work-habits that are essential for the successful performance of any
job. The simple habit of being at work on time may be taken as a given
by most of us. Yet many people need to acquire this habit. Workfare
will help them to do so.
I use the term `habit' quite deliberately, because it underlines
another dimension to my thoughts about why people on welfare should be
required to work. Whatever the nature of our jobs, few of us would
dispute that work is a central dimension of our personality. Work opens
up new horizons for us. It can help us, for example, to think about how
we manage our time, how to balance responsibilities to our families and
employers, or how to be more creative in whatever it is that we do. At
an even deeper level, of course, it is through work that we can develop
many virtuous habits of action that express our development as persons.
Work often requires us, for instance, to be industrious, to act
prudently, and even, at times, to take measured risks. It may also
discourage us from being slothful, imprudent, or developing an
excessive aversion to taking entrepreneurial risks. While workfare may
not immediately immerse us in all such habits--after all, they do have
to be developed and often are years in the making--it will provide
anorientation for many people to acquire these moral goods. From this
standpoint, we see that workfare has the potential to provide many
people from marginalized backgrounds with the opportunity to acquire
and/or grow these essential types of moral habits.
None of this, of course, is to underestimate the difficulties that
our society faces in transforming the way in which we help the
unemployed in the United States. To take our society from the handout
mentality of public assistance without obligation, to a culture of
solidarity that is attached to the notion of mutual obligation and
fulfillment of responsibility, may, in some instances, be traumatic. It
challenges all of us, ranging from employers willing to undertake the
training of unskilled employees, to those long-term unemployed who have
been encouraged to think that welfare is obligation-free.
Not only, however, is there no reasonable alternative to workfare,
but the results of workfare programs promise to help the unemployed in
ways that go beyond the material. Virtuous moral habits of action will
serve people in good stead, no matter the situation in which they find
themselves. In an economy in which human capital continues to assume
great importance, the necessity of possessing such virtues will only
increase. As such, workfare does not amount to an attack on poor
people. Rather, it is very much in the best interests of those who, for
whatever reason, find themselves without paid employment.
Thank you for your attention.
Chairman Herger. Next is--our next witness is Steve Savner,
senior staff attorney at the Center for Law and Social Policy.
STATEMENT OF STEVE SAVNER, SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY, CENTER FOR
LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY
Mr. Savner. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
much for inviting me to testify today. I work for the Center
for Law and Social Policy, which is a nonprofit organization
that engages in research, analysis and advocacy on a range of
policy issues affecting low income families. In my written
testimony, I tried to lay out a framework for thinking about
work requirements and work participation under TANF and
included a number of recommendations for how those provisions
might be changed. Let me start by saying I think there are two
basic principles that were embodied in the law that could be
improved. And I think that we have heard allusions and
differences of opinion about those in the prior testimony.
First, one of the basic tenets of the law was that we
wanted to get away from a one-size-fits-all system and give
States broad flexibility. Coupled with that, there needs to be
accountability for that flexibility, accountability for how the
funds are used, accountability for achieving outcomes in the
context of stable jobs and higher family income, and also
accountability in terms of treating people fairly.
I am struck by Mr. Howard's strong support for that, and I
think implicitly, Mr. Turner's strong rejection of that. Mr.
Turner indicates a strong desire to reimpose on States a one-
size-fits-all program which says that work experience, unpaid
work experience is really the only way that we can help prepare
people for employment. Clearly, that is not what 49 other
States think. They think there are lots of other ways to
effectively help people prepare for employment. If you look at
the recommendations of Welfare to Work Partnership, they
encourage us to think about more training and skill upgrading
for employees.
So clearly there are other voices. I think it is important
that we, until we know for sure that there is only one right
way to help prepare people for good jobs, not hamstring States
by telling them how they must do this. It is also interesting
that in the context of what States have been doing in terms of
work participation, in 1999, States engaged about 38 to 39
percent of the adults on the caseload in work-related
activities. That was more than the requirement which was 35
percent. So even without using the caseload reduction credit,
people were engaged.
Now, Mr. Turner suggests somehow that States didn't do what
Congress wanted because a lot of those people were in
unsubsidized employment and getting benefits. It seems to me
that is exactly what Congress and everybody else wanted,
paramount, above everything else, was to get people into
unsubsidized employment.
So I would disagree that counting people who are in
unsubsidized jobs is somehow unfair, or not meeting the
purposes that Congress set.
Turning specifically to the strategies that States are
using, first of all, I think notwithstanding Mr. Turner's
assertions, there is no evidence that the kind of program that
he is supporting and running is better than any other Welfare
to Work program that we see, better than paid work experience,
better than certain kinds of skill development or job search
and intensive engagement programs.
The evidence that we have from research suggests that there
were very weak results from work experience programs, and it is
not clear at all that there is any factual basis for the
assertion that this is an effective way, much less the best way
to prepare people for employment.
I want to respond to two additional points that came up in
the testimony earlier. One is this whole issue of employment
protections. As Congressman Levin pointed out earlier, this was
much debated. Under the Family Support Act, we had protections
that basically said work experience programs could not operate
where people worked for more hours than their grant, minus
child support, divided by the minimum wage.
So I think that is interesting that the law said we will
take the net, what we give a family, taking into account the
extent to which it is reimbursed by child support, and divide
that by the minimum wage. So while the law explicitly said
these aren't employees, these aren't wages, it put in place a
comparable protection. I think one of the reasons why we ought
to be serious and steadfast in maintaining these protections is
also that we have Federal agencies, the Occupational and Safety
and Health Administration, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, for example which have long experience and are
expert in making sure that workers have safe and healthful
environments to work in, and environments that are free from
discrimination.
They are quite used to and an expert in dealing with people
in the workplace trying to discover what issues are affecting
them and make sure the laws are enforced. One of the big
benefits to applying those workplace protections to people in
unpaid work experience programs, is they get the benefit of
that enforcement.
I want to just say a word about some other new programs,
different models that we have heard about, and those are
transitional jobs programs where State and local welfare
agencies are creating programs that include part-time
experience on a job, where people are getting paid wages, and
are treated like employees, coupled with skill development
activities, job training, and basic education.
Washington State has a statewide program that is showing
very positive results, Philadelphia has a program that is
operated with both TANF and Welfare to Work funds. The program
was the product of ajoint agreement between Governor Ridge and
Mayor Rendell. People work for 25 hours a week in paid jobs, and engage
in 10 hours a week of professional development activity. The program is
getting extraordinarily high placement rates for people who stay in the
program through completion.
Again, these are programs where officials have made a
decision that work should be treated like work for everybody
else and people should get wages. That is a tenet of those
programs and they are getting very positive results. So again,
I think Congress should, in reauthorization, allow and promote
further experimentation as long as States, one, are accountable
for results and, two, are accountable for treating people
fairly and consistent with civil rights and worker protections.
Chairman Herger. Thank you, Mr. Savner.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Savner follows:]
Statement of Steve Savner, Senior Staff Attorney, Center for Law and
Social Policy
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting me to testify. I am a Senior Staff Attorney
at the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP). CLASP is a nonprofit
organization engaged in research, analysis, technical assistance, and
advocacy on a range of issues affecting low-income families. Since
1996, we have followed closely the implementation of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, as well as
research concerning its implementation and welfare to work programs
more broadly. In addition, we often talk and visit with state and local
officials, administrators, people affected by welfare policies, program
providers, and others concerned about implementation of efforts to
change welfare programs.
Today's hearing focuses on work requirements in TANF and other
anti-poverty programs, their effectiveness and lessons learned from
which recommendations for TANF reauthorization might be drawn. My
comments will focus on TANF program requirements and issues to consider
in the context of TANF reauthorization, and draws extensively from
``Improving Employment Outcomes Under TANF,'' (Strawn, Greenberg and
Savner, February 2001). \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Paper prepared for the ``New World of Welfare'' Conference,
held January 31-February 2, 2001, organized by the University of
Michigan's Ford School of Public Policy and the Brookings Institution.
The paper will appear in a book of conference papers forthcoming in
2001 from the Brookings Institution Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My testimony will highlight the provisions of the law that are
intended to promote work, and others which may have also created
incentives for caseload reduction without regard to employment
outcomes; describe common elements to state responses to the law; the
effects of initial state choices; how states have further responded in
light of these initial effects, and how these experiences should inform
our thinking about reauthorization and possible modifications to the
statutory framework that is intended to promote and support employment.
Increasing Employment and Caseload Reduction Have Been Two Key TANF
Goals
One of the central purposes of the 1996 welfare law was to promote
employment among poor parents. In addition, for many, another central
purpose of the law was to reduce the number of families receiving cash
assistance. It is important to keep in mind that these dual goals of
increased employment and caseload reduction are distinct and success in
achieving one goal is not always matched by comparable success in the
other. Indeed, these goals are sometimes in tension, for example when a
state provides a more generous earnings disregard that has the effect
of increasing employment but also increasing the caseload. With the
exception of limited funding available through the High Performance
Bonus, increasing family income beyond the level necessary to leave
welfare is not an explicit purpose of the law, (although states have
been free to make investments to achieve such a goal as noted above.)
Many key provisions emphasize one or the other, or both of these
goals:
The block grant funding structure allows states
substantial flexibility in the use of both federal and state
maintenance of effort funds, including the direct use of funds
on a broad range of employment-related services and work
supports and the ability to transfer a significant portion of
TANF funds to the Child Care and Development Block Grant.
States were given broad discretion in structuring
program rules allowing provisions to create significant
financial incentives for employment through earned income
disregards, as well as time limits and sanctions for
noncooperation with work activities.
The law establishes ``participation rates'' for
families receiving TANF assistance, and provides that states
will risk fiscal penalties for failure to meet the required
rates. To count toward the rates, an individual must be
involved in one of a listed set of work-related activities for
a specified number of hours each week. States are given broad
authority to count recipients who are employed or participating
in a range of subsidized employment and paid and unpaid work
experience toward the new federal participation rates. However,
education and training activities only count toward the rates
to a very limited extent, and generally cannot count for more
than twelve months for individuals not working at least twenty
hours a week.
A ``caseload reduction credit'' specifies that a
state's participation rate requirement can be reduced if a
state's caseload declines for reasons other than changes in
eligibility rules; this creates a strong additional incentive
for caseload reduction.
The block grant funding structure also places a
premium on caseload reduction, because a state's federal
funding stays constant whether caseload goes up or down.
Caseload decline has been seen as necessary to manage within
the framework, and the ability to keep and redirect savings
from caseload decline to a broad and flexible range of programs
and services creates a strong incentive to reduce caseloads.
Initial State Implementation Patterns
Initial TANF implementation in most states solidified a set of Work
First policies that states had begun to implement during the early
1990's. These work first policies have emphasized rapid labor force
attachment for as many recipients as possible, relying principally upon
job search and job readiness activities for most applicants and new
recipients, limiting exemptions from participation, and increasing
penalties on those found to have refused to cooperate with work
requirements without ``good cause.'' \2\ A handful of states adopted
policies providing for universal or near-universal participation
coupled with broad flexibility about the nature of activities in which
an individual might be required to participate. More commonly, however,
state policies narrowed the range of allowable activities to restrict
access to education and training to achieve a focus on rapid job entry,
and in response to the narrowly defined set of federally countable
activities.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ State Policy Documentation Project, 2000, www.spdp.org.
\3\ For a more complete discussion of initial state implementation
decisions on these issues, see, ``Improving Employment Outcomes Under
TANF,'' Strawn, Greenberg, and Savner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States have generally succeeded in meeting the ``all families''
participation rate, and evidence suggests that many adults are
participating in employment-related activities that do not count toward
federal participation rates.
