[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPLEMENTATION OF WELFARE REFORM WORK REQUIREMENTS AND TIME LIMITS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 7, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-59
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-903 WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
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 February 27, 2002, announcing the hearing............ 2
WITNESSES
U.S. General Accounting Office, Cynthia M. Fagnoni, Managing
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues;
accompanied by Gale Harris and Katrina Ryan.................... 6
______
American Enterprise Institute, and University of Maryland School
of Public Affairs, Douglas J. Besharov......................... 69
Center for Law and Social Policy, Mark H. Greenberg.............. 50
Goodwill Industries International, Inc., and Goodwill Industries
of the Chesapeake, Marge Thomas................................ 35
Lewin Group, Michael E. Fishman.................................. 61
Montgomery County Department of Job and Family Services, Dannetta
Graves......................................................... 47
Wilkerson, Fatima, Baltimore, MD................................. 39
Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, Hon. Jennifer
Reinert........................................................ 41
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Abrahamson, Leslie, Westmont, IL, statement...................... 85
Alliance for Children & Families, Carmen Delgado Votaw, letter
and attachment................................................. 85
American Association of Community Colleges, George R. Boggs,
letter......................................................... 97
Center for Women Policy Studies, statement....................... 98
Community Legal Services, Inc., Philadelphia, PA:
Sharon M. Dietrich, statement................................ 100
Brenda Lynch, statement...................................... 106
Friends of Welfare Rights of Washtenaw County, Ypsilanti, MI, Lee
A. Booth, letter............................................... 113
National Network to End Domestic Violence, statement............. 114
NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, Sister Mary
Elizabeth Clark, statement..................................... 119
People's Emergency Center, Philadelphia, PA, Gloria Guard,
statement...................................................... 120
Project IRENE, Springfield, IL, Rose Mary Meyer, letter.......... 123
Protestants for the Common Good, Chicago, IL, Nancy Brandt,
letter......................................................... 124
Volunteers of America, Alexandria, VA, Ronald H. Field, statement
Women and Poverty Public Education Initiative, Milwaukee, WI,
Jean Verber, letter............................................ 125
Women Employed, Chicago, IL, Jenny Wittner, statement............ 126
IMPLEMENTATION OF WELFARE REFORM WORK REQUIREMENTS AND TIME LIMITS
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 2002
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Human Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice at 9:42 a.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
February 27, 2002
No. HR-11
Herger Announces Hearing on
Implementation of Welfare Reform Work
Requirements and Time Limits
Congressman Wally Herger (R-CA), Chairman, Subcommittee on Human
Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the
Subcommittee will hold a hearing on State implementation of Federal
welfare work requirements and time limits, which are key features of
the 1996 welfare reform law. The hearing will take place on Thursday,
March 7, 2002, in room B-318 Rayburn House Office Building, beginning
at 9:30 a.m.
In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral
testimony at this hearing will be from invited witnesses only.
Witnesses will include representatives of the U.S. General Accounting
Office, researchers, and other experts in welfare reform implementation
issues. 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 (AFDC) program, and with it the
individual entitlement to cash welfare benefits. In its place, the 1996
legislation created a new Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(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.
In exchange for the broad flexibility and fixed funding granted
States, the 1996 law imposed certain key program requirements, notably
work requirements and time limits on Federal benefits.
Work Requirements. In order to assist in the conversion of the old
AFDC program to a program focused on work, the 1996 law required States
to engage a specific and rising percentage of their welfare caseload in
work or certain work activities each year; States that fail to satisfy
this requirement lose Federal funds. States receive ``credits'' toward
satisfying this work requirement to the degree their caseload declined
from earlier levels. Given large caseload declines under welfare
reform, this ``caseload reduction credit'' has sharply reduced the
effective work requirement in all States, and eliminated it in most
States. Other factors, including the large and growing share of
families receiving assistance considered ``child only'' cases and the
operation of separate State programs not subject to Federal work
requirements, have further limited the impact of the 1996 law's work
requirements.
Time Limits. Prior to the 1996 changes, average lifetime stay on
welfare reached 13 years. The 1996 law sought to reduce such long-term
dependence on benefits by
establishing a 5 year lifetime limit on receipt of Federal cash welfare
benefits, with up to 20 percent of a State's caseload exempted for
hardship in any year. A number of States also have created separate
States programs to provide continued cash benefits after 5 years for
families that remain in need of assistance.
In announcing the hearing, Chairman Herger stated: ``Welfare reform
has been a tremendous success. We've increased work and earnings,
reduced dependence, and lifted almost three million children from
poverty. The 1996 law's work requirements and time limits have played
major roles in this transformation. Still, more can be done. As we
reauthorize the welfare reform law this year, we will take steps to
help even more families on welfare better prepare for work and a
lifetime of independence.''
FOCUS OF THE HEARING:
This hearing will focus on issues related to the implementation of
welfare work requirements and time limits in preparation for the
reauthorization of the TANF program, which expires on September 30,
2002.
DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Please Note: Due to the change in House mail policy, any person or
organization wishing to submit a written statement for the printed
record of the hearing should send it electronically to
[email protected], along with a fax copy to
202/225-2610, by the close of business, Thursday, March 21, 2002. Those
filing written statements who wish to have their statements distributed
to the press and interested public at the hearing should deliver 200
copies to the Subcommittee on Human Resources in room B-317 Rayburn
House Office Building, in an open and searchable package 48 hours
before the hearing. The U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-packaged
deliveries to all House Office buildings.
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. Due to the change in House mail policy, all statements and any
accompanying exhibits for printing must be submitted electronically to
[email protected], along with a fax copy to
(202) 225-2610, in Word Perfect or MS Word format and MUST 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. Any statements must include a list of all clients, persons, or
organizations on whose behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet
must accompany each statement listing the name, company, address,
telephone and fax numbers of each witness.
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. Good morning. This hearing of the Ways and
Means Human Resources Subcommittee will come to order. Today's
hearing will provide an important backdrop as we consider key
features of the nation's welfare reform program, namely work
requirements and time limits on benefits.
Welfare reform has been a tremendous success in reducing
welfare caseload and moving millions of families out of poverty
through increased work. We know that nearly 3 million children
have been lifted from poverty since 1996, with the black child
poverty rate now at a record low. Employment by mothers most
likely to go on welfare rose by 40 percent between 1995 and
2000, and welfare caseloads have fallen by 9 million, from 14
million recipients in 1994 to just 5 million today. These
changes are without precedent.
The 1996 law has made phenomenal progress, but there is
still work to do.
I know many people will be surprised to learn that we do
not require every welfare recipient to work or at least prepare
for work today. In the year 2000, only 34 percent of the
national caseload was engaged in any of a broad range of work
activities, including education and training, for at least 30
hours per week. In some States, that figure is as low as 6
percent. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services' (HHSs) most recent annual report, an astonishing 57.6
percent of families on welfare are doing nothing to prepare for
work while receiving benefits. That is just not good enough.
I congratulate the President for proposing changes that
will reinforce the pro-work message for many more individuals
on welfare. Work is the only real path out of poverty, and only
through helping more people work will we get the rest of the
job done.
As we press on with further reforms, there are a number of
issues we need to understand about how work requirements and
time limit policies are working in practice. One set of issues
involves what are called child-only cases. Work requirements
and time limits do not apply to these cases, which represent
more than one-third of the current caseload and the share is
rising.
Other issues stem from separate State-funded Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs that exclude some
participants from Federal work requirements on time limits. I
asked the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) last year to
provide us with some information about how these separate State
programs affect the work participation targets and time limits.
They will share their findings with us today.
A final set of issues involves the time limits included in
the 1996 law. The 1996 law expected families to receive no more
than 5 years of Federal cash benefits with up to 20 percent of
the caseload exempted for hardship. The need for this change
was clear. Prior to 1996, the average lifetime of then-current
welfare recipients was an incredible 13 years. Welfare had
become a trap, plain and simple.
Today, we will review how time limits have worked in
practice. We will find that the vast majority of parents left
welfare prior to their clock expiring. For these families, the
time limit worked as intended to motivate both recipients and
caseworkers to address family needs quickly and help recipients
find and keep jobs. In a significant number of other cases,
including child-only cases and those receiving assistance under
separate State programs, families effectively have been
exempted from the time limits altogether.
Joining us today to provide perspective on how work
requirements and time limits are applied in practice are
distinguished researchers from the public and private sectors,
along with State and local program leaders. We also are joined
by Marge Thomas of Goodwill Industries and one of Goodwill's
success stories, Ms. Fatima Wilkerson, to describe how parents
with special challenges can succeed in the work place. We look
forward to hearing from all of our witnesses.
Without objection, each Member will have the opportunity to
submit their 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
Good morning. Today's hearing will provide an important backdrop as
we consider key features of the nation's welfare reform program, namely
work requirements and time limits on benefits.
Welfare reform has been a tremendous success in reducing welfare
caseloads and moving millions of families out of poverty through
increased work. We know that nearly 3 million children have been lifted
from poverty since 1996, with the black child poverty rate now at a
record low; employment by mothers most likely to go on welfare rose by
40% between 1995 and 2000; and welfare caseloads have fallen by 9
million--from 14 million recipients in 1994 to just 5 million today.
These changes are without precedent. The 1996 law has made
phenomenal progress, but there's still work to do.
I know many people will be surprised to learn that we don't require
every welfare recipient to work or at least prepare for work today. In
the year 2000, only 34 percent of the national caseload was engaged in
any of a broad range of work activities including education and
training for at least 30 hours per week. In some states, that figure is
as low as 6 percent. According to HHS' most recent annual report, an
astonishing 57.6 percent of families on welfare are doing nothing to
prepare for work while receiving benefits.
That's just not good enough.
I congratulate the President for proposing changes that will
reinforce the pro-work message for many more individuals on welfare.
Work is the only real path out of poverty, and only through helping
more people work will we get the rest of the job done.
As we press on with further reforms, there are a number of issues
we need to understand about how work requirements and time limit
policies are working in practice.
One set of issues involves what are called ``child-only'' cases.
Work requirements and time limits do not apply in these cases--which
represent more than one-third of the current caseload and the share is
rising.
Other issues stem from separate state-funded TANF programs that
exclude some participants from federal work requirements or time
limits. I asked the General Accounting Office last year to provide us
with some information about how these separate state programs affect
the work participation targets and time limits. They will share their
findings with us today.
A final set of issues involves the time limits included in the 1996
law. The 1996 law expected families to receive no more than 5 years of
federal cash benefits, with up to 20 percent of the caseload exempted
for hardship. The need for this change was clear. Prior to 1996 the
average lifetime of then-current welfare recipients was an incredible
13 years. Welfare had become a trap, plain and simple.