In FY 99 over 38% of adults in single parent
families were engaged in the narrowly-defined set of federally
countable activities. This exceeded the federally required rate
of 35% for the year.\4\ Insofar as the caseload reduction
credit has resulted in the reduction of effective participation
rates in almost every state, and the elimination of any
effective all family participation rate in a number of states,
the actual participation rate achieved is all the more
striking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Third Annual Report to Congress on TANF, US HHS, August 2000,
Table 3:1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data reported from the Urban Institute's 1999
National Survey of America's Families indicates that about two-
thirds of all adults receiving assistance were engaged in work-
related activities, including federally countable and non-
countable activities.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Do Families on Welfare in the Post-TANF Era Differ from their
Pre-TANF Counterparts?'' Zedlewski and Alderson (Urban Institute-
Assessing the New Federalism, February 2001.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The picture that emerges here is that some states may have
substantially exceeded the effective participation rates than are
applicable after taking into account the caseload reduction credit. In
addition, they appear to be engaging substantial numbers of
participants in activities that do not meet the narrow federal
definition of ``countable'' activities. States' ability to accomplish
these results have been due in part to the additional resources
generated by caseload declines, and in part directly due to the
caseload reduction credit.
Employment And Earnings Among Current And Former Recipients
As reported more fully by my colleague Mark Greenberg in testimony
before the Subcommittee on March 15, 2001, since 1996 there has been a
significant increase in employment among single female-headed families,
and among current and former TANF/AFDC recipients. There is broad
agreement that TANF has played an important but not exclusive role in
generating these employment increases.
Studies have consistently found that most families leaving welfare
have found work \6\ and that labor force participation has increased
among female-headed families. In addition, an increasing share of TANF
adults are employed while receiving assistance--28% in FY 99, as
compared with 8% in FY 94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Families Who Left Welfare: Who Are They and How Are They
Doing?'' Loprest, (Urban Institute, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most employed ``leavers'' are in jobs with low earnings and limited
or no access to employment benefits. In the Urban Institute's
nationally representative study, median wages for working TANF leavers
in 1997 were $6.61 per hour. Moreover, employed leavers are unlikely to
receive employer-provided health care coverage or paid sick or vacation
leave; in the Urban Institute study, 23% of employed leavers were
receiving employer-provided health care coverage.\7\ Studies from
individual states have reached similar findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior research had found that employment loss was a significant
problem for welfare parents entering employment, and that the limited
earnings growth for those entering employment was principally
associated with working more hours or weeks in a year rather than with
growth in wages.\8\ State leavers studies provide little information
concerning employment retention and advancement; the studies with some
longitudinal data typically suggest some earnings growth over time, but
that median annual earnings for adults who have left assistance are
probably in the range of $8,000-$12,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Steady Work and Better Jobs,'' Strawn and Martinson, (MDRC,
2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These data about the employment patterns of recipients and leavers
suggest that strategies should be sought during reauthorization to
improve the employment outcomes for current and former recipients.
Limited Information Available From Leavers Studies Or Other Sources
About Impacts Among Various Racial And Ethnic Groups
Examination of studies designed to track the income and employment
status of families who left the cash assistance caseload during the
late 1990s suggests differences among various racial and ethnic
subgroups. One national study of former welfare recipients shows that
whites are more likely to have left welfare compared to Hispanics and
non-white/non-Hispanics, and that Hispanics are less likely to have
left than whites or non-white/non-Hispanics. Generally, those who have
left have more education, and are less likely to face other employment
barriers, such as limited work experience, health limitations, etc.
A study of families exiting welfare in Wisconsin in 1995-1996
reported that 61 percent of the white families receiving assistance
left the caseload, compared to 36 percent of the African-American
families. In an Arizona study of families exiting welfare in the last
quarter of 1996, researchers found that while African-Americans made up
34 percent of open cases, they were only 8.5 percent of all families
that left the caseload during that quarter. The picture for Hispanic
respondents is much less clear-cut, with studies from some states
showing them leaving the caseload in disproportionately large numbers,
while studies from other states reveal opposite results.
Studies in Arizona, Georgia, and Cuyahoga County, Ohio, show that
shortly after leaving welfare, the percentages of African-Americans who
are employed exceed the percentages of whites who are employed, and
results from Arizona, Cuyahoga County and Wisconsin reveal that
African-Americans have somewhat higher quarterly earnings than whites.
However, studies in those same areas also showed that a much higher
percentage of African-Americans returned to welfare within one year of
leaving, compared to whites who left. The data for Hispanics vary
considerably on all of these measures from one state study to
another.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See generally, `` `Leavers' and Diversion Studies: Preliminary
Analysis of Racial Differences in Caseload Trends and Leaver
Outcomes,'' Elizabeth Lower-Basch (HHS, December 2000); ``Welfare
Reform and Racial and Ethnic Minorities: The Questions to Ask,''
Savner, Reprinted from Poverty and Race, Poverty and Race Research
Action Council, Volume 9, Number 4, page 3 (July/August 2000) available
at http://www.prrac.org/newslet.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These studies suggest a pattern in which African-American
recipients are less likely to leave welfare than whites, are more
likely to be employed shortly after leaving and at somewhat higher
wages, but are also more likely to return to welfare within the first
year after exiting. Many questions and possible explanations for these
findings present themselves. Why are African-Americans leaving more
slowly than whites? If whites leave in greater proportions but are
employed less, what other sources of income are they relying on to get
off welfare and stay off longer? And what are the prospective policy
implications of these data? These questions should lead to a much
broader research agenda to further explore these issues.
Individuals with Significant Barriers to Employment Represent Ongoing
Challenge
For those who are not working, both current and former recipients,
evidence continues to show that many have significant barriers to
employment including health problems among recipients, health problems
among their children that interfere with work, very limited skills, and
domestic violence.
According to the 1999 National Survey of America's Families, over
one-third of all adults on assistance had health related problems that
interfere with work, 5 percent had a child receiving SSI, 27 percent
had not worked in the preceding three years, and 44 percent had
education less than high school. Among recipients with no identified
barriers to employment, 56 percent were employed, while among those
with two or more identified barriers, only 20 percent were employed.
State flexibility to both count a broader set of activities in
determining their participation rates, and the flexibility to recognize
personal circumstances which should excuse participation beyond the
limited exemptions provided for under federal law would help states
focus resources on those most in need of services and those most able
to benefit from participation.
Differential Treatment of Racial and Ethnic Minorities
While we have much information about people who leave and why they
leave, we have relatively little information from leavers studies about
the kinds of services people received prior to leaving and the
connections between those services and activities and their post-
program outcomes. Data from several states raise troubling implications
of differential treatment of recipients within local welfare systems
based on racial or ethnic origin. An analysis by the Chicago Reporter
of Illinois data concerning why welfare cases were closed between July
1997 and June 1999 revealed significant differences appear in the
reasons for case closings between whites and minorities. A total of
340,958 cases closed in this period, of which 102,423 were whites and
238,535 were minorities. Fifty-four percent of minority cases, but only
39 percent of white cases, closed because the recipient failed to
comply with program rules. Though earned income made 40 percent of
white families ineligible for support, earned income made only 27
percent of minority families ineligible.
Similar data are reported in a study of recipients in rural Florida
who left welfare between October 1996 and December 1998, carried out by
the Florida Inter-University Welfare Reform Collaborative. The study
sample of 115 former recipients responded to questions about why they
left welfare as follows: 53 percent of whites, as compared to 32
percent of African-Americans, found a job; 8 percent of whites and 22
percent of African-Americans were disqualified for non-compliance with
program rules; 6 percent of whites and 17 percent of African-Americans
voluntarily closed their cases. These two studies raise important and
troubling questions about whether African-Americans and Hispanics are
being treated differently than whites.
Finally, a study undertaken in two rural counties in northern
Virginia focused on the interactions between welfare caseworkers and
recipients.\10\ In this study, 39 recipients (22 African-American and
17 white) were interviewed in early 1996 about their interactions with
welfare department caseworkers: how frequently caseworkers notified
them about job openings, the extent to which caseworkers emphasized
further education, caseworker assistance in locating child care,
caseworker assistance with transportation, and whether respondents
believed that African-American and white clients were treated fairly by
caseworkers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``All Things Not Being Equal: Differences in Caseworker
Support Toward Black and White Welfare Clients,'' Susan Gooden,
(Harvard Journal of African American Public Policy, Volume IV 1998.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except with regard to help with child care, respondents' views on
these issues varied significantly by race. Fifty-nine percent of
whites, but only 36 percent of African-Americans, indicated that their
caseworkers were often or sometimes helpful in providing information
about potential jobs. Forty-one percent of whites indicated that
caseworkers encouraged them to go to school, particularly if they had
not received a high school diploma. None of the African-Americans
indicated that a caseworker had encouraged them to go to school. One
white respondent stated: ``They encouraged me to get my GED. I've been
in school since October, working on the GED. I hope to graduate in the
spring. My worker kept telling me `You're smarter than you think.' She
really convinced me that I could do it.'' An African-American
respondent stated: ``They talk to you any kind of way. They say: `Go
get a job.' I told them that I only had two parts left on my GED and I
wanted to finish, they said: `That's not what this program is about.'
''
About two-thirds of all respondents in this Virginia study
indicated they had transportation barriers, and all respondents
indicated that the welfare agency provided vouchers to pay for gasoline
to those who needed them. However, 47 percent of whites indicated that
caseworkers indicated they would provide additional forms of
transportation assistance, while none of the African-Americans reported
receiving such offers of help. For example, one white respondent
indicated: ``I own my car but I need a brake job. I contacted DSS
[Department of Social Services] about my car. She told me she will try
to come up with some money to get it fixed.'' An African-American
respondent stated: ``DSS gives me money for gas. I have a car and a
job, but it needs about $300 worth of work, so I can't use it. I asked
DSS if they had any funds for car repairs, but she said I should try to
use gas vouchers to take a cab or ride with a friend until I save up
enough money to get my car fixed.'' Finally, nearly half (45 percent)
of African-Americans--as well as 18 percent of whites--indicated that
African-American clients were not treated fairly by DSS.
While this study looked at a very small sample of recipients, it
highlights the importance of a range of discretionary actions by
caseworkers concerning the availability of services that may
significantly affect the well-being of families receiving assistance
and the ability of adults in those families to prepare for and succeed
in employment. It also shows the potential for differential treatment
based on race or ethnicity in the interactions between recipients and
caseworkers.
State Responses to Initial Employment Results
Evidence of changing state policies and administration in response
to the initial employment results achieved during the first few years
of TANF implementation is still limited, but a set of emerging
directions appears to be taking shape.
Postemployment Retention Services
States have responded to the low wages and unstable employment of
many current and former recipients by expanding an array of services
intended to increase job retention, promote rapid reemployment after a
job loss, or both. As of October 1999, about two-thirds of the states
were providing case management for at least some recipients who became
employed or left cash assistance, and a similar number were providing
supportive services such as transportation aid, purchase of work
clothing or tools, and payment of work-related fees. Half a dozen
states were providing short-term cash payments to help cover work
expenses, several offered cash bonuses for keeping or finding jobs or
leaving TANF, and several provided cash payments to cover
emergencies.\11\ Many of these postemployment benefits and services are
new and little information about utilization exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ State Policy Documentation Project, (2000), www.spdp.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postemployment Job Advancement Services
As of October 1999, about a third of states (16) had policies to
provide post-TANF services aimed at job advancement. These include
contracting directly for education, training, employment, and career
counseling services; tuition assistance; and individual training
accounts.\12\ A small but growing number of states--about half a
dozen--are creating broader initiatives that are designed to serve
working, low-income families generally. In some cases, education and
training are provided at the worksite, with services customized to
employer needs. As with postemployment retention services, it is
unclear how many families are actually involved in these initiatives,
but numbers appear quite small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes In Strategies For The Unemployed
Beyond creating Postemployment services, a third state response to
the problems of low wages and job loss has been to change strategies
for unemployed parents to place greater emphasis on helping them access
better jobs. Some states are creating incentives for localities to
match parents with higher paying jobs as opposed to any job. In 1999
and 2000, a limited number of states expanded access to postsecondary
education or training for TANF recipients. These actions included
changing work requirements to allow participation in postsecondary
education or training to meet all or most of a parents work requirement
beyond the twelve months that could count toward federal participation
rates; using TANF funds to create additional work-study positions;
creating separate state student aid programs for low-income parents
funded with state maintenance of effort dollars; and stopping the
federal or state time limit clock for recipients who are full-time
students.\13\ While these state actions may suggest an emerging trend,
the overall picture remains one of substantial limitations on access to
education and training for TANF recipients in most states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See State Policy Documentation Project, 2000 (www.spdp.org)
for a full list of state TANF policies toward postsecondary, and
Wamhoff and Strawn, forthcoming 2001, for summary of recent
developments.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work Programs under TANF
As in other areas, states have broad authority to structure work
programs including providing wage subsidies to employers who hire
recipients, creating transitional jobs that offer temporary employment
and skill development activity to enhance participants' employability
and help them move into unsubsidized employment, and programs in which
participants perform work in exchange for their welfare benefits known
variously as work experience, community service, or workfare.