Today we will review how time limits have worked in practice. We
will find that the vast majority of parents left welfare prior to their
``clock'' expiring. For these families, the time limit worked as
intended to motivate both recipients and caseworkers to address family
needs quickly and help recipients find and keep jobs. In a significant
number of other cases, including child-only cases and those receiving
assistance under separate state programs, families effectively have
been exempted from the time limit altogether.
Joining us today to provide perspective on how work requirements
and time limits are applied in practice are distinguished researchers
from the public and private sectors, along with state and local program
leaders. We also are joined by Marge Thomas of Goodwill Industries and
one of Goodwill's success stories, Ms. Fatima Wilkerson, to describe
how parents with special challenges can succeed in the workforce. We
look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses.
Mr. Cardin, would you care to make an opening statement?
Chairman Herger. Mr. Cardin, the Ranking Member is on his
way, and we will allow him to make a statement when he arrives.
Again, without further objection, all the written testimony
will be made a part of the record.
To start the hearing today, we have Cynthia Fagnoni,
Managing Director of Education, Work force, and Income Security
Issues, the U.S. General Accounting Office.
Ms. Fagnoni.
STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA M. FAGNONI, MANAGING DIRECTOR, EDUCATION,
WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING
OFFICE; ACCOMPANIED BY GALE HARRIS AND KATRINA RYAN
Ms. Fagnoni. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, I have with me
today two of my colleagues, Gale Harris and Katrina Ryan, who
have worked very hard on this testimony that I am going to give
today.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my colleagues
and I are pleased to be here today to talk about what we have
learned from States' implementation of work requirements and
time limits for welfare families. When the Congress created the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families grant, the TANF, in
1996, it included work requirements and time limits designed to
focus welfare offices and welfare recipients on finding jobs
and moving off the welfare rolls.
To help accomplish this, the law requires that States meet
Federal mandated participation rates for the percentage of
welfare recipients in work activities or work or face financial
penalties. In addition, States must enforce a 60-month lifetime
limit on families with adults that receive welfare. To receive
its Federal TANF funds, each State must meet a maintenance of
effort requirement by spending a specified amount of its own
funds on welfare and related programs.
Today, I want to highlight key findings from our review of
all 50 States and discussions with 12 of those States.
First, it is important to understand, as you have
mentioned, that a significant share of welfare cases are
comprised of children only with no adult receiving welfare.
Because no adult in these families receives cash assistance
funded by TANF or State dollars, work requirements and time
limits do not apply.
In late 2001, nationwide, about 700,000, or one-third of
the 2.1 million cash assistance cases funded by Federal or
State dollars were child-only cases. In some States, the
primary reason for child-only cases was a non-citizen parent
not eligible for aid. For example, a large percentage of child-
only cases in Texas had a non-citizen parent. In several other
States, child-only cases were primarily families where the care
giver was someone other than the parent.
The second issue I will discuss today is the flexibility
States have in implementing the Federal work requirements. When
welfare reform mandated Federal work participation rates, it
also included a caseload reduction credit provision. This
provision specifies that each State's mandated participation
rate is to be reduced if its welfare caseload declines.
Because of the dramatic declines in welfare caseloads that
has occurred since 1996, States have generally faced greatly
reduced mandated participation rates for their TANF programs.
For example, in fiscal year 2000, caseload reduction credits
reduced mandated participation rates to zero in 31 States
instead of the mandated rate of 40 percent.
Some State officials told us that because of the work
participation rates being so low due to caseload reduction
credits, States have more flexibility in the types of
activities or services they can provide, for example, substance
abuse treatment or mental health services, while still meeting
their Federal work participation rates.
We found in our previous work that some States included
recipients in a range of work participation activities that
extended beyond those that meet Federal work participation
requirements, particularly to meet the needs of recipients
considered hard to employ. We also found in our previous report
on TANF recipients with mental and physical impairments that
States and counties often exempted individuals they considered
hard to employ from work requirements.
Twenty-six States also provided cash assistance to certain
needy families through State-funded programs, in which case
Federal work requirements do not apply. States told us they
used this option because of concerns that some families would
not be able to participate for the number of hours or in the
types of activities required to meet Federally mandated rates.
We also found, however, that when States provided cash
assistance to which Federal work requirements did not apply,
they imposed their own. This indicates that States are not
providing aid through these State programs to circumvent work
requirements but to minimize the risk of Federal financial
penalties.
The third issue I will discuss is time limits. Nationwide,
States excluded 11 percent of the 1.4 million welfare families
with an adult from a Federal or State time limit. States
generally targeted these time limit exclusions on families
considered hard to employ and on working families not earning
enough to leave the welfare rolls. For example, 22 States have
policies in place to exclude working families from time limits.
Maryland and Illinois told us they stop the clock for working
families by funding them with State dollars rather than Federal
TANF funds.
I would like to end by highlighting some issues related to
States' implementation experiences. Even though we are 5 years
into welfare reform, States still have limited experience with
time limits. At the time we conducted our survey this fall, 22
States had not had TANF in place long enough for families to
reach either the Federal or State time limit. Even in those
States in which families have started to reach their time
limits, many families have not reached their time limit because
they have cycled on and off welfare. As a result, only 15
States have begun to use the Federal 20 percent hardship
exemption and all these States are applying it to less than 6
percent of their caseload.
The State officials we spoke with thought the 20 percent
extension was adequate now but were less sure about the future.
For example, Michigan told us it will use the Federal 20
percent extension for all recipients following the rules of the
program. If the number of families they want to exclude begins
to exceed 20 percent, they plan to continue providing
assistance with State funds.
In talking with States, we generally found that State
officials were supportive of work requirements and time limits.
They also said that flexibility in implementing work
requirements and time limits was important in allowing them to
meet the needs of their recipients, such as the hard to employ.
This flexibility helps to ensure that States can adapt the
Federal program to meet State and local needs while still
emphasizing work and the transitional nature of assistance.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. We
would be happy to answer any questions you or other Members may
have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Fagnoni follows:]
Statement of Cynthia M. Fagnoni, Managing Director, Education,
Workforce, and Income Security Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the extent to which
families receiving cash assistance are excluded from work requirements
and time limits. The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) significantly changed federal welfare
policy for low-income families with children, building upon and
expanding state-level reforms. When the Congress created the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families block grant (TANF) to replace the
previous welfare program, it emphasized that the new program was to be
transitional in nature and focus on moving welfare recipients into
employment. To this end, states are required to enforce work
requirements and time limits on most families receiving cash
assistance. More specifically, states face financial penalties if they
do not include a minimum percentage of adults receiving cash assistance
in work or work activities each year, referred to as the mandated
participation rate requirement. This mandated rate increased each year,
reaching 50 percent of all families in fiscal year 2002. In addition,
states are to enforce a 60-month lifetime limit on families with adults
who receive cash assistance. To receive its TANF block grant, each
state must also meet a maintenance-of-effort requirement, under which
it must spend at least a specified amount of its own funds, referred to
as state maintenance-of-effort funds (MOE).
Along with these federal requirements, the law allows states
considerable flexibility to exclude families from work requirements and
time limits. First, these requirements only apply to families with an
adult receiving aid, not to cases in which only children receive cash
assistance. Second, PRWORA specifies that up to 20 percent of families
receiving assistance may receive extensions to federal time limits.
Third, states may provide cash assistance not subject to work
requirements and time limits if they use their state MOE in specified
ways, such as through a state program other than their TANF program.
As the Congress considers reauthorization of TANF, you asked us to
determine and assess the states' implementation of these work
requirements and time limits. More specifically, you asked us to
determine (1) the extent of child-only cases among the cash assistance
caseload funded by federal TANF and state MOE, (2) how states made use
of work requirement flexibility, (3) the number of families states have
excluded from time limits, and (4) key issues related to states'
experiences in applying TANF work requirements and time limits. The
information we gathered came from site-visits in 4 states, telephone
interviews with TANF officials in 8 other states, and a survey
administered to TANF officials in all 50 states and the District of
Columbia.1 We conducted our work from August 2001 through
February 2002, in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We visited California, Illinois, Maryland, and New York and
conducted telephone interviews with Colorado, Hawaii, Florida,
Michigan, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Texas, and Wisconsin. The states
were selected to represent a range of factors, including variation in
caseload size and in TANF program funding choices. The survey had a 100
percent response rate, although each state did not respond to all
questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, of the 2.1 million cash assistance cases funded by
federal TANF or state maintenance-of-effort dollars in the fall of
2001,2 one-third of these cases, or 700,000, were composed
of one or more children only. Because no adult in these families
receives TANF or state MOE funded cash assistance, work requirements
and time limits do not apply. Regarding work requirements, when PRWORA
established federally mandated participation rates, it also included a
``caseload reduction credit'' provision. This provision specifies that
each state's mandated participation rate is to be reduced if its
welfare caseload declines. Because of the dramatic declines in welfare
caseloads that have occurred since 1996, states have generally faced
greatly reduced mandated participation rates for the TANF programs. For
example, in fiscal year 2000, caseload reduction credits reduced
mandated participation rates to 0 in 31 states--instead of the mandated
rate of 40 percent specified in the law. As a result, states have
increased flexibility in determining the numbers of adults that are to
be involved in work or work activities. Regarding time limits, after
accounting for child-only cases, states excluded 11 percent of the
remaining 1.4 million families with an adult from federal or state time
limits. States' experiences with implementing work requirements and
time limits highlight key issues of interest for the reauthorization of
TANF provisions, including the relatively limited number of families
that have reached their time limits so far and the future adequacy of
the federal 20 percent extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This represents the number of families receiving cash
assistance during 1 month between October and December of 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
PRWORA made sweeping changes to national welfare policy, creating
TANF and ending the federal entitlement to assistance for eligible
needy families with children under Aid to Families With Dependent
Children (AFDC). The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
administers the TANF block grant program, which provides states with up
to $16.5 billion each year through fiscal year 2002. TANF was designed
to help needy families reduce their dependence on welfare and move
toward economic independence. The law also greatly increased the
discretion states have in the design and operation of their welfare
programs, allowing states to determine forms of aid and the categories
of families eligible for aid. TANF establishes time limits and work
requirements for adults receiving aid and requires states to sustain 75
to 80 percent of their historic level of welfare spending through a
maintenance-of-effort requirement. In addition, TANF gives states
funding flexibility, which allows states to exclude some families from
federal time limits and work requirements.
TANF Establishes Time Limits and Work Requirements for Adults Receiving
Aid
TANF establishes a 60-month time limit for families receiving aid.