Workfare--Limited State Interest and Questionable Results
Many observers predicted that states would make wide spread use of
workfare (work experience, community service, etc.) because they are
fully countable toward TANF work participation requirements. However,
with the exception of a few states and New York City, there has been
relatively little use made of these programs. While it is difficult to
say with great certainty why more use has not been made of these
program options, there are a number of factors which may have
contributed to state and local decisions not to implement such programs
on a large scale.
There is no evidence that work experience programs are
effective in boosting employment and earnings for participants.
Research conducted during the 1980's on several work experience
programs demonstrated that in every site but one there were no positive
employment and earnings impacts that resulted from participation in the
programs.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ``Unpaid Work Experience for Welfare Recipients: Findings and
Lessons from MDRC Research,'' Brock, Butler, and Long (MDRC 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, states' responses to the 1996 law have
been predominantly focused on efforts to help participants gain access
to unsubsidized employment, not on simply engaging people in activities
while they are receiving benefits.
One of the explicit purposes of many workfare programs has
been to discourage families from receiving assistance. ``One major
objective of this approach--call it ``pure'' workfare--has been to
reduce welfare dependency by reducing the real benefits of welfare; and
this has been accomplished by assigning a work requirement to the
receipt of welfare benefits. Thus the work requirement was expected
both to deter individuals from enrolling in AFDC, as well as to
encourage earlier exits than would otherwise occur.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Lessons for Welfare Reform: An Analysis of the AFDC Caseload
and Past Welfare-to-Work Programs, Dave O'Neill and June O'Neill (W.E.
Upjohn Institute, 1997) pp. 76-77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large scale programs can be costly and are difficult to
administer effectively. MDRC data showed annualized cost per filled
slot ranging from $700 to $8,200.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ``Unpaid Work Experience for Welfare Recipients: Findings and
Lessons from MDRC Research,'' Brock, Butler, and Long (MDRC 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large-scale programs raise critical concerns about the
potential displacement of regular employees in the organizations where
participants are placed.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Litigation in New York City, Saunders v. City of New York,
includes information for example that during The number of City Parks
workers declined from 1,251 in December 1993 (the month before the
Guiliani Administration took office) to 802 in November 1998, while the
number of workfare workers increased from 836 in October 1994 to over
6,000 in September of 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programs that involve the provision of services that are of value
to an employer require careful monitoring and oversight to assure that
regular employees are not displaced, and to assure that participants'
rights under laws to protect employees generally are fully protected.
Transitional Jobs Programs--A Promising Model
For the past several years CLASP has provided technical assistance
to a number of state and local TANF agencies and officials to help them
design and implement programs that provide time-limited employment in
combination with skill development activities and other support
services for TANF recipients who have been unsuccessful in finding
unsubsidized jobs after participation in job search and other programs.
Many of these programs are funded by a combination of TANF and Welfare-
to-Work block grant funds, and they are fully countable toward TANF
work participation requirements. The potential advantages offered by
such programs over work experience/workfare programs is that provide
work wages rather than mandating work for welfare in exchange for
benefits. This makes it more likely that participants, supervisors, and
prospective future employers will attach more importance to these work
relationships, and that they will generate much greater skill
development than in workfare type programs.
Currently two states, Washington and Vermont, and over 20 cities
and other local jurisdictions are operating such programs, typically on
small scale.\18\ Washington state, the largest program, currently
enrolls about 1,500 to 2,000 participants in transitional jobs at any
point in time. Some of these programs have shown extremely promising
results in terms of employment outcomes. For example, a study in
Washington State revealed that two-thirds of participants were employed
after leaving the program, and that there were high levels of
satisfaction with the program by participants, site supervisors and
program managers.\19\ There is little information yet about job
retention or post-program advancement. Nonetheless, this new set of
transitional jobs programs offers an attractive model, particularly for
jurisdictions that are turning their attention to those clients who
have significant barriers to employment, and may also offer an
effective model for clients for whom a combination of work experience
and skill development may lead to substantially higher paying starting
jobs than might otherwise be available.\20\ Federal support for
research and evaluation, as well as technical assistance for innovative
program models such as these should be included as part of
reauthorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See an overview and survey of TANF and Welfare-to-Work funded
Transitional Employment programs from Richer and Savner, CLASP,
forthcoming, Spring 2001.
\19\ ``Community Jobs: Outcomes Assessment and Program
Evaluation,'' Case, Burchfield and Sommers, (Economic Opportunity
Institute, 2000).
\20\ See also, ``Transitional Jobs: A Bridge Into the Workforce for
Hard-to-Employ Welfare Recipients,'' Anne Kim, (Progressive Policy
Institute, March 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendations for TANF Reauthorization
The following recommendations share a common theme that goes beyond
the goals of employment entries and caseload reduction to poverty
reduction and the need for each state to assist low-income families to
achieve an adequate and stable source of income. These recommendations
suggest ways to achieve these goals that combine state flexibility, a
clear statement of these expanded purposes, and a meaningful system of
accountability that assures good faith state efforts to achieve agreed
upon goals and meaningful protections for the fair treatment for those
who receive or who seek to receive assistance and/or services from
state and local agencies.
First: The purposes of TANF should be revised to include an express
goal of reducing family poverty and promoting family economic well-
being, and to make explicit that the goal of promoting work includes
supporting employment retention and workforce advancement for needy
families. The purposes of TANF affect whether particular expenditures
are possible and have an important signaling effect in communicating
Congressional expectations. Modifying the purposes would provide a
powerful statement that the next stage of TANF implementation envisions
higher goals than caseload reduction.
Second: States should be required to describe in their state plans
how TANF and other resources will be used and coordinated in efforts to
promote employment retention and advancement and enhance family
economic well-being. This would reinforce the signaling effects, and
perhaps help foster coordination. While the federal government should
not mandate a single strategy, states should be expected to expressly
articulate the strategies that they intend to use.
Third: Measures of state performance in TANF should place a strong
emphasis on poverty reduction, higher wages, sustained employment and
earnings growth. The law currently provides for $200 million per year
for high performance bonuses, and HHS has allocated those funds based
on state outcomes including employment entries, retention, and earnings
gains. In the context of the overall block grant structure, the
existing high performance bonus involves a small amount of money, and
generates relatively little attention.
Changes should be considered that explicitly address the extent to
which low-income families develop income in excess of the federal
poverty level. In addition, rather than framing these performance
bonuses as an interstate competition, consideration should be given to
a system that more explicitly targets continuous improvement for each
state. This could be achieved by measuring each state's performance
against its own performance in prior years, and in comparison to
benchmarks set for each state by agreement between state and federal
officials. State performance in relation to these benchmarks might
generate both penalties for extremely weak performance, and bonus for
very strong performance. The performance measurement system established
under the Workforce Investment Act provides a potential model to be
considered in the context of TANF reauthorization.
There are a set of difficult issues to consider in how goals would
be set, how performance would be measured, and how adjustments would be
made for economic conditions and unforeseen circumstances; at the same
time, it is fundamental that in a context of broad flexibility in use
of resources, the federal focus should be on measuring and seeking
accountability for key outcomes. In any case, performance standards
should measure outcomes for families receiving TANF assistance and for
a broader group of low-income families. Many of the ways states now use
TANF resources involve efforts to build supports outside the welfare
system so that families need not seek TANF assistance. A declining
share of block grant funds are actually expended on TANF assistance
recipients, and measuring state performance should consider labor
market participation and poverty status of all low-income families, not
just those in the cash assistance system.
Fourth: In the long run, a shift to outcome-based measures rather
than participation rates would be desirable, in the interim, if
participation rates are continued:
the definition of countable activities should be
broadened by removing restrictions on education and training
and by including other activities agreed upon by participants
and state and local agencies as being consistent with
individual employment plans,
states should have increased flexibility to
recognize that there may be periods of time and circumstances
when caregiving for family members may make participation in
employment related activities inappropriate, and
participation rate reductions should be based on
states' success in placing individuals into stable employment
rather than their success in reducing the caseload.
In a context of a smaller caseload including many individuals with
significant employment barriers, the restrictive listing of countable
activities works against states' ability to structure services and
individualized plans for individuals with multiple barriers and severe
basic skills deficits. Because of the caseload reduction credit, many
states now have very low effective participation rates. The first
impulse for some may be to want to raise rates, but simply raising
rates without considering what counts and without addressing the
perverse incentives flowing from the caseload reduction credit would
only exacerbate the risks that states would not develop effective
service strategies for families with multiple barriers. The
recommendations noted above will further the goal of providing
meaningful and effective employment services to the broadest number of
individuals.
Fifth: The federal agencies should vigorously monitor state and
local performance regarding implementation of civil rights and
employment rights protections afforded under current law, and should
assistant participants with vigorous enforcement when appropriate.
Several studies have identified troubling and apparently discriminatory
treatment of racial and ethnic minorities. More broadly, there appear
to be differential results for various racial and ethnic groups and
little information as to why these are occurring. A two-fold strategy
of further monitoring and research to more clearly understand what is
happening is essential to insure that all program participants are
treated fairly and equitably. In addition, as the reality of
discriminatory treatment has arisen, vigorous enforcement of civil
rights and employment rights laws becomes an increasingly important
element of federal oversight and this federal role should be
highlighted and reinforced during the reauthorization process.
Chairman Herger. Our third witness on the panel is Vee
Burke, specialist in income maintenance at the Congressional
Research Service. Ms. Burke.
STATEMENT OF VEE BURKE, SPECIALIST IN INCOME MAINTENANCE,
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Ms. Burke. Good afternoon, chairman Herger and Members of
the Subcommittee. My job today is to briefly review Federal
policies and programs that help support needy families with
children. I am to focus on work provisions. Federal cash
welfare has a long history. It stretches back to the Great
Depression. But work rules are much more recent. They didn't
enter the program for 36 years. Over the years many policy
changes have occurred. To whom should aid be given? This is one
of the questions that Father Sirico raised. On what terms?
The most significant change over the years concerning
welfare and work has come in perceptions about work. Who can
work? Who should work? How can work effort be increased? Do
jobs bring self-sufficiency? Chart 1 of my testimony summarizes
the history of work provisions in the program of Aid to
Families With Dependent Children. This chart, which is on page
3, also shows work provisions in the successor program we have
today, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. It shows the
progression from no-work requirement in the 1935 law to no-work
exemption for adult recipients in the 1996 law.
In 1935, when AFDC was started, benefits were allowed only
for the child, and no-work obligation was imposed on the child.
It was not until 1971 that Congress explicitly required welfare
mothers, AFDC mothers, to register for work and training. This
action was significant. It signaled that welfare mothers were
no longer seen as outside the labor market. Now they were seen
as people who should work. And it recognized the dramatic move
of nonwelfare mothers into jobs.