States have the option of establishing shorter time limits for families
in their state. A state that does not comply with the TANF time limit
can be penalized by a 5 percent reduction in its block grant. While the
intent of TANF is to provide temporary, time-limited aid, federal time
limits do not apply to all forms of aid or to all families receiving
aid. First, states are only to count toward the 60-month time limit any
month in which an individual receives a service or benefit considered
``assistance,'' which is defined in the TANF regulations as cash or
other forms of benefits designed to meet a family's ongoing basic
needs.3 Second, time limits do not apply to the following
types of cases:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Assistance'' does not include things like nonrecurrent,
short-term benefits, such as rent deposits or appliance repairs; work
subsidies; work supports such as child care or transportation subsidies
for working families; or any other services such as counseling, case
management, and peer support that do not provide basic income support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Cases in which the adult in the household does not receive cash
assistance, typically called ``child-only'' cases.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ HHS has indicated that it would be inconsistent with statutory
intent for states to simply remove adults from assistance units once
they reach their 60-month time limit and then continue to use federal
dollars to pay benefits to the children as a child-only unit. States
may choose to use their MOE funds to do this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Families that received assistance while living in Indian country
or an Native Alaskan village where 50 percent of the adults are not
employed.
Third, all states have the option to use federal funds to extend
assistance beyond the federal 60-month limit for reasons of hardship,
as defined by the state. States can extend assistance for up to 20
percent of the average monthly number of families receiving assistance
(``20 percent extension'').5 States can also extend
assistance for victims of domestic violence through federally approved
domestic violence waivers.6 Finally, assistance that is
provided solely through state MOE is not subject to the federal time
limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In calculating the federal 20 percent extension, child-only
cases are included in the denominator but not in the numerator. All
things being equal, the larger the percentage of child-only cases in a
state's caseload, the greater the number of families with adults whose
time limit may be extended.
\6\ States can elect the Family Violence Option allowing states to
waive any TANF requirement, under certain conditions, for victims of
domestic violence. If a state elects the Family Violence Option and
waives the time limits for such recipients and later faces a penalty
for extensions that exceed the 20 percent cap, the state may qualify
for a reasonable cause penalty exception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TANF also establishes work requirements for adults receiving aid.
After 2 years of assistance, or sooner if the state determines the
recipient is ready, TANF adults are generally required to be engaged in
work as defined by the state.7 In addition, TANF establishes
required work participation rates--a steadily rising specified minimum
percentage of adult recipients that must participate in federally
specified work or work-related activities each year.8 States
were required in federal fiscal year 2002 to meet a work participation
rate of 50 percent for all TANF families with adult members--referred
to as the rate for all families. States were also required to meet a
much higher rate--90 percent--for two-parent families.9
States must meet these work participation rates to avoid financial
penalties. While states have generally met the work participation rate
for all families, many states have faced financial penalties due to
failure to meet the two-parent required rate in recent years. HHS
issued penalty notices to 19 states in fiscal year 1997, 14 in fiscal
year 1998, 9 in fiscal year 1999, and to 7 states in fiscal year 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ States may not penalize parents with children under age 6 for
not working if child care is not available. States have the flexibility
to exclude other categories of recipients from work requirements,
although they cannot remove these individuals from the work
participation calculation.
\8\ States may choose to exempt parents with children under age 1
from calculation in the work participation rate. Work activities that
count for federal participation rate purposes include employment, work
experience programs, on-the-job training, community service, providing
child care for other TANF recipients, job search, and (under certain
circumstances) education and training.
\9\ The two-parent work participation rate of 90 percent means that
each two-parent family must participate in a federally defined work
activity for an average of at least 35 hours per week and that a
specified number of hours be attributable to specific work activities.
A state may have one parent participate for all 35 hours, or both
parents may share in the work activities. HHS issued penalties for not
meeting the two-parent work participation rate in fiscal year 2000 to
Alaska, Arkansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina,
and Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to establishing federal participation rate
requirements, PRWORA specified that the required rates are to be
reduced if a state's TANF caseload declines. States are allowed
caseload reduction credits, which reduce each state's work
participation requirement by one percentage point for each percentage
point by which its average monthly caseload falls short of its fiscal
year 1995 level (for reasons other than eligibility changes).
In addition, federal time limits and work requirements may not
apply in some states that were granted federal waivers to AFDC program
rules in order to conduct demonstration programs to test state reforms.
States May Choose Various State Funding Options for Providing Cash
Assistance
Previously, under AFDC, state funds accounted for 46 percent of
total federal and state expenditures. Under PRWORA, the law requires
states to sustain 75 to 80 percent of their historic level of spending
on welfare through a maintenance-of-effort requirement to receive their
federal TANF block grant. The federal TANF funds and state MOE funds
can be considered more like funding streams than a single program and
states may use their MOE to assist needy families in state programs
other than their TANF programs. In fact, states have flexibility to
expend their MOE funds for cash assistance in up to three different
ways, some of which allow states to exclude some families from time
limits and work requirements.
A state may use its state MOE funds in three
different ways to provide cash assistance for needy families.
Commingling: A state can provide TANF cash
assistance by commingling its state MOE with federal funds
within its TANF program.
Segregating: A state can provide some TANF cash
assistance with state MOE accounted for separately from its
federal funds within its TANF program.
Separating: A state can use its state MOE to provide
cash assistance to needy families in any one or more non-TANF
state programs, referred to as ``separate state programs.''
Each state may choose one or more of these options to provide cash
assistance. In some cases, in this testimony, we refer to the second
and third options as using ``state-only'' funds when the distinction
between segregating and separating funds is not necessary. In addition,
we focus only on cash assistance and not on other forms of aid or
services, including, for example, child care and transportation, for
which time limits and work requirements generally do not apply.
How a state structures its funds determines which TANF rules apply
to the needy families being served. (See table 1.) When a state
commingles funds, it must meet all TANF requirements. For example,
states that commingle all their state MOE with federal funds are only
able to exclude families from time limits through the 20 percent
extension, cannot exclude families from counting towards the federal
work participation rate, and cannot provide assistance to certain
groups of legal immigrants.
TABLE 1: APPLICATION OF KEY TANF RESTRICTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ON STATE MOE FUNDS UNDER THE THREE FUNDING
OPTIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application of PRWORA rules by state funding option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key program requirements and State TANF program with State TANF program with State MOE for needy
restrictions for cash assistance. federal or commingled state MOE accounted families in any non-
funds. for separately from TANF state program
federal funds (referred to as
(referred to as separate state
segregated). program)
Does 60-month time limit apply? Yes, except for up to No..................... No
20 percent of the cash
assistance caseload.
Do work-activities count toward the Yes.................... Yes a.................. No
federal work participation rate?
Do restrictions on assistance to Yes.................... No..................... No
immigrants apply? b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a With this option, states have the flexibility to serve families they might not otherwise be able to serve in
TANF, such as certain legal immigrants, but at the same time count their work activities toward meeting the
federal participation target rate.
b Immigrants arriving in the United States after August 22, 1996, are barred from the receipt of federal TANF
assistance for a 5-year period.
----------
States may exclude families from time limits by funding their cash
assistance with state MOE, either through ``segregated funds'' or in
any non-TANF state programs. More specifically, any month of cash
assistance funded solely by state MOE funds does not count toward the
federal 60-month limit and may be provided to families who have reached
their federal time limit. States may exclude families from federal time
limits if they
Stop the clock. States can ``stop the clock'' so
that a family's cash assistance does not count towards the
federal time limit.
This is accomplished by funding any month of cash
assistance with state-only funds rather than with federal or
commingled federal and state dollars. For example, if a state
provides monthly cash assistance to working families with
state-only funds, those months of assistance do not count
toward the federal time limit. Extend the time limit. States
can provide cash assistance beyond the 60-month time limit by
using state-only funds. A state may extend a family's time
limit because it has determined that the adult needs more time
to prepare for and find employment.
Finally, while not required by federal law, states may choose to
apply time limits on their state-funded assistance. In this case,
states may also decide to stop the clock or extend time limits for
certain families.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Nineteen states have chosen a time limit shorter than 60
months as allowed by PRWORA, with the most common limit being 24
months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, families provided cash assistance funded by state MOE
through non-TANF state programs are not subject to federal work
requirements, though states may choose to impose their own work
requirements on these families.
One-Third of Families Receiving Cash Assistance Are Child-Only Cases
Not Subject to Federal Work Requirements or Time Limits
States reported that in the fall of 2001, 2.1 million families
received cash assistance funded with federal TANF or state MOE dollars,
with about 700,000, or one-third, of these families composed of
children only. Generally, child-only cases are not subject to work
requirements or time limits.11 The most common types of
child-only cases were families in which the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Connecticut has a small number of state-funded child-only
cases that are subject to a state-imposed time limit on state-funded
assistance. The time limit exclusion rules in Connecticut's separate
state program are the same for both recipient and non recipient
parents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
caregiver is a nonparent, such as a relative, often
a grandparent (40 percent);
parent is receiving Social Security or Supplemental
Security Income and not eligible for TANF (25 percent);
parent is a noncitizen ineligible for federally
funded TANF (23 percent);12 and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Some households may include parents who are illegal immigrants
or legal immigrants ineligible for cash assistance in addition to
children who are citizens and eligible for cash assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
parent is subject to sanctions (7 percent). (See
figure 1.)13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ States can sanction individuals not complying with TANF
program requirements by taking away part or all their TANF cash
benefits and possibly other public benefits as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The breakdown of child-only cases varied significantly across
states, however. For example, child-only cases in which the parent is
an ineligible noncitizen ranged from 0 percent in ten states to 39
percent in California and 77 percent in Texas; this variation is likely
due to the variation in immigrant populations across the states. (For
more information on each state's child-only caseload, see Appendix I.)
Figure 1: Reasons for Child-Only Cases
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8903A.001
Note: States were only able to report on 434,420 of the 700,000
federally funded child-only cases. Eighteen states had no data on the
reasons for their child-only cases.
Source: GAO survey.
__________
States Use Flexibility Under PRWORA To Exempt Some Families From
Federal Work Requirements
Reduced federal participation targets--due to declining caseloads
and the caseload reduction credit--and states' use of their MOE funds
in non-TANF programs give states considerable flexibility in
implementing work requirements. (For more information on how states use
their MOE funds, see Appendix II). Since the implementation of welfare
reform, states have experienced strong economic growth and welfare
caseloads have declined dramatically, from 4.4 million in August 1996
to 2.1 million as of September 2001, marking a 52 percent decline in
the number of families receiving cash welfare. The work participation
target rate for every state in fiscal year 2002 is 50 percent for all
families. However, once the caseload reduction credit is taken into
account, the target rates can be greatly reduced. For example, as shown
in table 2, the actual rate for all families reported by HHS for fiscal
year 2000 was zero in 31 states and less than 25 percent in all but two
states.