It also reflected frustration with the way welfare rolls
were growing and with their character. By this time most
children in the program were no longer paternal orphans. They
had two living parents, but the father did not live at home.
The 1971 work registration requirement exempted mothers with a
child under 6. Congress lowered the child's threshold age to 3
when it set up a more rigorous program called JOBS in 1988.
Finally, in creating TANF in 1996, Congress exempted no adult
recipient from work, but permitted States to exempt the parents
of a child under 1.
Along with TANF, many programs offer help to low-income
parents who work or are able to work. We can classify them in
two groups loosely, with regard to work rules and work
supports. In the first group, which is shown in table 1 on page
4, are TANF, Food Stamps and public housing as well as others.
These are programs that generally require work or training or
study in order to receive benefits. The table shows their work
requirements, their rewards and their penalties. In the second
group, which includes the earned income tax credit and the
child care and development block grant, are programs that do
not usually require work, but that generally help only people
who do work or train or study. These programs provide work
supports. Table 3 on page 9 shows State-by-State potential, not
actual, but potential income that can be received by a single
parent with two children who works 40 hours weekly all year
long at the minimum wage, State by State. The income is shown
from net wages (net of payroll taxes), TANF, EITC and Food
Stamps. The table shows that the combination of earnings and
the EITC slightly exceeds the poverty threshold for a three-
person family in all States. Addition of Food Stamps and in
some States, TANF, raises the income somewhat. However, these
families are still near poor and they might be eligible for
support services.
A word of caution, please don't consider these tables to
show things that everyone gets. A given family does not receive
all the potential benefits shown. For example, only a minority
of eligible families actually receive housing subsidies.
To sum up, welfare and welfare policy, it can be said that
the current trend is to treat most parents as potential
workers. They can and should work, and their work efforts
deserve support. They are required to work and increasingly
they are rewarded if they do so. But at the same time, many
evaluations have found that even mandatory Welfare to Work
programs that succeed in moving people to jobs do not raise
their overall income. Instead they change the composition of
income, increasing the share from earnings.
Chairman Herger. Thank you very much, Ms. Burke.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Burke follows:]
Statement of Vee Burke, Specialist in Income Maintenance, Congressional
Research Service, Library of Congress
My task today is to briefly review federal policies and programs
that support needy families with children, with a focus on work
provisions. Federal cash welfare has a long history, stretching back to
the Great Depression. But work rules are much more recent. Over the
years many policy changes have occurred. To whom should aid be given?
Why? The most significant change has come in perceptions about work.
Who can and should work? How can work effort be increased? Do jobs
bring self-sufficiency?
History. Chart 1 summarizes the history of work provisions in the
program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and its 1996
successor, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). It shows the
progression from no work requirement in 1935 to no work exemption in
1996.
As the chart shows, it was not until 1971 that Congress explicitly
required AFDC mothers to register for work and training. This action
signaled that welfare mothers were no longer seen as outside the labor
market, and it recognized the dramatic move of non-welfare mothers into
jobs. It also reflected frustration with the size and character of AFDC
rolls. By this time most children in the program had two living
parents, but the father did not live at home.
The 1971 work registration requirement exempted mothers with a
child under age 6. Congress lowered the child's threshold to age 3 (and
permitted states to reduce it to age 1) in 1988, when it set up a more
rigorous work and training program called Job Opportunities and Basic
Skills training (JOBS). Finally, in creating TANF in 1996, Congress
exempted no adult from work, but permitted states to exempt the parent
of a child under one.
The Welfare ``System'' for Families. Along with TANF, many programs
offer help to low-income parents who work or are able to work. Major
programs can be classified in two groups with regard to work rules and
work supports.
In the first group, which includes TANF, food stamps, and public
housing, are programs that generally require work, training, or study
in order to receive benefits. Table 1 shows their work requirements,
rewards and penalties.
In the second group, which includes the Earned Income Tax Credit
and the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), are programs
that do not usually require work, but that generally help only those
who do work, train, or study. Table 2 shows what supports they provide.
Table 3 shows, state-by-state, potential income (wages, TANF, EITC,
and food stamps) of a single parent with two children who works 40
hours weekly at the minimum wage for 1 year. As the table shows, the
combination of earnings (net of social security payroll taxes) and food
stamps slightly exceeds the 1999 poverty threshold for a three-person
family in all states. Addition of EITC raises their income
significantly. However, these families generally would remain ``near-
poor,'' and might be eligible for support services, including services
funded by state TANF programs.
A word of caution. It should not be assumed that a given family
receives all the potential benefits shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3. For
example, only a minority of eligible families actually receive housing
subsidies.
To sum up welfare/work policy, it can be said that the current
trend is to treat most parents as potential workers and to support
their work efforts. They are required to work and, increasingly,
rewarded if they do. At the same time, many evaluations have found that
even mandatory welfare-to-work programs that succeed in moving
recipients to jobs often do not raise their overall income. Instead,
they change the composition of income, increasing the share from
earnings.
Chart 1. WORK AND AFDC/TANF: 1935-1996
1935--Original AFDC purpose--encourage at-home care of
needy children with only one able-bodied parent. No work requirement.
No payment for mother. Program called Aid to Dependent Children (ADC)
1950--Payments allowed for mother.
196l--State AFDC programs allowed to aid children with
unemployed father.
1962--State AFDC programs allowed to require recipients to
work (community work and training programs) in exchange for grant.
1967--Work Incentive Program (WIN). Work rewards added.
States required to refer ``appropriate'' recipients for employment and
training.
1971--WIN amended. Mothers with no child under 6 required
to participate.
1988--Family Support Act. Mothers with no child under 3
required to participate in new education, work, and training program,
the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program. States
permitted to require work of mothers when youngest child reached first
birthday.
1996--Repeal of AFDC and JOBS. Establishment of TANF.
States required to achieve specific and rising work participation rates
in programs of their own design. Fiscal penalties for failure. No work
exemptions (but states allowed to exempt mothers with child under age
one).
TABLE 1.--WORK PROVISIONS OF MAJOR INCOME-TESTED PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interaction with
Program Work requirement Work reward/ Work sanction work provisions of
support other programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TANF............................ States must States set policy. States must reduce Food stamp
require a parent/ In calculating or end benefits benefits can be
caretaker who benefits (and in for work refusal merged with TANF
receives TANF to determining without good benefits in
engage in work initial cause. For first programs of
(as defined by eligibility) most work refusal, 19 ``work
the state) after states disregard states end all supplementation''
a maximum of 24 a portion of benefits until (jobs subsidized
months of ongoing earnings (one compliance or for with welfare
cash aid. States state ignores all a minimum period, benefits) and in
must achieve a earnings below ranging from 1 to workfare programs
certain work the federal 3 months. States (in which
participation poverty have options to recipients work
rate by adult guideline.). As a reinforce TANF in exchange for
recipients. To be result of state sanction through benefits).
counted as a work variations in food stamp and
participant in benefits and Medicaid
determining the treatment of penalties. See
state's official earnings, below. (Note: If
work eligibility a state does not
participation cutoffs for a sanction work
rate, the single-parent refusal by a TANF
recipient must family with two adult, it itself
engage in 1 of 12 children after 4 is subject to a
listed activities months on a job loss in TANF
for an average of range from $193 funding.).
at least 30 hours in gross earnings
weekly--fewer if (Alabama) to
caring for child $1,986 (Alaska).
under 6, more if These cutoff
in a two-parent limits (known as
family. (Note: breakeven levels)
The required work exceed $1,000
rate--45% for monthly in 16
families with an jurisdictions,
adult recipient but are below
in FY2001--is $700 in 18
lowered for jurisdictions.
caseload Most state TANF
reductions from programs offer
FY1995 levels not transitional
caused by changed child care to
eligibility families who take
rules.). a job. For
transitional
Medicaid and food
stamp rules, see
below. Other TANF-
funded
transitional
services include
transportation
and housing
subsidies, job
retention and
skill enhancement
services, and
case management.
Families may be
eligible for
these services
until income
reaches 150% to
250% of the
poverty level.
Food stamps..................... a. If an Federal law a. Persons who are See TANF above.
individual requires disqualified from
receives TANF, disregard of 20% TANF because of a
that program's of gross earnings work violation
work rules apply. in calculating also are
b. If an benefits (but ineligible for
individual is not typically not in food stamps. Food
on TANF, food deciding stamp benefits
stamp work rules eligibility). For may not be
apply. In a three-person increased because
general, family with of a TANF cash
unemployed adults earned income at penalty. Further,
able to work who the maximum the state may cut
are not caring income cutoff, the family's food
for a disabled the 20% disregard stamp benefit by
dependent or a equals at least up to 25%. (Note:
child under age 6 an extra $90 13 states take
must fulfill monthly. When this option.) b.
state-established calculating Persons failing
employment benefits, money to comply with
requirements, spent on food stamp work
which can include dependent care rules are
working in related to work ineligible for
exchange for the or training is food stamps (for
benefit disregarded; this 1 to 6+ months,
(workfare), disregard or permanently,
training, job typically does depending on
search, not affect whether there
education, or eligibility. have been
other activities. Waivers and previous
However, states recently issued violations). And
may exempt any (but not yet states may
category of implemented) disqualify a
persons. regulations allow household (for up
states to to 180 days) if
``freeze'' the household
benefits for head does not
those with comply. Food
earnings stamp eligibility
(including those is barred for
leaving TANF) for persons who
3-6 months. voluntarily quit
Within limits, a job or who
states must substantially
provide support reduce work
for participants effort without
in employment/ good cause.
training programs
(e.g.,
transportation,
child care).
However,
virtually no
federal dollars
for this support
may be used for
TANF recipients,
and no more than
20% may be used
for other
families with
children. Federal
law bars other
need-tested
programs from
counting food
stamps as income.
Medicaid........................ No work If a family loses States may end
requirement. TANF eligibility Medicaid for
because of adults who refuse
earnings (or TANF work
hours of work), requirements (but
state must must continue
continue Medicaid Medicaid for the
for 12 months. children).
During second 6
months, a premium
may be charged,
services may be
limited, and an
alternate
delivery system
may be used.
(Also, federal
law allows states
to impose nominal
cost-sharing
charges on some
recipients and
services.).
Section 8 low-income housing No work No provision...... No provision......
assistance. requirement.
Low-rent public housing......... Residents must If family chooses Local housing
participate in an an income-based authority may
economic self rent and its refuse to renew
sufficiency income rises lease for failure
program or because of to comply with
contribute 8 employment, the the work
hours monthly of increased requirement.
community service earnings are not
unless they are to be used to
engaged in determine its
education or a rental payment
work-related for 1 year; after
activity or are 1 year, the
at least 62 years rental increase
old. is phased in over
a 2-year period.
Pell grants..................... None. Grantees TANF, food stamps, ................ Undergraduate
must maintain and any other study does not
satisfactory federal benefit count as a
progress in their program must federal work
undergraduate disregard Pell activity under
study. grants when TANF. Student
determining a parents generally
student's are exempt from
eligibility or food stamp work
amount of aid. rules.
Federal Work-Study (FWS) program Students must work Earnings under the ................ Undergraduate
part-time. program are study does not
limited to the count as a
student's need. federal work
TANF, food activity under
stamps, and any TANF. Student
other federal parents generally
benefit program are exempt from
must disregard food stamp work
FWS wages when requirements
determining a
student's
eligibility or
amount of aid.