TABLE 2: FISCAL YEAR 2000 REQUIRED ALL-FAMILY WORK PARTICIPATION RATE
FOR EACH STATE AFTER FACTORING IN CASELOAD REDUCTION CREDIT (STATED RATE
WAS 40 PERCENT)
[Target Numbers in Percent]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Target State Target
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.......................... 0 Montana............ 0
Alaska........................... 11 Nebraska........... 14
Arizona.......................... 0 Nevada............. 0
Arkansas......................... 6 New Hampshire...... 0
California....................... 8 New Jersey......... 1
Colorado......................... 0 New Mexico......... 17
Connecticut...................... 28 New York........... 5
Delaware......................... 0 North Carolina..... 0
District of Columbia............. 11 North Dakota....... 0
Florida.......................... 0 Ohio............... 0
Georgia.......................... 0 Oklahoma........... 0
Hawaii........................... 25 Oregon............. 0
Idaho............................ 0 Pennsylvania....... 0
Illinois......................... 0 Rhode Island....... 24
Indiana.......................... 0 South Carolina..... 0
Iowa............................. 1 South Dakota....... 3
Kansas........................... 17 Tennessee.......... 0
Kentucky......................... 0 Texas.............. 0
Louisiana........................ 0 Utah............... 6
Maine............................ 9 Vermont............ 40
Maryland......................... 1 Virginia........... 0
Massachusetts.................... 0 Washington......... 2
Michigan......................... 0 West Virginia...... 0
Minnesota........................ 9 Wisconsin.......... 0
Mississippi...................... 0 Wyoming............ 0
Missouri......................... 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: The Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
______
As a result, states have had increased flexibility in determining
the numbers of adults that are to be working or preparing for work and
the types of activities required. For states to count families'
activities towards the work participation rate, families have to be
participating in federally approved work activities. In a previous
report, we found that some states included recipients in a range of
work and work-preparation activities that extend beyond those that meet
federal work participation requirements, particularly to meet the needs
of recipients considered hard to employ.14 Officials in one
state told us that because the work participation rates are so low due
to caseload reduction credits, states have more flexibility in the
types of activities or services provided, for example, substance abuse
treatment or mental health services, without fear of not meeting their
federal work participation rates. In other cases, the lower target
rates give states more flexibility in exempting TANF recipients
considered hard to employ from meeting work requirements, as we found
in our report on TANF recipients with mental and physical
impairments.15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For more information, see U.S. General Accounting Office,
Welfare Reform: Moving Hard-to-Employ Recipients into the Workforce,
GAO-01-368 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2001).
\15\ For more information on TANF and persons with disabilities,
see our report entitled: U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare
Reform: More Coordinated Federal Effort Could Help States and
Localities Move TANF Recipients With Impairments Toward Employment,
GAO-02-37 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the flexibility provided by reduced federal target
rates, many states have increased work requirement flexibility by using
state MOE funds to provide cash assistance through non-TANF programs,
as allowed by PRWORA. Twenty-six states use state MOE funds to provide
cash assistance through separate state programs, which allows states to
exclude families from federal work requirements and to serve certain
immigrants ineligible for federal TANF. Sixteen of these states provide
cash assistance to two-parent families through these programs. Several
state officials told us they provide aid in this way to avoid the risk
of financial penalties for failing to meet the federal two-parent work
participation rate. State officials told us that two-parent families
often have as many or more challenges as single parents, making the
higher target rate for two-parent families difficult to
meet.16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The caseload reduction credit would also decrease the 90
percent work participation requirement for two-parent families;
however, some states told us that they still moved two-parent families
into separate state programs because they did not want to rely on
caseload reductions to avoid a financial penalty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While states expressed concern about failing to meet the federal
target rate for two-parent families, all 16 of these states imposed
their own state work requirements on these families. Thirteen of the 26
states used state MOE in separate programs to provide cash assistance
to certain legal immigrants not eligible for federal TANF aid; these 13
states still apply a state work requirement for these families as well.
Overall, approximately nine-tenths of the families receiving cash
assistance in separate state programs are still subject to a state work
requirement. While states generally imposed work requirements, about
half of them also have policies in place to exclude families facing
significant barriers to work from work requirements. For example, 13
states exclude families with an adult who is disabled and 13 states
exclude families that care for someone with a disability.
States Excluded 11 Percent of Adult Families From Federal and State
Time Limits
States generally targeted time limit exclusions to families they
considered hard to employ, families that were working but not earning
enough to move off of TANF, and families that were cooperating with
program requirements but had not yet found employment. During fall
2001,17 states excluded from federal or state time limits 11
percent of the 1.4 million cash assistance families with adults. The
number of families excluded from time limits may increase in the future
because most families have not yet reached their federal or state-
imposed cash assistance time limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ In our survey, we asked states to provide us information for
the most recent month for which they had complete data. Most states
reported numbers from a month in the first quarter of federal fiscal
year 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal 20 Percent Extension and State-Funded Time Limit Exclusion
Policies Generally Target Working or Hard-to-Employ Families
States targeted time limit exclusions to families they considered
``hard to employ'', families that were working but not earning enough
to move off of TANF, and families that were cooperating with program
requirements. The majority of states excluded ``hard-to-employ''
families in which the parent had a disability or was caring for a child
with a disability, families dealing with domestic violence, and
families with a head of household of advanced age. (See figure 2.) Some
of these exclusions are granted on a temporary basis (such as for
disabled recipients pending transfer to the Supplemental Security
Income program), and others are granted for longer periods of time
(such as for family heads of advanced age).
Figure 2: Number of States with Exclusions to Federal or State Time
Limits by Recipient Characteristic
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8903B.002
Source: GAO survey.
______
Twenty-two states exclude working families from time limits, either
through the federal 20 percent extension or by using state-only funds.
Maryland and Illinois, for example, ``stop the clock'' for working
families by funding them with state-only dollars. Officials from both
states told us that their states adopted this policy to reward working
families for complying with program requirements.
States that exclude families by using state-only funds use similar
criteria to those used by states that rely solely on the federal 20
percent hardship extension. Using the 20 percent extension, states are
able to extend time limits for a broad range of families, such as
families cooperating with program requirements or making a ``good faith
effort'' to find employment. For example, officials from Michigan, a
state that commingles all of its state funds with federal funds, told
us that they will use the 20 percent extension for all recipients
following the rules of the program; if the number of families they want
to provide and extension to begins to exceed 20 percent, they plan to
continue providing assistance through state funds. Almost half of the
states exclude families making a good faith effort to find employment.
While States Had Excluded 11 Percent of Families with Adults from Time
Limits as of Fall 2001, This Percentage May Increase as More
Families Reach Their Time Limits
States have excluded from time limits 11 percent of the
approximately 1.4 million families with adults receiving federal--or
state-funded cash assistance. (See Appendix III for the percent of
exclusions by state.) As shown in figure 3, 45 percent of these
families--mostly in Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York--were
excluded through states use of state-only funds. An additional 43
percent of the families were excluded from time limits under federal
waivers granted to states before welfare reform to conduct
demonstration programs. Many of these waivers remain in
effect.18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Eight states exclude federally funded families from time
limits because of pre-existing waivers to their welfare programs that
allow them to exempt federally funded families from the federal time
limit. These states are Arizona, Hawaii, Indiana, Nebraska, Oregon,
South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. In addition, Connecticut was
operating under a waiver through September 2001. As a result, the
federal clock did not start on federally funded families that were
exempt from Connecticut's state time limit until October 2001.
Therefore, Connecticut can extend cash assistance to some of its
federally funded families well beyond 60 months without using the
federal 20 percent extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 3: Percentage of Families with Adults Excluded from Time Limits
and Method of Exclusion
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8903C.003
Note: Exclusions do not total 100% due to incomplete data from
states. Delaware was unable to provide us with caseload data and is not
included in this figure.
Source: GAO survey.
______
Even though states are free to exclude all state-funded families
from time limits, 64 percent of state-funded families that include
adults were still subject to a time limit imposed by the state. Twenty-
six of the 33 states with state-only funds apply a state time limit to
some or all of their state-funded cases. (See Appendix IV for
additional information on state choices regarding funding and time
limits.)
The percentage of the caseload that is excluded from time limits
may increase, since most families have not reached their time limit. In
22 states TANF had not been in effect long enough for families to reach
either the federal or the state time limit by the time we conducted our
survey.19 Even in those states where it was possible to have
received 60 months of cash assistance, many families had not reached
their time limit because they have cycled on and off welfare, slowing
their accrual of time on assistance. As a result, only 15 states had
begun to use the federal 20 percent hardship extension, and all of
these states were applying it to less than 6 percent of their total
caseload. One state we visited, California, told us it estimated that
over 100,000 families with adults would reach the federal time limit in
the next year. California plans to use state-only funds to continue aid
beyond 60 months to children by removing the adult from the case.
California also plans to continue aid to families that are making a
good faith effort to find employment and to families that are hard to
employ because the adult is aged, disabled, caring for a disabled
family member, or experiencing domestic violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ States responded to our survey using their most recent month
of data available--generally a month in the first quarter of fiscal
year 2002 (October through December of 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States' Experiences with TANF Highlight Issues for Reauthorization
States' experiences with implementing TANF time limits and work
requirements for families receiving cash assistance highlight key
issues related to reauthorization of TANF provisions. Officials from
the four states we visited and eight states we interviewed shared their
views on work requirements and time limits, and the flexibility they
have to implement them. Some state officials commented on the limited
extent of states' experiences with time limits, given that many
families have not yet reached their time limits, as well as their
inexperience with operating TANF during times of state budget
pressures. State officials also highlighted their concerns about the
federal 90 percent work participation requirements for two-parent
families.
States Support TANF Flexibility, but Some States Have Concerns
In general, state officials we spoke with were supportive of time
limits and work requirements. For example, Maryland officials said that
one advantage of time-limits assistance and work requirements was that
families understood that the receipt of cash assistance was no longer
an entitlement, thereby changing the culture of welfare. In addition,
another Maryland official noted that time limits encourage caseworkers
to link families, particularly the hard to employ, to the services they
need to become self-sufficient. States also said that, for the most
part, flexibility in implementing time limits and work requirements
were important in allowing them to meet the needs of special
populations while supporting the federal goal of reducing dependency.
The flexibility in implementing their own time limits helps to ensure
that states can adapt the federal program to meet state and local needs
while still emphasizing the transitional nature of cash assistance
through time limits.
While state officials were generally supportive of TANF
flexibility, officials in almost all of the states we spoke with
expressed the desire to have more flexibility in counting education and
training towards the federal work participation rate. Some states
officials also expressed a desire to count activities such as mental
health and substance abuse counseling towards the federal work
participation rate. The states that did not opt for additional
flexibility through the use of state-only funds expressed two general
concerns. First, they were uncertain about the consequences of their
funding flexibility under TANF. A Mississippi TANF official told us
that the state plans to follow the federal regulations rather than risk
penalties by establishing its own program rules that could become
confused with the federal regulations. Second, Colorado state officials
were concerned about the potential administrative burden that could
result from creating separate funding or programs that used state-only
funds.
Changing Economic Conditions May Pose Difficult Choices for States in
the Future
Up until very recently, TANF has been implemented under conditions
of strong economic growth, with declining cash assistance caseloads and
the resulting increase in resources available to states to assist
families. This has fostered increased flexibility in how state
officials use their federal TANF and state maintenance-of-effort
dollars. Several states we interviewed now face budget pressures and
increasing cash assistance caseloads, which could affect the policy
choices they make about funding mechanisms and time limit exclusions in
the future. This could affect some states' choices regarding continued
support for families that take longer to become self-sufficient.
California state officials noted that its plan to continue aid for all
children whose parents have reached time limits may pose a future
financial burden on the state.
States' Experiences with Adequacy of the 20 Percent Federal Extension
May Change as More Families Reach Time Limits
State officials generally thought the 20 percent federal extension
was adequate now, but were less sure about the future, given that many
families have not yet reached the 60-month time limit. Given that
states' experiences with families reaching their time limits is still
limited, it is important to emphasize that much remains unknown
nationwide about the numbers, characteristics, and experiences of
families who have reached or are close to reaching federal time limits
on assistance. In the past we have recommended that HHS work with state
officials on this issue to promote research and provide guidance that
would encourage and enable state officials to identify who has reached
the 60-month time limit before they are able to work. HHS has taken
steps to do so.20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ For more information, see GAO-01-368.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States Support the Goal of Helping Two-Parent Families Reduce Their
Dependency but Would Like More Flexibility in the Federal Two-
Parent Work Participation Rate
State officials cited their difficulties in meeting the federal
work participation target rate for two-parent families and a few
discussed their solutions--serving two-parent families in separate
state programs to avoid potential financial penalties. These states
typically apply their own work requirements and time limits to these
families, demonstrating the states' expectation that these families
take steps to reduce dependency in the absence of a federal requirement
to do so.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy
to respond to any questions you or other members of the subcommittee
may have.
GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments
For future contacts regarding this testimony, please call Cynthia
M. Fagnoni at (202) 512-7215 or Gale Harris at (202) 512-7235.
Individuals making key contributions to this testimony included Sigurd
Nilsen, Katrina Ryan, Elisabeth Anderson, Kara Kramer, Kim Reniero, and
Patrick DiBattista.
APPENDIX I: STATES' CHILD-ONLY CASELOADS AND REASONS FOR CHILD-ONLY CASES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of TANF and state MOE child-only cases by reason
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage
of total Parent Parent is Parent is
caseload receiving ineligible subject Nonparental Other
that is SSI noncitizen to caregivers reason
child-only sanctions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................... 45 ......... .......... ......... ........... .........
Alaska.................................... 19 39 6 0 55 0
Arizona................................... 44 0 33 0 63 4
Arkansas.................................. 42 ......... .......... ......... ........... .........
California................................ 34 14 39 16 23 8
Colorado.................................. 38 27 0 0 55 17
Connecticut............................... 34 40 5 1 54 0
Delaware.................................. .......... ......... .......... ......... ...........
D.C....................................... 19 ......... .......... ......... ........... .........
Florida................................... 57 ......... .......... ......... ........... .........
Georgia................................... 46 0 0 0 100 0
Hawaii.................................... 13 ......... .......... ......... ........... .........
Idaho..................................... 42 0 0 0 100 0
Illinois.................................. 40 58 10 0 28 4
Indiana................................... 20 42 4 13 41 0
Iowa...................................... 25 ......... .......... ......... ........... .........
Kansas.................................... 33 35 4 5 56 0
Kentucky.................................. 44 0 0 0 100 0
Louisiana................................. 45 45 0 0 55 0
Maine..................................... 24 ......... .......... ......... ........... .........
Maryland.................................. 33 18 1 1 76 5
Massachusetts............................. 37 ......... .......... ......... ........... .........
Michigan.................................. 32 54 3 3 40 0
Minnesota................................. 21 47 11 0 40 2
Mississippi............................... 45 ......... .......... ......... ........... .........
Missouri.................................. 25 50 1 0 49 0
Montana................................... 22 37 7 0 56 0
Nebraska.................................. 31 64 0 0 36 0
Nevada.................................... 31 9 12 0 76 3
New Hampshire............................. 29 30 0 0 51 19
New Jersey................................ 34 ......... .......... ......... ........... .........
New Mexico................................ 15 ......... .......... ......... ........... .........
New York.................................. 32 ......... .......... ......... ........... .........
North Carolina............................ 50 ......... .......... ......... ........... .........
North Dakota.............................. 25 18 0 32 50 0
Ohio...................................... 45 ......... .......... ......... ........... .........
Oklahoma.................................. 44 34 6 0 60 0
Oregon.................................... 35 28 25 3 37 7
Pennsylvania.............................. 28 ......... .......... ......... ........... .........
Rhode Island.............................. 18 52 32 0 16 0
South Carolina............................ 45 41 1 0 58 0
South Dakota.............................. 57 22 0 0 78 0
Tennessee................................. 28 41 0 0 58 0
Texas..................................... 34 0 77 0 0 23
Utah...................................... 29 30 0 0 70 0
Vermont................................... 16 56 0 0 44 0
Virginia.................................. 27 ......... .......... ......... ........... .........
Washington................................ 32 28 21 0 48 3
West Virginia............................. 31 ......... .......... ......... ........... .........
Wisconsin................................. 61 51 0 0 49 0
Wyoming................................... 73 ......... .......... ......... ........... .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
APPENDIX II: STATE FUNDING CHOICES
Most states use some form of state MOE funding to provide cash
assistance to families. Eighteen states relied solely on federal or
commingled federal and state funds in their TANF programs to provide
cash assistance, as shown in figure 4. The other 33 states used at
least one of the state MOE funding options in addition to commingled
funds: 7 had segregated state funds; 17 had separate state programs; 9
had both segregated funds and separate state programs.
Figure 4: Number of States That Use Different Funding Mechanisms to
Expend State Funds on Cash Assistance
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8903D.004
Source: GAO survey.
______
States across the nation have opted to use state MOE funds to
provide cash assistance. (See Table 3.) States with larger caseloads
are more likely to use segregated funds or separate state programs than
smaller states; similarly, states with the smallest caseloads are more
likely to commingle all of their state and federal funds.
TABLE 3: FUNDING STREAMS IN ALL STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commingled + segregated
Commingled funds Commingled + segregated Commingled + separate + separate state
state funds state programs programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska............................... Arizona................ Alabama................ California.
Arkansas............................. Massachusetts.......... Georgia................ Connecticut.
Colorado............................. Minnesota.............. Hawaii................. District of Columbia.
Idaho................................ Nebraska............... Indiana................ Delaware.
Iowa................................. Oregon................. Maine.................. Florida.b
Kansas............................... Pennsylvania........... Missouri............... Illinois.
Kentucky............................. Washington............. Montana................ Maryland.
Louisiana............................ ....................... Nevada................. Rhode Island.
Michigan............................. ....................... New Jersey............. Vermont.
Mississippi.......................... ....................... New Mexico............. .......................
North Carolina a..................... ....................... New York............... .......................
North Dakota......................... ....................... Tennessee.............. .......................
New Hampshire........................ ....................... Texas.................. .......................
Ohio................................. ....................... Utah................... .......................
Oklahoma............................. ....................... Virginia............... .......................
South Carolina....................... ....................... Wisconsin.............. .......................
South Dakota......................... ....................... Wyoming................ .......................
West Virginia........................ ....................... ....................... .......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a North Carolina uses only federal funds to provide cash assistance
b Florida has segregated and separate state programs but no federal/commingled.
Source: GAO survey.
______
Even though two-thirds of the states have opted to use segregated
funds, separate state programs, or both to provide cash assistance,
only 11 percent of the total number of families receiving cash
assistance is funded with these funds.
APPENDIX III: PERCENTAGE OF TANF OR MOE FAMILIES WITH ADULT RECIPIENTS
IN EACH STATE NOT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL OR STATE TIME LIMITS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Percentage State Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...................... 1 Montana........ 0
Alaska....................... 0 Nebraska....... 26
Arizona...................... 76 Nevada......... 0
Arkansas..................... 0 New Hampshire.. 3
California................... 0 New Jersey..... 0
Colorado..................... 0 New Mexico..... 0
Connecticut.................. 27 New York....... 28
Delaware..................... (a) North Carolina. 0
D.C.......................... 2 North Dakota... 0
Florida...................... 2 Ohio........... 4
Georgia...................... 0 Oklahoma....... 1
Hawaii....................... 27 Oregon......... 97
Idaho........................ 0 Pennsylvania... 2
Illinois..................... 34 Rhode Island... 6
Indiana...................... 7 South Carolina. 26
Iowa......................... 0 South Dakota... 0
Kansas....................... 1 Tennessee...... 29
Kentucky..................... 0 Texas.......... 0
Louisiana.................... 0 Utah........... 4
Maine........................ 25 Vermont........ 7
Maryland..................... 9 Virginia....... 54
Massachusetts................ 53 Washington..... 0
Michigan..................... 8 West Virginia.. 0
Minnesota.................... 10 Wisconsin...... 0
Mississippi.................. 0 Wyoming........ 6
Missouri..................... 6 .............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Delaware was not able to provide us with data on the families excluded
from time limits in its caseload.
Source: GAO survey.
______
APPENDIX IV: STATE-BY-STATE INFORMATION ON STATE FUNDING, APPLICATION OF TIME LIMITS, AND USE OF 20 PERCENT
EXTENSION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apply state
Have state time limit Have not
MOE funds in to some/all reached Were using
segregated families federal and/ 20 percent
States and separate served or state extension at
state through time limit time of
programs state MOE at time of survey
funds survey
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... (33) (26) (22) (15)
Alabama................................................. X X ............ X
Alaska.................................................. ............ ............ ............ X
Arizona................................................. X ............ ............ ............
Arkansas................................................ ............ ............ ............ ............
California.............................................. X X X ............
Colorado................................................ ............ ............ ............ X
Connecticut............................................. X X ............ X
Delaware................................................ X X ............ (a)
DC...................................................... X ............ X ............
Florida................................................. X X ............ ............
Georgia................................................. X X ............ ............
Hawaii.................................................. X X X ............
Idaho................................................... ............ ............ ............ ............
Illinois................................................ X X X ............
Indiana................................................. X X ............ ............
Iowa.................................................... ............ ............ X ............
Kansas.................................................. ............ ............ ............ X
Kentucky................................................ ............ ............ X ............
Louisiana............................................... ............ ............ X ............
Maine................................................... X ............ ............ X
Maryland................................................ X X X ............
Massachusetts........................................... X X ............ ............
Michigan................................................ ............ ............ ............ X
Minnesota............................................... X X ............ X
Mississippi............................................. ............ ............ ............ X
Missouri................................................ X X X ............
Montana................................................. X X X ............
Nebraska................................................ X X ............ ............
Nevada.................................................. X X X ............
New Hampshire........................................... ............ ............ ............ X
New Jersey.............................................. X X X ............