Supplemental Security Income No work A portion of SSI benefits are
(SSI) (disabled caretaker/ requirement, but earnings ($85 suspended until
parent). persons must monthly plus one- compliance.
participate in half of the rest)
rehabilitation is disregarded in
services if they calculating
appear likely to benefits. Special
benefit. SSI cash benefits
are paid to those
with earnings
above the normal
income cutoff
level ($740
monthly in
counted
earnings). Some
groups who lose
SSI because of
earnings continue
to be eligible
for Medicaid
coverage. Persons
with Plans for
Achieving Self
Support (PASS)
can set aside
earned/unearned
income for a work
goal without
having it affect
their eligibility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 2.--WORK SUPPORTS IN SOME OTHER MAJOR PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interaction with
Program Required activity Work support Income test? other benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earned Income Tax Credit1....... To qualify must Credit equals 34% Yes............... By law, EITC
have earnings. of earnings up to payments must be
$7,140 in disregarded as
earnings for one income and (for 2
child (maximum months) as an
credit, $2,428); asset by
and 40% of Supplemental
earnings up to Security Income
$10,020 in (SSI), food
earnings for more stamps, Medicaid,
than one child and low-income
(maximum credit, housing programs.
$4,008). Credits States decide
begin to phase treatment of EITC
out at income under TANF. Forty-
above $13,090. seven states have
They end at adopted the above
$28,281 (one rules for TANF.
child) and One state
$32,121 (more disregards EITC
than 1 child). altogether. Food
Credit is stamp disregards
refundable-amount EITC as income
that exceeds and, for 1 year,
income tax as an asset. EITC
liability is paid is not granted
as a check from for participation
the U.S. Treasury. by TANF
recipients in
work experience
or community
service projects.
Child Care and Development Block To qualify, parent Subsidized child Yes...............
Grant. must work or care. Federal law
engage in school requires parental
or training (or cost-sharing,
child must be in with amount of
need of copayment based
protective on income and
services). family size.
However, state
may waive
copayment for
families below a
state-defined
``poverty'' level.
Nutrition programs for children Most children in Federally Yes--Most often Where eligibility
in day care or after-school these programs subsidized meals benefits take the is individually
programs. have working and snacks, form of free determined,
parents. including free or meals and snacks receipt of TANF
reduced-price for children in or food stamps
meals and snacks low-income school may automatically
for needy areas. qualify the child
children. for free meals/
snacks.
Adult training, Workforce To qualify for Training services Yes, families with
Investment Act (WIA). training include income above
services, parent occupational ``self
must be skills training, sufficiency''
unemployed or on-the-job levels
employed, but training, established by
need training entrepreneurial states are
services that training, skill ineligible.
lead to ``self upgrading, job Locality must
sufficiency'' readiness give priority to
defined as at training, and recipients of
least the Lower adult education TANF, SSI,
Living Standard and literacy General
Income Level activities in Assistance,
(which ranges conjunction with refugee cash
from $24,510 to other training. assistance and
$29,390 yearly ``Followup'' other low-income
for a family of services must be persons for
four in the 48 offered for at intensive
contiguous least 12 months services when
states). to persons placed funds are limited.
in unsubsidized
jobs. Localities
may offer
supportive
services (such as
transportation,
dependent care,
housing) to
persons unable to
obtain them
through other
programs.
Social Services Block Grant..... None.............. States decide what State option.
groups to serve, However, any TANF
and how. In FY funds transferred
1998, 9.5% of to SSBG may be
funds were used used only for
for child day children and
care. families whose
income is below
200% of federal
poverty guideline.
State-Childrens' Health None.............. Subsidized health Yes, eligibility S-CHIP is not
Insurance Program (S-CHIP). insurance for limits are available to
children. established by families eligible
states within for Medicaid
federal
guidelines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Fifteen jurisdictions supplement the federal EITC with state earned income tax credits (generally calculated
as a percentage of the federal EITC). Ten states have refundable credits (Colorado, the District of Columbia,
Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, and Wisconsin); five have non-
refundable credits (Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Oregon, and Rhode Island). Guam and the Virgin Islands have
territorial tax systems that mirror the Internal Revenue Code, including EITC (however, revenues foregone and
refunds paid because of their EITC affect their own territorial treasuries, not the U.S. Treasury).
TABLE 3.--EARNINGS AND SELECTED MAJOR BENEFITS FOR A SINGLE PARENT WITH TWO CHILDREN, WORKING 40 HOURS WEEKLY AT MINIMUM WAGE FOR ONE YEAR (AS OF JULY
2000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a percent of the 1999 poverty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- threshold
-----------------------------------------
State Net 1 EITC \2\ TANF Food Total Net Food
earnings stamps \3\ earnings EITC TANF stamps Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama....................................................... 9893 3888 492 1773 16046 73.7 29.0 3.7 13.2 119.5
Alaska........................................................ 10853 3888 6831 0 21572 80.9 29.0 50.9 0.0 160.7
Arizona....................................................... 9893 3888 0 1920 15701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 117.0
Arkansas...................................................... 9893 3888 0 1920 15701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 117.0
California.................................................... 11045 3888 2882 756 18571 82.3 29.0 21.5 5.6 138.4
Colorado...................................................... 9893 3888 0 1920 15701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 117.0
Connecticut \4\............................................... 11813 3867 7632 2208 25520 88.0 28.8 56.9 16.4 190.1
Delaware...................................................... 10853 3888 588 1504 16833 80.9 29.0 4.4 11.2 125.4
Dist. of Col.................................................. 11813 3867 0 1428 17108 88.0 28.8 0.0 10.6 127.5
Florida....................................................... 9893 3888 0 1920 15701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 117.0
Georgia....................................................... 9893 3888 0 1920 15701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 117.0
Hawaii--Exempt................................................ 10085 3888 4489 2784 21246 75.1 29.0 33.4 20.7 158.3
Hawaii--Non-Exempt............................................ 10085 3888 2785 3300 20058 75.1 29.0 20.7 24.6 149.4
Idaho......................................................... 9893 3888 0 1920 15701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 117.0
Illinois...................................................... 9893 3888 953 1644 16378 73.7 29.0 7.1 12.2 122.0
Indiana....................................................... 9893 3888 0 1920 15701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 117.0
Iowa.......................................................... 9893 3888 827 1680 16288 73.7 29.0 6.2 12.5 121.3
Kansas........................................................ 9893 3888 0 1920 15701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 117.0
Kentucky...................................................... 9893 3888 524 1764 16069 73.7 29.0 3.9 13.1 119.7
Louisiana..................................................... 9893 3888 1440 1488 16709 73.7 29.0 10.7 11.1 124.5
Maine......................................................... 9893 3888 2444 1188 17413 73.7 29.0 18.2 8.9 129.7
Maryland...................................................... 9893 3888 0 1920 15701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 117.0
Massachusetts--Exempt......................................... 11525 3888 2124 864 18401 85.9 29.0 15.8 6.4 137.1
Massachusetts--Non-Exempt..................................... 11525 3888 1944 912 18269 85.9 29.0 14.5 6.8 136.1
Michigan--Washtenaw County.................................... 9893 3888 0 1920 15701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 117.0
Michigan--Wayne County........................................ 9893 3888 0 1920 15701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 117.0
Minnesota..................................................... 9893 3888 691 3084 17555 73.7 29.0 5.1 23.0 130.8
Mississippi................................................... 9893 3888 0 1920 15701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 117.0
Missouri...................................................... 9893 3888 1013 1620 16414 73.7 29.0 7.5 12.1 122.3
Montana....................................................... 9893 3888 0 1920 15701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 117.0
Nebraska...................................................... 9893 3888 0 1920 15701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 117.0
Nevada........................................................ 9893 3888 1044 1608 16433 73.7 29.0 7.8 12.0 122.4
New Hampshire................................................. 9893 3888 1844 1368 16993 73.7 29.0 13.7 10.2 126.6
New Jersey.................................................... 9893 3888 424 1793 15998 73.7 29.0 3.2 13.4 119.2
New Mexico.................................................... 9893 3888 253 1848 15882 73.7 29.0 1.9 13.8 118.3
New York--New York City....................................... 9893 3888 1813 1380 16974 73.7 29.0 13.5 10.3 126.5
New York--Suffolk County...................................... 9893 3888 3325 924 18030 73.7 29.0 24.8 6.9 134.3
North Carolina................................................ 9893 3888 816 1677 16274 73.7 29.0 6.1 12.5 121.2
North Dakota.................................................. 9893 3888 1200 1566 16547 73.7 29.0 8.9 11.7 123.3
Ohio.......................................................... 9893 3888 620 1740 16141 73.7 29.0 4.6 13.0 120.2
Oklahoma...................................................... 9893 3888 0 1920 15701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 117.0
Oregon........................................................ 12486 3713 0 1248 17447 93.0 27.7 0.0 9.3 130.0
Pennsylvania.................................................. 9893 3888 0 1920 15701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 117.0
Rhode Island.................................................. 10853 3888 1792 1140 17673 80.9 29.0 13.4 8.5 131.7
South Carolina................................................ 9893 3888 185 1868 15834 73.7 29.0 1.4 13.9 118.0
South Dakota.................................................. 9893 3888 0 1920 15701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 117.0
Tennessee..................................................... 9893 3888 676 1728 16185 73.7 29.0 5.0 12.9 120.6
Texas......................................................... 9893 3888 495 1772 16047 73.7 29.0 3.7 13.2 119.6
Utah.......................................................... 9893 3888 656 1728 16165 73.7 29.0 4.9 12.9 120.4
Vermont....................................................... 11045 3888 494 1480 16907 82.3 29.0 3.7 11.0 126.0
Virginia...................................................... 9893 3888 4668 528 18977 73.7 29.0 34.8 3.9 141.4
Washington.................................................... 12486 3713 0 1248 17447 93.0 27.7 0.0 9.3 130.0
West Virginia................................................. 9893 3888 0 1920 15701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 117.0
Wisconsin--Community Service.................................. 9893 3888 0 1920 15701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 117.0
Wisconsin--W2 Transition \5\.................................. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Wyoming....................................................... 9893 3888 0 1920 15701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 117.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASource: Table first appeared in CRS Report RL30579, Welfare Reform: Financial Eligibility Rules and Cash Assistance Amounts under TANF and was
prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on a survey of the states.
ANote: Puerto Rico is omitted from this table. It is not covered by the federal income tax and has no EITC. A full-time minimum wage worker in Puerto
Rico would be ineligible for TANF.
\1\ Earnings net of social security payroll taxes.
\2\ EITC amounts are based on tax year 2000 credit levels. Colorado, the District of Columbia, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey,
New York, Vermont and Wisconsin have their own refundable earned income tax credits (generally calculated as a percentage of the federal EITC) but
they are not shown in this table. Five states have nonrefundable credits (Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Oregon and Rhode Island).
\3\ Food stamp benefits are calculated using the standard deduction and the 20% earnings deduction, but not the excess shelter deduction.
\4\ Connecticut disregards all earnings below the poverty threshold in calculating both TANF and food stamp benefits.
\5\ Persons with jobs are not eligible for the Wisconsin program of transitional aid.
Chairman Herger. And just a question before Congressman
Levin left, he mentioned his concern about the minimum wage and
whether or not those who were going back to work were receiving
enough. And it is interesting, just looking at your table
number 3, I would like to ask you, I believe that indicates
that if the recipients were receiving food stamps and has a
full-time job, even if it was at minimum wage, and receiving
the different supports that they could, that even at a minimum
wage, they would be above the poverty level; is that correct?
Ms. Burke. In most States they would be--it would take net
earnings, that is, the earnings minus payroll taxes and the
earned income tax credit to bring them above the poverty
threshold for that family. In most places they still would be
eligible for food stamps, and thus would get an even higher
income. The net earnings would supply a varying amount because
of State wage policy, but in the States where only the Federal
minimum wage rate applies, you would generally have 74 percent
of the poverty threshold from your earnings, net earnings. And
the EITC would provide 29 percent of the poverty threshold.
Together that would get you over the threshold. Now that is not
to say that everyone works 40 hours a week.
Chairman Herger. Right. But if they did work 40 hours a
week, they would be above the poverty level.