New Mexico.............................................. X X X ............
New York................................................ X ............ X X
North Carolina.......................................... ............ ............ ............ ............
North Dakota............................................ ............ ............ X ............
Ohio.................................................... ............ ............ ............ X
Oklahoma................................................ ............ ............ ............ X
Oregon.................................................. X X ............ ............
Pennsylvania............................................ X ............ X ............
Rhode Island............................................ X X X ............
South Carolina.......................................... ............ ............ ............ ............
South Dakota............................................ ............ ............ X ............
Tennessee............................................... X X ............ ............
Texas................................................... X X X ............
Utah.................................................... X X ............ X
Vermont................................................. X ............ X ............
Virginia................................................ X X ............ ............
Washington.............................................. X X X ............
West Virginia........................................... ............ ............ X X
Wisconsin............................................... X X ............ ............
Wyoming................................................. X ............ ............ ............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Delaware was not able to provide data on their use of the federal 20 percent extension.
Source: GAO survey.
______
Related GAO Products
Welfare Reform: More Coordinated Federal Efforts Could Help States
and Localities Move TANF Recipients with Impairments Toward Employment.
GAO-02-37. Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2001.
Welfare Reform: Challenges in Maintaining a Federal-State Fiscal
Partnership. GAO-01-828. Washington, D.C.: August 10, 2001.
Welfare Reform: Moving Hard-to-Employ Recipients Into the
Workforce. GAO-01-368. Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2001.
Welfare Reform: Work-Site-Based Activities Can Play an Important
Role in TANF Programs. GAO/HEHS-00-122. Washington, D.C.: July 28,
2000.
Welfare Reform: Improving State Automated Systems Requires
Coordinated Federal Effort. GAO/HEHS-00-48. Washington, D.C.: April 27,
2000.
Welfare Reform: State Sanction Policies and Number of Families
Affected. GAO/HEHS-00-44. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2000.
Welfare Reform: Assessing the Effectiveness of Various Welfare-to-
Work Approaches. GAO/HEHS-99-179. Washington, D.C.: September 7, 1999.
Welfare Reform: Information on Former Recipients' Status. GAO/HEHS-
99-48. Washington, D.C.: April 28, 1999.
Welfare Reform: States' Experiences in Providing Employment
Assistance to TANF Clients. GAO/HEHS-99-22. Washington, D.C.: February
26, 1999.
Chairman Herger. Thank you very much, Ms. Fagnoni.
Maybe at this time, before going into questioning, the
Ranking Member from Maryland would like to make an opening
statement.
Mr. Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Herger. Let me thank the
Chairman. I apologize for being a little bit late. I had a
morning meeting in Baltimore and sometimes the commute between
Baltimore and Washington gets a little bit longer because of
some of the road construction. If Congress would only
appropriate the right amount of money for the roads, I could
get here on time.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cardin. Mr. Chairman, over the last 6 years, the
percentage of welfare recipients who are working has tripled.
Furthermore, the percentage of never-married mothers who are
working has climbed from less than 50 percent to almost 70
percent. Many of the women in this group have left welfare for
work.
Now, obviously, this has been as a result of the TANF
legislation passed 5 years ago. It has been as a result of a
growing economy. We have also made work pay by increasing the
earned income tax credit. All of this has contributed to the
fact that we have more people working off of the welfare rolls.
I find that noteworthy, despite the fact that I think most
States would agree that the Federal work participation
requirement did not really mean that much because of the credit
that was available on people coming off of the welfare rolls.
I make that point, Mr. Chairman, because the States have
acted responsibly without a Federal mandate on the work
requirements, effectively. So I think we need to understand
that the trust that we had in the States 5 years ago was well
placed.
As we now look at the next step in welfare reform, I think
we need to be somewhat cautious about being so prescriptive on
the work requirements and taking away flexibility from the
States that it makes it more difficult for the States to really
carry out the intent of welfare reform.
So, yes, I believe very strongly in a work requirement and
a work requirement that is meaningful. In fact, the legislation
that I filed on behalf of my Democratic colleagues changed the
credit from the caseload reduction to the employment so that we
offer positive incentives for finding employment for people
coming off the welfare rolls. But I just urge us not to be so
prescriptive and restrictive to the States that they really
cannot accomplish the purpose of welfare reform.
I am concerned that some of the requirements that are
proposed by the President could, in fact, work just the
reverse. It could encourage the States to go into work there
rather than into private sector employment, and our objective
is to get people into private sector employment, not into
workfare jobs. I am concerned that by the work requirements
that have been put into the President's proposal that we may
actually be contrary to the trend we have seen over the last 5
years of finding private sector employment for the people
coming off of welfare.
I think that is also true with the fact that the
President's budget does not provide any additional funds for
child care. If we are going to increase the work participation
rules, then obviously we are going to have to put more
attention on child care. If, in fact, there are no additional
resources put on child care, to a certain degree, I think this
becomes an unfunded mandate on the States and something this
Committee needs to take a very careful look at.
So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the panel that we have.
I look forward to our questioning of Ms. Fagnoni and her work
with the panel that you have brought together so that we can
come to a meaningful work requirement within the TANF
reauthorization, one that affords the States the flexibilities
that they need in order to make sure people not only come off
the welfare rolls but have meaningful employment and can take
care of their needs and do not have to live in poverty.
[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, over the last six years, the percentage of welfare
recipients who are working has tripled. Furthermore, the percentage of
never-married mothers who are working has climbed from less than 50% to
almost 70%. Many of the women in this group have left welfare for work.
Obviously the strength of the economy over the last eight years,
plus the work supports enacted by Congress over the last decade,
especially the increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit, have
substantially contributed to this trend. But I believe that welfare
reform also has played a positive role in raising employment levels.
Interestingly, States have managed to achieve this progress without
massive work participation requirements coming from Washington. As we
have heard before, and will hear again today, the caseload reduction
credit greatly reduced or eliminated the Federal participation rates
under TANF for every State.
This raises a key question. If welfare reform has been successful
in promoting work without Federal work participation requirements, why
does the Administration believe that much stricter Federal requirements
are now central to the continued success of welfare reform?
I do not have a problem with replacing the current caseload
reduction credit with an employment credit. In legislation that I
introduced earlier this year, I proposed just such a change in order to
reward States for helping people leave welfare for work, rather than
simply exiting the rolls. However, I am concerned that drastically
increasing the work participation rates and hours on the States, as
proposed by the Administration, could actually have a harmful impact on
the States efforts to move welfare recipients into real jobs.
Forcing States to focus time, money and effort on enrolling welfare
recipients in unpaid, short-term work experience programs could
distract them from their efforts to move welfare recipients into long-
term, wage-paying jobs. For example, States could be forced to cut
child care assistance for former welfare recipients and the working
poor in order to pay for the day care costs of participants in workfare
programs, especially since the Administration's plan does not include a
single dime of new money for child care.
Furthermore, research suggests that unpaid work experience programs
are not particularly beneficial in promoting long-term employment
compared to other activities. For example, a study conducted by the
University of Washington found that State's workfare program was less
effective in boosting future earnings of welfare leavers compared to
vocational training or even simple job search activities.
Perhaps that is one of the reasons that so few States have
implemented workfare programs over the last six years. I do not see any
reason why the Federal government should demand they do so now.
Finally, before I conclude, let me say a word about the five-year
limit on TANF benefits. I believe that time limits send an important
and necessary message to welfare recipients, namely that they need to
take responsibility for their lives and attempt to move toward self-
sufficiency.
But once an individual heeds that call, and they begin working and
doing everything else we are asking of them, I believe States should
have the flexibility to provide a wage subsidy to that person with TANF
funds, without that assistance counting toward the individual's time
limit. Considering that many welfare recipients may find low-wage,
less-than-full-time employment, we should not discourage States from
providing wage supplements to make work pay and to help working
families escape poverty.
Thank you.
Chairman Herger. I thank the Ranking Member for his
comments. Now we will turn to questions, and the gentlelady
from Connecticut, Mrs. Johnson, to inquire.
Mrs. Johnson. Thank you very much for your testimony, Ms.
Fagnoni. You did move through a lot of very, very important
information very rapidly, and I do not think any of us realize
the extent to which the work requirements were not a problem to
States because they were not being met.
After all the President's proposal does start out with the
same 50 percent that is current law. While he phases in higher
work requirements, in looking just at that 50 percent, what are
the three or four key things, changes in the law that we would
need to make in order to really require States to meet that 50
percent?
One that comes to mind from your testimony is that we would
have to say that you cannot move these folks into State
programs unless those State programs also have work
requirements. Moving people into State programs that do not
have work requirements seems to be a significant dodgeball
move. Is that true or not? Could you give us any sense of
proportionality in terms of these different actions that end up
undermining the work requirements so that we can get a better
picture of what we would have to do to make sure that the work
requirement currently in the law does hold?
Ms. Fagnoni. Actually, what we have found is that while
States use the flexibility given to them in part because of the
caseload reduction credit, and they did use that flexibility
to, in some cases, provide assistance to people through State
funding, that in most cases, the individuals in these programs
were still subject to State-imposed work requirements. I
believe the figure is 90 percent.
The difference, though, is that in the State programs,
States often will define work activities somewhat more broadly
than what is allowed for under the Federal participation rate
rules. So States might include things such as having somebody
attend substance abuse treatment, something like that, somebody
who needs that kind of help they feel to help move them into
the work force. Under the States' program, that might count as
a work activity. So States have used the flexibility to impose
their own types of work requirements on most of the people who
are in the State programs.
Mrs. Johnson. Are you saying that 90 percent of the State
programs do have work requirements?
Ms. Ryan. Ninety percent of the families served with
separate State programs are subject to a State work
requirement.
Mrs. Johnson. And do we count the people in State programs
that work toward the Federal work requirement?
Ms. Fagnoni. Not in all cases, that is right, because
again, the States may be defining this differently than the
Federal definition.
Mrs. Johnson. Well, ignoring for a moment the fact that the
definition may be different, because under the new law that may
not be such a problem, it would be useful to know that if we
included the people in State work programs, then are the
States--how close are the States coming to meeting the current
50 percent requirement? The idea that they are meeting 5
percent is very disturbing. On the other hand, if 90 percent of
the States have people in programs that have work requirements,
and then we can get into the definitional issue later, but we
need to know that.
Ms. Fagnoni. I do not think we have a specific number that
it would raise the percentage to, but again, these percentages
are what they are required to meet. It does not necessarily
mean that they have only done that amount, even through the
Federal rules.
In fact, we did a report a couple of years ago where we
looked at the fact that about 42 percent of TANF recipients on
the rolls were engaged in some kind of Federal type of work
activity, work activity as defined under the Federal laws. So
just because they have a very low actual percentage, they need
to meet does not mean that States, even under the Federal
definition, have only met that amount.
Mrs. Johnson. It would be very helpful in going forward if
you could look at sort of that last report and this report and
help us see, under Federal law, how many actually are working,
meeting the work requirements, and then under those who have
been moved into State programs----
Ms. Fagnoni. If we added those in.
Mrs. Johnson. Because otherwise, it sounds like they are
just moving them out of sight, out of mind, and that they are
not part of the same program, and most of the State programs
are very similar, but because of some of the lack of
flexibility in our program, they have dealt with them
differently. I do not know whether you have any statistics that
would indicate how many of the people in State work programs
are spending what percentage of their time in drug treatment
and so on.
Ms. Fagnoni. No, we do not have that specific information.
Mrs. Johnson. Thank you.
Chairman Herger. I thank the gentlelady from Connecticut.
Now the Ranking Member, Mr. Cardin, from Maryland.
Mr. Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Reading over your report, I see that you say that officials
in almost all States we spoke to expressed the desire to have
more flexibility in counting education and training toward the
Federal work participation rate. Can you elaborate any further
on that? What were the reasons for this? Is this just the fact
that they want more flexibility in dealing with a Federal
requirement or did they find that helpful in trying to find
permanent placements for people who are leaving the welfare
rolls?
Ms. Fagnoni. I think one of the issues is there seems to be
some confusion over what kinds of education might count. It is
supposed to be education that leads to employment, so there is
some confusion there, some restrictions on the amount of
vocational education that can count. And I think what States
tend to tell us is that they want the flexibility to be able to
decide, and sometimes on a case-by-case basis, that somebody
needs some somewhat different package of services that they
think will move that person into the workforce. States would
like to have that ability to do that.
Mr. Cardin. That is totally consistent with what we have
heard from the National Governors and what we have heard from
our State legislators who have been here talking about the fact
that one size does not fit all and that is the real advantage
of the original TANF bill. But you are right. We have found
that some States have interpreted Federal law on vocational
education differently, and they have asked us for some help in
giving them more flexibility in trying to meet their own
individual needs.
One of my concerns is that, if I understand the President's
proposal, there is a significant additional restriction on
vocational education in that for the average person on welfare,
they have to be in an employed position for 24 hours a week
before they can get into vocational education. Did you have any
conversations with the States as to how they would feel about
such a proposal?
Ms. Fagnoni. At the time we were doing our work, specific
proposals had not yet been introduced. Certainly, there were
some general discussions about possible actions that might be
taken, such as raising the Federal work participation rate, and
basically what States told us with that was that some States at
least said they think they could deal with a higher rate if
they had some more potential flexibility in what might count
toward that, as a work activity toward that new higher rate.
Mr. Cardin. And I think that is consistent with what we are
hearing, as you said, more flexibility. Some States are using
more intensive vocational education for different types of
people that could not fit into a 24-hour work week, is that not
correct? Are they not using some----
Ms. Ryan. States did not specify that with us. They had
just mentioned more flexibility in the area of vocational
education and training, substance abuse treatment and mental
health treatment, but we did not get into specifics.
Mr. Cardin. More flexibility with the amount of time, with
the 1-year restriction? More flexibility with the percentage of
their caseload that could be in vocational education? More
flexibility as to what is considered vocational education, or
all of the above?
Ms. Fagnoni. I think it would probably be all of the above
as it relates to the Federal requirement. You came back to the
discussion with Mrs. Johnson. States with their own State
funding are already using the flexibility that that provides to
define work activities a little bit differently than the
Federal definition.
Mr. Cardin. That is very helpful. You also mentioned the
fact that my State of Maryland is instituting wage supplements
but feel that it is unfair that it counts toward the 5-year
clock. So instead, what they are doing is using State funds
only. Does that seem to be occurring more among the States, the
use of State funds rather than using TANF funds in order to do
things that are not permitted or that run counter to the
intentions of the Federal TANF law?
Ms. Fagnoni. There are certainly States that are using
State funds under the provisions of TANF to not meet Federal
requirements but often placing their own types of requirements,
including time limits. Some States have chosen, including
Maryland, Illinois is another example, have chosen to use the
State funding to allow them to, if you will, stop the clock for
those who are receiving TANF but working. So they are, again,
using that flexibility provided through the State funding. Some
States have made that choice, others have not.
Mr. Cardin. It is interesting, because all the studies that
we have seen show that wage supplements are positive. It helps.
It helps people leave welfare and be able to have permanent
employment and take care of their families, et cetera, and the
wage supplements are good. As you point out, States have not
had a problem yet with the 20 percent exemptions generally on
the 5-year clock but they are concerned in the future that they
are going to have a problem with the 20 percent meeting the 5-
year clock, and therefore they are reluctant to use the wage
supplements toward the 5-year clock, and that is one of the
reasons I think they are asking us to modify that rule.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Herger. Thank you, Mr. Cardin. Would the gentleman
from Louisiana, Mr. McCrery, wish to inquire?
Mr. McCrery. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My colleague from Maryland has spoken in his opening
statement about his confidence in the States to do the right
thing when given flexibility. I look forward to working with
them on the unemployment compensation situation to give them
the same flexibility.
Mr. Cardin. Absolutely. We will put it together.
Mr. McCrery. Ms. Fagnoni, again, tell us what percentage of
the current TANF caseload is not subject to the work
requirements.
Ms. Fagnoni. Well, there are two ways we have presented
this in the testimony. One has to do with the child-only cases,
which, because there is no adult in the case, they are exempt
from both the work requirements and time limits and that is
about a third of the total caseload.
The work requirements, what we have is that under the
separate State programs, the fact that about 90 percent of
families are still subject to some sort of State-imposed work
requirement while they may not be subject to the Federal
requirement. But again, the child-only cases are not subject to
the work requirement at all.
Mr. McCrery. Do you have a percentage of the current
caseload that is not subject to the Federal work requirement?
Ms. Fagnoni. No, we do not. We do not have that information
other than for the child-only cases.
Mr. McCrery. Is it not a fact that of the current
caseloads, an extremely low percentage of those left because of
the caseload reduction credit that the States get are not
subject to the work requirement?
Ms. Fagnoni. Well, as I pointed out a little bit earlier,
what the caseload reduction does is specify the rate that the
States would have to meet to be in compliance, so it is a
minimum. It does not mean that that is all States are doing,
and in fact, from a report we did a couple of years ago, about
42 percent of TANF recipients are engaged in some kind of work
activity who are receiving TANF. So while the effective rate,
the minimum is very low, States--and, of course, it varies
across States--States are having participants, even with the
Federal funds, participate in work activities.
Mr. McCrery. So what you are saying, I think, is that under
the current Federal law, the States would not be required to
have a large percentage of their caseload working, but, in
fact, because of State work requirements, there is a higher
percentage than is required by the Federal law.
Ms. Fagnoni. Or their own choices about how they are
dealing with TANF recipients to ensure that they are moving
into the work force before they hit the 5-year time limit. Many
of them are having them in work activities even under the
Federal definition to prepare them for work. So the caseload
reduction credit and how that affects their rate is not what is
driving States as much as it is their own decisions about how
to help people while they are on welfare.
The other thing that States have told us, just as an aside,
is they do not always--actually, when they are looking at their
Federal participation rate, they often are not sure how the
caseload reduction credit is going to be applied, so in some
cases, they just have not even thought about that. They were
too worried that they might miscalculate and be out of
compliance, so they have gone ahead and tried to meet Federal
work requirements that they thought might apply to them. So
they have actually found that reduction credit somewhat
confusing.
Mr. McCrery. Mr. Chairman, we do not have with us today
HHS, but they have a recent report that shows that a very high
percentage of recipients are not doing anything to prepare for
work while receiving their benefits. So I think we need to get
some more testimony on this to clear it up and find out just
where we are.
How many States do not have any work requirement?
Chairman Herger. Excuse me. Secretary Thomas will be before
us next week, so we will be able to inquire.
Mr. McCrery. Good. How many States have no work
requirements for those in separate State programs?
Ms. Ryan. I think we have found that the majority of States
have implemented State work requirements in those separate
State programs.
Ms. Fagnoni. So that 10 percent are not.
Ms. Ryan. Of the families.
Ms. Fagnoni. Of the families would not be subject to a work
requirement, again, of the families with an adult.
Mr. McCrery. OK. Just one quick question, Mr. Chairman. As
the States spend money on separate programs, and they do not
use the Federal dollars for whatever reason, do those
expenditures count against their maintenance of effort
requirement?
Ms. Fagnoni. Yes, they do. Yes.
Mr. McCrery. Thank you.
Chairman Herger. Thank you, Mr. McCrery. Now we will turn
to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Levin, to inquire.
Mr. Levin. Thank you very much. This has turned out, Mr.
Chairman, I think to be a useful hearing. I hope that all the
Members will read and listen to what you say. I sense there is
a polarization growing in this place about the next step of
welfare reform that I do not understand.
Mr. Cardin pointed to a portion in your report where you
talk about while State officials were generally supportive of
TANF flexibility, officials in almost all the States we spoke
with expressed the desire to have more flexibility in carrying
education and training toward the Federal work participation
rate. Those of us who supported, especially as we finally
shaped it, welfare reform believe the States should have some
flexibility, and the curious thing is now that some of those
supporters seem to be saying the dictate should come from here
and I do not really understand that.
Also, I did not see it in the written testimony, if you
would read back, if you would, Ms. Fagnoni, what you said about
States not using caseload reductions. I just got the first part
of that. I think I got the first four words right, but I am not
sure.
Ms. Fagnoni. What we said basically was that because of the
caseload reduction credit, a number of States, their mandated
participation rates were, in effect, much lower than one might
think from just looking at the law, and for 31 States, the
mandated participation rate was zero once one factored in the
caseload reduction credit.
Mr. Levin. And then you said something about the States
were not using--what did you say about that?
Ms. Fagnoni. Well, my point was----
Mr. Levin. Do you remember? Is it in your written
testimony?
Ms. Fagnoni. Well, my point was that while this is the
mandated participation rate, that does not mean that is what
States have done in fact in terms of placing people in work
activities, either with the Federal funds or with the State
funds. What that specifies is what they are mandated to do to,
at a minimum, to not have a financial penalty.
Mr. Levin. But I think you then went on to say that the
States were not using caseload----
Ms. Fagnoni. Well, what I said was this is not something
that is given to them in advance. It sort of depends on how the
caseload declines and some States were worried that they might
not be sure of what the mandated rate would turn out to be, so
they tended to not place so much weight on what a caseload
reduction credit might end up being because of that concern.
Mr. Levin. I think the main point here is that States are
using the flexibility by and large to get people to work and
that even those who are on cash assistance, and substantial
numbers are in some kind of a work or work-related activity.
Mr. McCrery talked about an HHS report. Do you know, does the
HHS collect data on the work participation as defined by
Federal law or----
Ms. Fagnoni. Yes.