Ms. Burke. I do have a table showing that if you had a 20-
hour-a-week job, there would be 13 States in which the
combination of net earnings, EITC, TANF, and food stamps, all
of those things together, would bring you above the poverty
thresholds.
Chairman Herger. How many States is that again?
Ms. Burke. Thirteen.
Chairman Herger. So 13 working only 20 hours a week.
Ms. Burke. Working 20 hours a week. Now the exact number is
hard to know, but studies indicate a range of how many hours
people work. A study by the Urban Institute found that about 69
percent of welfare ``leavers'' worked more than 35 hours a
week. 25 percent worked between 20 and 35 hours, so the 20-
hour-a-week situation perhaps doesn't occur much. But we have
no way of really knowing for sure.
Chairman Herger. So it would appear that minimum wage
alone, if we only counted minimum wage, would not put them over
the poverty line. But when we do consider the earned income tax
credit, food stamps, and other programs that would be available
to them, recipients in virtually every State, would be above
the poverty line if they were working full time. You mentioned
13 only working 20 hours.
Ms. Burke. All that would be required to bring them above
poverty, would be the earnings from a full-time job and the
earned income tax credit. And they could go a little further by
benefit of food stamps. But poverty is not very luxurious. For
a three-person family, it amounted to $13,290 in 1999. It would
be scraping by at best. So the addition of food stamps, and in
some States, TANF would help a little bit.
Chairman Herger. Thank you very much Ms. Burke. Mr. Cardin.
Mr. Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up on
this chart just a little bit longer, because I think it is very
helpful. This, of course, assumes that the individual is
getting the food stamps, and we know there is a large number of
people who left welfare who are not receiving their food
stamps. It also assumes, and in some cases, some States that do
disregard and provide TANF assistance, unless they do that
under solely State funds, that would keep the 5-year clock
running. So there is not a complete solution under current law
to get people above the poverty level. And it is something we
need to take a look at.
Lastly as you pointed out, a 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a
year, there is significant number that are not working that
amount.
But I think it is very helpful, Chairman, the figures that
are shown here.
Ms. Burke. If you would care to have also the table showing
the 20 hour week, we could add that to the record.
Mr. Cardin. That would be fine, if you would make that
available to the Committee.
[The following was subsequently received:]
TABLE A.--EARNINGS AND SELECTED MAJOR BENEFITS FOR A SINGLE PARENT WITH TWO CHILDREN, WORKING 20 HOURS WEEKLY AT MINIMUM WAGE FOR ONE YEAR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a percent of the 1999 poverty
threshold
State Net earnings EITC \2\ TANF Food Total -----------------------------------------
\1\ stamps \3\ Net Food
earnings EITC TANF stamps Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................................... 4946 2142 492 3066 10647 36.8 16.0 3.7 22.8 79.3
Alaska.................................................... 5426 2350 10096 1020 18893 40.4 17.5 75.2 7.6 140.8
Arizona................................................... 4946 2142 1171 2856 11115 36.8 16.0 8.7 21.3 82.8
Arkansas.................................................. 4946 2142 1224 2844 11157 36.8 16.0 9.1 21.2 83.1
California................................................ 5523 2392 5872 1296 15083 41.1 17.8 43.7 9.7 112.4
Colorado.................................................. 4946 2142 1332 2816 11236 36.8 16.0 9.9 21.0 83.7
Connecticut \4\........................................... 5907 2558 7632 2208 18305 44.0 19.1 56.9 16.4 136.4
Delaware.................................................. 5426 2350 3230 2120 13127 40.4 17.5 24.1 15.8 97.8
District of Columbia...................................... 5907 2558 1950 2376 12791 44.0 19.1 14.5 17.7 95.3
Florida................................................... 4946 2142 2158 2568 11815 36.8 16.0 16.1 19.1 88.0
Georgia................................................... 4946 2142 1607 2728 11424 36.8 16.0 12.0 20.3 85.1
Hawaii--Exempt............................................ 5042 2184 7284 3252 17763 37.6 16.3 54.3 24.2 132.3
Hawaii--Non-Exempt........................................ 5042 2184 5580 3768 16575 37.6 16.3 41.6 28.1 123.5
Idaho..................................................... 4946 2142 1370 2796 11255 36.8 16.0 10.2 20.8 83.8
Illinois.................................................. 4946 2142 2739 2388 12215 36.8 16.0 20.4 17.8 91.0
Indiana................................................... 4946 2142 282 3128 10498 36.8 16.0 2.1 23.3 78.2
Iowa...................................................... 4946 2142 2970 2316 12374 36.8 16.0 22.1 17.3 92.2
Kansas.................................................... 4946 2142 2582 2436 12107 36.8 16.0 19.2 18.1 90.2
Kentucky.................................................. 4946 2142 1861 2656 11606 36.8 16.0 13.9 19.8 86.5
Louisiana................................................. 4946 2142 1440 2784 11313 36.8 16.0 10.7 20.7 84.3
Maine..................................................... 4946 2142 5122 1680 13891 36.8 16.0 38.2 12.5 103.5
Maryland.................................................. 4946 2142 1523 2760 11371 36.8 16.0 11.3 20.6 84.7
Massachusetts--Exempt..................................... 5763 2496 5244 1428 14931 42.9 18.6 39.1 10.6 111.2
Massachusetts--Non-Exempt................................. 5763 2496 5064 1476 14799 42.9 18.6 37.7 11.0 110.2
Michigan--Washtenaw County................................ 4946 2142 3503 2160 12752 36.8 16.0 26.1 16.1 95.0
Michigan--Wayne County.................................... 4946 2142 3143 2268 12500 36.8 16.0 23.4 16.9 93.1
Minnesota................................................. 4946 2142 4011 3084 14184 36.8 16.0 29.9 23.0 105.7
Mississippi............................................... 4946 2142 0 3216 10305 36.8 16.0 0.0 24.0 76.8
Missouri.................................................. 4946 2142 2799 2376 12263 36.8 16.0 20.9 17.7 91.4
Montana................................................... 4946 2142 3507 2160 12756 36.8 16.0 26.1 16.1 95.0
Nebraska.................................................. 4946 2142 2135 2568 11792 36.8 16.0 15.9 19.1 87.8
Nevada.................................................... 4946 2142 2168 2559 11815 36.8 16.0 16.1 19.1 88.0
New Hampshire............................................. 4946 2142 4522 1860 13471 36.8 16.0 33.7 13.9 100.4
New Jersey................................................ 4946 2142 2633 2417 12139 36.8 16.0 19.6 18.0 90.4
New Mexico................................................ 4946 2142 3511 2160 12759 36.8 16.0 26.2 16.1 95.1
New York--New York City................................... 4946 2142 4652 1812 13553 36.8 16.0 34.7 13.5 101.0
New York--Suffolk County.................................. 4946 2142 6164 1356 14609 36.8 16.0 45.9 10.1 108.8
North Carolina............................................ 4946 2142 1808 2673 11570 36.8 16.0 13.5 19.9 86.2
North Dakota.............................................. 4946 2142 3615 2128 12832 36.8 16.0 26.9 15.9 95.6
Ohio...................................................... 4946 2142 3298 2220 12607 36.8 16.0 24.6 16.5 93.9
Oklahoma.................................................. 4946 2142 1546 2748 11383 36.8 16.0 11.5 20.5 84.8
Oregon.................................................... 6243 2704 2140 2232 13319 46.5 20.1 15.9 16.6 99.2
Pennsylvania.............................................. 4946 2142 2374 2496 11959 36.8 16.0 17.7 18.6 89.1
Rhode Island.............................................. 5426 2350 4730 1668 14175 40.4 17.5 35.2 12.4 105.6
South Carolina............................................ 4946 2142 1153 2864 11105 36.8 16.0 8.6 21.3 82.7
South Dakota.............................................. 4946 2142 1739 2688 11516 36.8 16.0 13.0 20.0 85.8
Tennessee................................................. 4946 2142 2220 2544 11853 36.8 16.0 16.5 19.0 88.3
Texas..................................................... 4946 2142 673 3012 10774 36.8 16.0 5.0 22.4 80.3
Utah...................................................... 4946 2142 3334 2208 12631 36.8 16.0 24.8 16.4 94.1
Vermont................................................... 5523 2392 4460 1720 14095 41.1 17.8 33.2 12.8 105.0
Virginia.................................................. 4946 2142 4668 1812 13569 36.8 16.0 34.8 13.5 101.1
Washington................................................ 6243 2704 3172 1920 14039 46.5 20.1 23.6 14.3 104.6
West Virginia............................................. 4946 2142 2094 2580 11762 36.8 16.0 15.6 19.2 87.6
Wisconsin--Community Service.............................. 4946 2142 2760 2388 12237 36.8 16.0 20.6 17.8 91.2
Wisconsin--W2 Transition \4\.............................. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Wyoming................................................... 4946 2142 1124 2868 11081 36.8 16.0 8.4 21.4 82.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table first appeared in CRS Report RL30579, Welfare Reform: Financial Eligibility Rules and Cash Assistance Amounts under TANF and was prepared
by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on a survey of the states.
\1\ Earnings net of Social Security payroll taxes.
\2\ Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oregon and Vermont have their own earned income tax credits (generally
calculated as a percentage of the Federal EITC) but they are not shown in this table. Guam and the Virgin Islands have territorial tax systems that
mirror the Internal Revenue Code, including EITC. However, revenues foregone and refunds paid under their EITCs affect their own territorial
treasuries, not the U.S. Treasury.
\3\ Connecticut disregards all earnings below the poverty threshold in calculating both TANF and food stamp benefits.
\4\ Persons with jobs are not eligible for the Wisconsin program of transitional aid.
Mr. Savner just a couple things. Following up on your
comments about the New York City experience, let me just add
one other factor here. I think we will have to get the specific
numbers, but it is my understanding that very few of the people
that participate in the New York Workfare end up with a
permanent job within the New York government. There are very
few that find a permanent placement there. Would you think that
the skills that they are participating in would be the most
conducive to the work in more permanent surrounding?
I am just curious as to why there hasn't been a greater
success in the numbers given to us about 2000 permanent
placements. I don't know over what period that was. But there
has been roughly 250,000 people participating in the program.
So I want to underscore the point that you said we want to give
the States flexibility. That is one of the options available to
the States, but it may not be the best model.
Mr. Savner. One of the things that is implicit in the
question you asked, is the whole issue of displacement. I think
one of the things that has been alleged, and I can't confirm
whether it is true or not, but there is data that suggests from
the period 1993 to 1998, there was a significant drop in the
number of permanent city employees who worked for the Park
Department, and at the same time, a dramatic increase in the
number of Workfare workers who were working in the parks. So it
may well be that part of what is going on, is the ability to
cut back on the work force because they had, WEP workers to do
that work which would explain why they are not moving into
permanent jobs. The number of permanent jobs have, in fact,
decreased.
I think that is something we need to be very cautious
about. First, we want to make sure people are moving into
permanent jobs, and second, one of the big risks of large scale
work experience programs is that they displace regular
employees. Displacement destroys the jobs of regular paid
workers by creating workfare placements for people on welfare.
I think that is a bad tradeoff. I think it is bad for the
families because they are poor as a result of the difference in
those jobs, and what it means is that essentially that the
Federal Government, through TANF, is financing the New York
City Parks Department. It is not clear to me that that is what
we want to do. I think what we wanted to do is help people move
into unsubsidized jobs.
Mr. Cardin. It also, I think, moves into a moral issue of
compensation for services performed if it is being used to cut
the cost. There is one thing about providing a work experience
to a person we want to do that. We want to get people
permanently placed, but there is another thing as to--with the
motivations, as to what these programs are about.
I wanted to ask you about what is your finding in the
States about post employment services? One of the areas that it
looks like we really need to expand is we get people to work,
they have enough skills at least to get in the door, but if
they are going to be able to maintain a position with the
company, if they are going to be able to grow with the company,
they need help with their employer. What are we finding among
the States as to the best examples of most employment
opportunities?
Mr. Savner. First, there is a significant interest among
the States in trying to address the issue of job loss after
people leave welfare. There are about 35 States currently that
are making investments and trying to provide services to people
after they leave welfare and become employed to help them keep
those jobs or to be reemployed quickly.
While States are trying a number of strategies, it is not
clear yet what will be most effective. Some of the lessons that
we have learned so far are that case management may be
effective if it is intensive, if case managers start with the
client before they get a job and are able to stay with them and
visit with them frequently, they can help guide them through
some of the problems that new workers face.
Another issue that we need to focus on is that one of the
reasons why there is job loss is the lack of skills. In
addition, there are some jobs that recipients are getting in
which there is high turnover for all workers, not just former
recipients.
One of the best programs that we know of that has addressed
the retention issue is the Portland program. And the way they
addressed it was by trying to find better jobs for people in
the first place. So I think we need to be smarter about the
kinds of jobs that people get. And again, it wasn't all based
on training, it was just being smarter about the jobs and being
more selective and taking a month or two rather than a week to
help someone find a good job, not just any job. They were able
to find better jobs that lasted longer and paid more.
So I think there are a number of strategies to work on to
promote retention. But there is no one single thing yet that we
can say that is the key to job retention.
Mr. Cardin. I'm going to ask you, not necessarily on the
spot right now, but if you can get back to us, as to what we
can do with TANF reauthorization to encourage States to be
aggressive in this area without jeopardizing the flexibility
that we want the States to have. I want the States to be able
to tailor their own programs, but we certainly want to
encourage them to get the skills to the people coming off the
welfare that they need. So if you have some suggestions in that
area, I would certainly appreciate it.
Chairman Herger. Thank you. I want to thank each of our
witnesses that have appeared before us this afternoon. And I
just might make a comment, Ms. Burke, not to date you, but I
understand that you have been involved on working in this area
since the early 1970s, and much of the work that you----
Ms. Burke. Not quite back in the depression, though.
Chairman Herger. No, the 1970s. And much of the work that
you did was instrumental in writing this law, the 1996 law. And
I want to thank you and the great work that the Congressional
Research Service does provide.
And just as Congressman Cardin requested a question, I
would like to also mention before we close that we may be
submitting questions for some additional answers that we would
appreciate if you could provide in writing. And we would
appreciate that you respond to those additional questions.
And, again, I thank each of you very much.
And without objection, I adjourn this hearing. Thank you
very much.
[Whereupon, at 4:57 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Questions submitted from Chairman Herger to Mr. Savner,
and his responses follow:]
Center for Law & Social Policy
Washington, DC 20036
April 19, 2001
Rep. Wally Herger
Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources
House Ways and Means Committee
B-317, Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Rep. Herger:
Thank you again for inviting me to testify at the April 3
Subcommittee hearing. I am writing to respond to the additional
questions provided to me after the hearing. Please do not hesitate to
contact me if there is additional information you would like me to
provide on any of these issues.
How many States require welfare recipients to work or
participate in job preparation activities immediately or within the
first few months of receiving assistance? In states that do not stress
work early on, have there been any differences in the percentage of
TANF recipients working while on assistance compared with states with
more rigorous work requirements?
As a matter of policy, virtually every state requires adults to
participate in job preparation activities of some sort unless the
family is exempt. In most states, the initially required activity for
most adults is job search. If an adult is unsuccessful in job search
there is wide variation among states concerning the next required
activity. Few states require participation in work experience or
community service of all or most recipients who are unsuccessful in job
search. Only Wisconsin, Virginia, Massachusetts, Alabama, Wyoming,
Michigan, Hawaii and Texas have rules that appear to impose work
experience or community service requirements on all or most recipients
in single-parent families if job search is unsuccessful.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ However, if one reviews the data in Table 1, attached, the
actual percentages of participants reported as being engaged in those
activities in those states does not always appear to be as high as one
might expect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 shows the percentage of all adult recipients in each state
in unsubsidized employment in FY 1999, ranked from the highest
percentage to the lowest. The third column reflects the percentage of
all adults reported by the state to be involved in work experience or
community service. There does not appear to be a correlation between
states that engage adults in work experience and community service and
states with a higher share of adults receiving assistance engaged in
unsubsidized employment.\2\ The variation in the extent to which
recipients are engaged in unsubsidized employment is most likely due to
the earnings disregards available in the state, the states benefit
level, and the extent to which the use of earnings disregard to
supplement employment are marketed to recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A number of states allow broad discretion to counties in
determining the range of activities to which recipients will be
assigned and it is difficult to ascertain county activity from these
statewide data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An article in the April 3, 2001 Washington Post, describes
a District of Columbia subsidized employment program for welfare
recipients nearing their time limit on assistance. According to the
article ``The city is targeting people who have received cash
assistance for the longest periods and have been unable to find work on
their own.'' The goals of this program seem at odds with your statement
(pages 10-11) that ``research conducted during the 1980's on several
work experience programs demonstrated that in every site but one there
were no positive employment and earnings impacts that resulted from
participation in the programs.'' Is there reason to believe that some
of the past work on this topic may be dated, especially in the post-
reform world? How many states offer subsidized employment or workfare
programs?
The statement you quote from my testimony references research that
was limited to a set of programs that focused on Community Work
Experience programs operated during the 1980's (prior to passage of the
Family Support Act). These programs all involved performing community
service activities in exchange for the family's welfare grant. My
testimony did suggest that a new set of programs that involved wage
subsidies to employers or intermediary organizations and offered wage-
paying jobs to recipients held out more promise, in my view, for
improving the skills and employability of recipients. It is this latter
sort of program that is being established in the District of Columbia.
As indicated in my written testimony, these programs not only pay wages
and create more realistic expectations consistent with those
experienced in a regular job, but they also make available various
supports and provide access to skill development activities to
supplement the work experience and help boost employability. CLASP has
been actively engaged in helping develop these programs throughout the
country during the past several years.
Research on such programs in the past has been extremely
encouraging. For example, the National Supported Work Demonstration
made available temporary, subsidized jobs in supportive settings, to
several groups of adults and youth with significant barriers to
employment, including AFDC recipients. Subsidized jobs in nonprofit
agencies lasted 12-18 months. Participants received intensive
supervision, and there were gradual increases in workplace expectations
over time. The program yielded very strong results for AFDC recipients.
After three years, AFDC participants earned an average of $1,076 (or 23
percent) more than control group members, and the increased earnings
effects held up over a long period.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Summary and Findings of the National Supported Work
Demonstration, (MDRC, 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your testimony indicates that education and training
activities are counted as participation only to a very limited extent.
Since many States have no work requirement for the first 18 to 24
months, would you agree those individuals generally have at least this
amount of time for education and training activities?
As noted in my answer to question 1, I think there are actually few
states that do not require participation in work-related activities of
some sort immediately, and typically this activity is job search and or
job readiness. To the extent that states do not require broad
participation in work experience or community service programs, that
does not necessarily mean that they encourage or even allow
participation in education or training activities. One of the principal
effects of the limitations on counting participation in education and
training activities toward the Federal participation requirements has
been to signal state and local administrators and staff that these are
disfavored activities and generally to be discouraged. According to
data reported to HHS for FY 1999, only 2.7% of all families receiving
assistance included an adult engaged in education or training.
What do we know about the effect of strong work
requirements on reducing caseloads?
There are several possible definitions of ``strong work
requirements.'' Table 2 compares caseload reduction between January
1999 and June 2000, and the extent to which adults are engaged in
either work experience or community service, and the extent to which
adults are engaged in any Federally countable activity during FY 1999.
There does not appear to be a strong relationship between caseload
decline and either of these two sets of data. It seems likely that a
broader set of conditions may influence caseload decline including
general program administration, local economic conditions, etc.
What is the effect of caseload reduction on the funds
available to help remaining welfare recipients--who often have special
challenges--go to work? Did States under the former system focus on the
most needy and design special program to help them go to work?
The combination of declining caseloads and the block grant
structure has made funds available to states that would not have been
available had there been no change in Federal law. States have used the
funds made available by these two factors for a range of activities,
some of which have involved providing a range of supports and services
to families that do not receive cash assistance, for example child care
for low wage workers, and states have also shown greater interest than
in the past in working with individuals who have significant barriers
to employment to help resolve those barriers. However it is difficult
to ascertain from available Federal data how much is actually being
spent on services for the group you reference, or the extent of efforts
to link people with relevant services funded outside of TANF. The
availability of Welfare-to-Work block grant funds through the
Department of Labor has also made a contribution on this issue.
Under the JOBS program many of the adults with significant barriers
would have been exempt from participation in work activities. However,
beginning in 1992 states began to receive waivers of various AFDC
requirements, and many states sought and received waivers to broaden
the participation requirements under JOBS and began to work with adults
to address some of the barriers that prevent employment.
Along with the increased interest in this area we also are seeing
evidence that many of the people you reference are losing access to
assistance because of sanctions. A number of studies have found that
sanctioned families are less likely to have graduated high school, less
likely to have recent work history, more likely to report health or
mental health problems. Families terminated due to sanction
consistently display poorer outcomes than families terminated for other
reasons. They are less likely to be employed after leaving assistance,
and if employed, likely to have lower earnings than other leavers.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ A number of these studies are summarized in Goldberg and
Schott, A Compliance-Oriented Approach to Sanctions in State and County
TANF Programs (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, October 2000),
available at http://www.cbpp.org/10-1-00sliip.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, the picture that emerges about the impact of the 1996
changes on families with significant barriers appears to be ambiguous
up to this point, and, in most states, it remains to be seen how time
limits will affect this group.
Thank you again for inviting me to participate in these
proceedings.
Sincerely yours,
Steve Savner
TABLE 1.--PERCENTAGE OF ADULT RECIPIENTS IN UNSUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT,
WORK EXPERIENCE, AND COMMUNITY SERVICE
[FY 1999 \1\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage
of Adults
Percentage in Work
Total of Adults in Experience
Number of Unsubsidized or
Adults FY Employment Community
1999 FY 1999 (In Service FY
percent) 1999 (In
percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa............................ 19,237 55.1 0.6
Illinois........................ 101,821 42.7 5.1
California...................... 539,259 40.7 1
Connecticut..................... 26,532 40.5 0.6
Arizona......................... 22,677 39.4 5.7
Michigan........................ 69,284 36.5 0.1
Indiana......................... 33,633 36.2 0.3
Alaska.......................... 8,636 34.8 5.6
Minnesota....................... 37,959 34.7 0.3
Washington...................... 59,660 33.5 11.1
Kansas.......................... 9,142 31.6 9.7
Wisconsin....................... 8,473 28.9 74.8
Nebraska........................ 10,126 28.7 0.6
Maine........................... 15,229 28.3 6.2
Idaho........................... 610 28.2 8.5
New Mexico...................... 26,160 28.2 1.6
Hawaii.......................... 14,616 28 7.1
Ohio............................ 77,463 27 22.3
Delaware........................ 4,076 26.5 0.1
Dist. of Col.................... 12,147 26.2 5.9
Pennsylvania.................... 96,173 26.2 0.8
Vermont......................... 6,632 26.1 1.4
Virginia........................ 31,145 26.1 1.8
South Carolina.................. 10,183 25.9 1.2
Rhode Island.................... 16,473 25.4 0.8
Kentucky........................ 28,716 24.9 8.8
Florida......................... 45,196 23.4 5.3
Mississippi..................... 8,412 23 6.8
Louisiana....................... 28,436 22.7 5
Colorado........................ 10,357 22.5 7.9
Utah............................ 10,384 22.2 0
Oklahoma........................ 14,199 21.1 2.9
Tennessee....................... 40,812 20.6 0.7
Alabama......................... 10,024 19.8 2.9
Massachusetts................... 40,115 19.8 1.7
New York........................ 260,641 17 12.2
New Hampshire................... 6,678 16 0.8
South Dakota.................... 1,693 16 32.2
Wyoming......................... 408 15.9 23
New Jersey...................... 45,762 15.8 16.1
Montana......................... 5,168 14.6 45.4
North Dakota.................... 3,265 13.7 8.4
North Carolina.................. 29,549 13.2 1.2
Nevada.......................... 9,462 12.9 2.5
Missouri........................ 34,958 10 3.7
Arkansas........................ 7,156 9.8 3.6
Georgia......................... 36,920 9.8 5.4
Maryland........................ 22,008 8.2 2.1
Oregon.......................... 14,450 7.6 2.8
West Virginia................... 14,348 6.5 13
Texas........................... 82,729 4.7 0.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``TANF Program--Third Annual Report to Congress,'' (HHS, August
2000), Table 3:3.C.
TABLE 2.--COMPARISON OF CASELOAD DECLINE TO ENGAGEMENT IN VARIOUS
COUNTABLE ACTIVITIES
[In Percent]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage
Caseload of Adults Percentage
Change From in Work of Adults
January- Experience in Any
1999 to or Countable
June-2000 Community Activity FY
\1\ Service FY 1999 \3\
1999 \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma......................... -67 3 48
Louisiana........................ -39 5 33
Wyoming.......................... -36 23 52
Illinois......................... -34 5 57
Florida.......................... -30 5 36
North Carolina................... -29 1 20
Colorado......................... -28 8 43
Michigan......................... -27 0 47
Massachusetts.................... -26 2 31
Maine............................ -24 6 47
Connecticut...................... -23 1 48
California....................... -23 1 51
Georgia.......................... -22 5 21
New Jersey....................... -22 16 41
Ohio............................. -21 22 60
Pennsylvania..................... -20 1 33
Virginia......................... -20 2 34
Maryland......................... -20 2 25
Utah............................. -19 0 45
Nevada........................... -19 3 32
Montana.......................... -19 45 91
South Dakota..................... -18 32 58
South Carolina................... -18 1 48
Virgin Islands................... -18 3 33
Mississippi...................... -17 7 34
New York......................... -16 12 32
Puerto Rico...................... -16 1 19
Washington....................... -15 11 60
Nebraska......................... -15 1 62
Wisconsin........................ -15 75 87
Kentucky......................... -14 9 39
Alaska........................... -14 6 50
Missouri......................... -13 4 29
Vermont.......................... -13 1 44
New Mexico....................... -12 2 31
Rhode Island..................... -10 1 38
Iowa............................. -10 1 61
Delaware......................... -9 0 29
Alabama.......................... -9 3 32
Minnesota........................ -9 0 53
Hawaii........................... -8 7 36
West Virginia.................... -7 13 27
North Dakota..................... -7 8 27
Arizona.......................... -6 6 46
New Hampshire.................... -6 1 29
Idaho............................ -6 9 85
Kansas........................... -5 0 59
Tennessee........................ -4 1 47
Indiana.......................... -1 0 40
Arkansas......................... 0 4 30
Oregon........................... 1 3 53
Texas............................ 7 1 12
Dist. of Col..................... 15 6 35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ HHS, http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats/case-fam.htm
\2\ ``TANF Program--Third Annual Report to Congress,'' (HHS, August
2000), Table 3:3.C.
\3\ Id.
[Submissions for the record follow:]
Statement of Community Voices Heard, New York, New York
Community Voices Heard (CVH) is a membership organization of over
3,500 low-income people, mostly women on welfare, working together to
improve the lives of our members' families and all poor people in New
York City. We are directed, run and being built by low-income people on
welfare. We use public education, public-policy research, community
organizing, leadership development, political education and direct
action issue organizing, to build our membership and to organize around
issues that are defined by our membership. While we focus on welfare
reform, we broadly define ``welfare activism'' to be multi-issue, and
thus must include issues such as education, training, jobs, housing,
economic development and other community issues.
Referenced Reports:
1) COUNT OUR WORK REPORT The Work Experience Program (WEP): New
York City's Public Sector Sweatshop Economy
By Laura Wernick, John Krinsky, Paul Getsos, Community Voices Heard
2) WELFARE TO WORK: IS IT WORKING? The Failure of Current Welfare-
To-Work Strategies; To Move The Hardest To Employ Into Jobs
A CASE FOR PUBLIC JOB CREATION
By Andrew Stettner, Georgetown University Graduate Public Policy
Institute, Community Voices Heard
I. Introduction
This report makes the case that tens of thousands of workfare
workers are working in New York City agencies, performing vital
functions for the city, for no pay. Yet while they play an important
role in running New York City, they are not getting paid for an honest
day's work. Instead, they are forced to work off below poverty-level
benefits in jobs that once provided families with a real living wage
and enough income to survive in New York City. Previously, paid workers
were allowed to unionize, were protected by employee rights, and were
able to access benefits such as vacation time, unemployment insurance
and social security. Today, workfare workers are displacing these paid
union workers, they are denied the right to organize, and they are
denied basic worker benefits. Worst of all, they are consigned to
participate in a government-run, sweatshop type program that keeps them
mired in poverty and that by its structure, cuts off their only source
of income when they begin to fight for economic justice and equal pay.
While the city enjoys untold prosperity, economic growth, improved city
services, and renewed parks and street-life, it is at a price: tens of
thousands of people are forced to work as no-wage workers in New York
City's public sector and non-profit labor force.
These workers are only being compensated for their important work
through meager welfare benefits, which are significantly below the
poverty level, and they are not allowed to organize. They face punitive
loss of their only source of income if they question and try to change
their working conditions. We believe that the conditions workfare
workers face in New York City are akin to a ``publicly funded''
sweatshop, which all New Yorkers ultimately benefit from through their
use of city services, from city parks to administrative offices.
Finally, for many workfare workers, especially those with limited
education and employment experience, lack of English proficiency, older
workers, and people of color, especially immigrants, workfare is the
only way that they can be guaranteed any means of support. With no
other option available, they are forced to work in this second tier
economy.
Background
In the summer of 1999, Community Voices Heard (CVH), an
organization of people on welfare and in workfare, initiated a research
project to determine what workfare workers were doing at their Work
Experience Program (WEP) assignments in New York City. Our members
increasingly reported being forced to do more detailed work and
performing significant work responsibilities at their work-sites. CVH
commissioned the study to prove that WEP workers were not just carrying
out make-work assignments, but rather were responsible for providing
critical services to the city.
Currently there are approximately 40,000 people in New York City's
workfare program. Workfare workers work in city agencies, private not-
for-profit agencies, and, in certain instances in private-for-profit
entities such as South Street Seaport and Fulton Fish Market. Workfare
workers are not paid a wage for the work they perform. Instead, they
are seen as compensating the city for their public assistance grants.
Accordingly, they are not eligible for collective bargaining or
unemployment insurance, and receive neither social security payments
for the work they do nor Earned Income Tax Credits. Many workfare
workers are also engaged in 35 hour simulated work weeks, that combine
workfare jobs with mandatory programs such as job searching, which
requires workfare workers and public assistance recipients to engage in
useless activities looking for work, such as calling up stores and
businesses identified through the phone book.
Purpose of the Report
The Count Our Work Report demonstrates that workfare is displacing
paid union entry level employees with a second tier of unpaid workfare
workers who are doing a substantial portion, if not the entire
workload, of former entry-level employees working in New York City's
public agencies. This report proves that workfare is in fact a public
employment program in which workers are performing critical services
for the citizens of the city for no pay, and that it keeps people
trapped in poverty while displacing a full-time union workforce. This
report also proves that WEP is an illegal and illegitimate program that
threatens the economic livelihood of current and future employees by
violating state labor law because it displaces city workers and
provides incentives for further displacement.
II. Overall Findings
A. Workfare workers are performing jobs that are critical to
keeping New York City agencies operating, vital services rendered and
New York City clean and maintained. Workfare workers are doing critical
work for the city, ranging from keeping parks clean and safe, doing
light repair work and doing entry-level receptionist duties. While the
vast majority of workfare workers are performing entry-level jobs, many
are also doing more complex jobs with higher degrees of responsibility,
including supervising and training other workfare workers, opening and
closing city buildings and parks, and assisting the general public with
community problems.
Workfare workers do valuable work for their fellow New
Yorkers. We have found that they perform almost every one of the tasks
in three categories of entry-level City worker job descriptions (City
Parks Workers, Custodial Assistant, and Clerical Aide). We have also
found that workfare workers in the Metropolitan Transit Authority are
also responsible for station cleaning and garbage removal and that
workfare workers in social service agencies are also providing critical
community services such as day care, childcare, and nursing assistance.
Workfare workers are performing basic services that keep
New York City clean and efficiently operating. The survey has found
that contrary to popular perception, WEP workers in the Parks
Department only report raking or sweeping as 27% of the tasks they
perform. In fact, at least 37% of an average workfare workers' job in
the Parks Department involves more responsible tasks such as laying sod
and hedge trimming, minor repairs and safety checks of equipment. In
the Department of Citywide Administrative Services, workfare workers
are doing a wide range of jobs including cleaning bathrooms and
replacing supplies; scrubbing, waxing and polishing floors; vacuuming
rugs and carpets; and even operating elevators. Clerical workers are
answering phones, typing and serving as receptionists. They are also
processing forms and information requests.
In many cases, workfare workers are doing jobs that have
more responsibility than entry-level jobs. Workfare workers surveyed
for this project report doing such tasks as supervising other workfare
workers, operating light equipment, and managing case records. In the
Clerical and Office Aide Category, 13% report supervising other WEPS.
In the Department of Citywide Agencies, 8% report supervising workfare
workers, and in the Parks Department, 7% report this activity. In
addition, many workfare workers are taking care of children and the
elderly in non-profit agencies.
Both the survey data and individual case studies show that
workfare workers are also engaged in other critical jobs, including
opening and closing parks and recreation centers, assisting directors
of jobs centers and Medicaid offices, and performing critical public
safety duties. Many workfare workers in the Parks Department report
doing safety checks of park and recreation centers that are used by the
public and are responsible for opening and closing park gazebos,
bathrooms and offices. Other workfare workers report being responsible
for recording complaints about unsafe trees and community problems, and
are working as social service case aides, assisting people with their
domestic violence problems.
B. New York City is violating New York State Social Service Law by
using welfare recipients in jobs formerly done by regular workers. New
York State Social Service Law protects unionized municipal workers
against being displaced by workfare workers. The law covers both full
and partial displacement. We have found that at least partial, and very
likely full, displacement is happening in city agencies.
At least 86% of all survey respondents in all categories
report doing the same work as municipal employees at their WEP sites.
Workfare workers are performing 35 of the 36 tasks in the
descriptions of three union job titles that we surveyed. (City Parks
Workers, Custodial Assistant, and Clerical Aide).
In some cases workfare workers are doing work that is not
a listed activity on entry-level jobs descriptions, meaning they are
doing work that was previously done by union employees and/or are doing
tasks that other workers are supposed to be doing.
Even if one assumes a worker does every job in his or her
job description (which most workers do not), the average individual
workfare worker is doing 36.7 % of the work done by similarly situated
union workers.
C. Workfare creates a source of cheap labor for the City of New
York and threatens the city labor force because of the huge financial
incentive to the city to expand workfare as an inexpensive way to get
the city's entry-level positions filled. Because the welfare grants
that workfare workers get in exchange for their labor are mostly
subsidized with state and federal dollars, there is a great incentive
for the city to expand the program and to replace unionized city
workers with workfare workers. In addition, even when federal and state
aid is included, the average annual salary for workfare workers is well
below the poverty line.
The cost to the City for an hour of a workfare worker's
wage is only $1.80 an hour. This figure is based on the average number
of hours worked per week and the city's share of the welfare benefit
check.