Mr. Levin. So when you cite or talk about the HHS report,
those data are, as I understand it, in terms of the Federal
definition and not what the States may be doing within their
own programs. Is that an accurate statement of HHS data?
Ms. Harris. Their data reporting changed dramatically. I
think for fiscal year 2000, it is supposed to be the first year
that they had some information on not just activities that
count toward the Federal participation rate but a broader set
of activities, and we have not seen that data yet and you might
have that data. With the old data reporting system, it was more
just geared toward those federally counted activities, and I
think there is new data now on a broader set of activities.
Mr. Levin. And those data, in terms of State programs, is
that a comprehensive report from the States? Would that cover
all of the work or work-related activities as defined by the
States?
Ms. Harris. I do not have the details of it.
Mr. Levin. You are not sure.
Ms. Harris. I believe that was the intent.
Mr. Levin. The reason is I think that we need to discuss
what are the major challenges before us today as we look at
welfare reform. There has been no discussion here today about
the average wage of people who move off of welfare into work,
which according to unemployment data is $2,050 a quarter, about
$8,000 a year. I think before we get polarized over the issue
of work requirements, we had better ask ourselves whether an
objective of welfare reform is to help people move out of
welfare into work and in a way that they will in a foreseeable
future be earning enough so that they can feed and educate
their children and actually snip the dependence that they once
relied on. Thank you.
Chairman Herger. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. Now I
recognize another gentleman from Michigan to inquire, Mr. Camp.
Mr. Camp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing.
Ms. Fagnoni, I have been listening carefully to your
testimony, and I think it does get a little bit confusing
between what the Federal requirements are and what States are
actually doing. I am interested in kind of your assessment on
what implication your testimony about exceptions to work
requirements and time limits has for the President's proposal,
which would require 24 hours a week of work as opposed to the
current 30, and then 16 hours of any other activity, which many
of us would view as strengthening the work requirement. Even
though it means that we may be expecting more of parents
receiving cash assistance, would a large portion of the
caseload not be exposed to those increased requirements given
the data as you have seen it?
Ms. Fagnoni. In some cases, it is difficult to exactly know
what all the interactions might be between what is going on now
and what a specific proposal might do, but certainly one would
have to set aside the child-only cases which are--I mean, we
cite the one-third, but it is a number that has been growing.
So that portion of the caseload, because there is no adult
receiving assistance, would be exempt. So that is one piece of
the story.
Then there are some other pieces of the story related to,
you know, some of the States' decisions to serve individuals,
families with adults through their State funds, either because
in some cases they were concerned. For example, two-parent
families, they were concerned they might not be able to meet
participation rates given what they thought were some of the
problems that two-parent families faced, or where they felt
that serving people with State funds might allow them to,
again, expand the definition of work activities a little bit,
or their choices in things like stopping the clock when people
are working and receiving TANF.
So based on what States were telling us, and again, not
linked to any specific proposal, but based on what at least
some of them were telling us, they felt that they could handle
somewhat higher work participation rate requirements if they
were given perhaps some more flexibility with how those
activities might be defined, but we did not get into specifics
and did not have specific proposals in front of us to talk
through with them.
Mr. Camp. And part of that also, the two-parent families,
would likely be enrolled in separate State programs and----
Ms. Fagnoni. That is what is being done quite a bit now,
yes.
Mr. Camp. In looking at this data, you mentioned that 11
percent of the caseload is not subject to time limits, but only
11 percent of that group is using the Federal hardship
exemption. So am I understanding that about 1 percent of the
caseload, total caseload, currently uses the Federal hardship
exemption?
Ms. Ryan. Of the adult caseload, that is correct.
Mr. Camp. The adult caseload.
Ms. Ryan. But, obviously, the time limits have not been in
place, or some States, 5 years is just beginning to hit. So a
lot of States have not even begun to use the Federal 20 percent
extension.
Mr. Camp. I see also that on page 22, Oregon and Arizona
stand out as exempting a significant portion of their
caseloads. How have these States been able to avoid imposing
time limits almost of any kind?
Ms. Ryan. Through waivers. Oregon has a waiver in place
that exempts anyone if they are participating in a self-
sufficiency activity, so that is all underneath waivers that
were implemented before the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) was passed.
Mr. Camp. I also want to bring attention to a Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) view on child care funds. In 1996, they
estimated that if States continued to spend, they would be
underfunded by about $13.1 billion, and, of course, that did
not happen. We ended up having a surplus in TANF, contrary to
CBO's predictions. I think part of the difficulty in projecting
this is not really understanding what the caseload dynamic is
going to be in the future. Do you have any way of telling us or
predicting that?
Ms. Fagnoni. We do not have a way of predicting that. We
can tell you that for the national data that are available
through HHS, which lags somewhat, it is through September, I
think it was about 28 States that were experiencing some
relatively modest increase in their TANF caseloads. But the
national caseload was still declining by a modest amount.
We actually have work currently underway for Mr. Cardin
where we are collecting more up-to-date information on
caseloads from 25 States and that will take us through
December, which may give us a better idea of whether caseloads
might be creeping up a little bit. But again, even that does
not necessarily tell us what the future will look like, given
economic conditions.
Mr. Camp. But there is nothing to say that the additional
16 hours in any other activity, which might include training,
might actually cause another dramatic drop in welfare
caseloads. There is nothing to say that might not happen.
Ms. Fagnoni. Yes. I think it would be really difficult to
predict because of a lot of interactions that might occur
related to the availability of jobs and things like that. For
much of welfare reform, there are a lot of jobs in the private
sector that were pretty readily available for people.
Mr. Camp. I see my time has expired. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Herger. Thank you, Mr. Camp. Now the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, Mr. English, is recognized.
Mr. English. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ms. Fagnoni, it
is great to have you before us again.
Ms. Fagnoni. Thank you.
Mr. English. Your testimony shows that 23 percent of child-
only cases involve ineligible non-citizen parents receiving
benefits for their eligible citizen children. What about in
separate State programs? Do we know what proportion of the
families being served are non-citizens?
Ms. Fagnoni. We do know that 13 States have chosen to
provide assistance to immigrants who are ineligible for the
Federal funding, to provide them with assistance, and in all 13
States, they do apply work requirements to these individuals.
Mr. English. Do we know how many parents in child-only
cases or separate State programs are actually illegal aliens?
Ms. Fagnoni. We have had a discussion about that. It is
most likely that the child-only cases, the illegal alien is
likely to show up there because that individual would not be
eligible for assistance, either really probably through the
Federal or State programs. I think what the States are doing is
providing assistance to people who are here legally but who,
because of the Federal requirements, are not eligible for TANF
for some period of time.
Mr. English. You also note in your testimony, on page 13,
that States impose work requirements on non-citizens----
Ms. Fagnoni. Right.
Mr. English. And that has been reiterated here, and that
would be through a separate State program using only State
funds. What about in cases where Federal assistance is provided
to citizen children of non-citizen or illegal alien parents?
Can there be any work requirements on these families receiving
Federal assistance?
Ms. Fagnoni. If the individual is here legally, then I
think that could be the group of people who are being served
through the separate State programs. If somebody is here
illegally, then they are not going to be eligible for
assistance and, therefore, not having work requirements imposed
on them. In fact, it is illegal for them to be here, and it is
illegal for them to work here. It is an issue that has been
problematic for policy makers for a number of years, where you
have a mixed household where some of the people and often the
children are actually citizens while their parents may be
illegal aliens.
Mr. English. Are there any recommendations out there for
how we could close the loop and subject non-citizen families to
work requirements or time limits?
Ms. Fagnoni. Certainly, where the immigrant is here
legally, States have taken that approach in some cases by not
just providing them assistance but by imposing the work
requirement.
Mr. English. Which States?
Ms. Fagnoni. There were 13 States.
Ms. Ryan. I know California and Maryland are a couple of
them. I can get you the other ones.
Mr. Cardin. Would the gentleman yield for one moment?
Mr. English. Certainly.
Mr. Cardin. It seems to me that, and I am looking at Texas
where a large percentage of the child-only caseload is where
the parent is an ineligible non-citizen, if we gave the States
the flexibility under TANF to cover legal immigrants and then
they cover these cases, would there then not be a work
requirement on the parent?
Ms. Fagnoni. There would, although it is not likely unless
there were a decision to also provide assistance to illegal
aliens. What we do not know is what portion of that percentage
represents illegal alien heads of households.
Mr. English. Reclaiming my time, I guess this is reiterated
in the last question, but have there been any proposals put
forward that you are aware of that speak directly to this?
Ms. Fagnoni. I think it has been more problematic with the
illegal alien population because the root problem really is
they are not supposed to be here in the first place, and so
there have really not been any proposals that have gone
anywhere that really address that issue. I think with people
who are here legally, if they receive some kind of assistance,
then I think there could be work requirements imposed.
Mr. English. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the
balance----
Mr. Cardin. Would the gentleman yield? I think you have
another 30 seconds. Would you yield?
Mr. English. Yes.
Mr. Cardin. I want to clarify one point, if you would.
Mr. English. Sure.
Mr. Cardin. That is, if we gave the States the rights to
cover legal immigrants as a discretion and they then covered
these child-only cases where there is a legal immigrant as a
parent, would not then the Federal work requirement apply if
the States so choose to cover that family?
Ms. Fagnoni. It would no longer be a child-only case. It
would then be a case with an adult in it and then they would
have to make the decision what kind of work requirements to
impose, that is right.
Mr. English. And in that case, we would be fundamentally
changing our policy toward welfare for non-citizens?
Ms. Fagnoni. That is right.
Mr. English. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Herger. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Now the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Lewis, is recognized to
inquire.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Fagnoni, on page 14 of your testimony, you illustrate
that of the 11 percent of the caseload not subject to time
limits, only 11.2 percent of that group has been categorized as
a hardship exemption. Is it right that only 1 percent of the
caseload is currently using this exemption?
Ms. Fagnoni. That is correct, and that is, we think,
primarily because while this TANF program has been in place at
the Federal level for 5 years, the time limits are just
beginning to come into play, and so in a lot of cases, States
really do not have a very good handle on what proportion of
their caseload might end up reaching this 5-year time limit and
what they might need in terms of some kind of hardship
extension.
Mr. Lewis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Herger. Thank you. Ms. Fagnoni, how is the number
in separate State programs expected to change over time,
especially as more families reach Federal time limits? I
understand that New York and California, comprising about one-
third of the national caseload, are among the States that
provide State benefits after a family has received Federal
benefits for 5 years, and in these and other States with such
policies from the families' perspective, is there an effective
5-year limit on their welfare checks?
Ms. Fagnoni. You are correct that some States at this point
have said they have made the decision to extend benefits to
individuals who remain on welfare even after the 5 years. Some
States have told us, though, including California, that they
might need to reconsider how much they are able to support
based on State budgetary considerations and concerns. So there
are States that do intend or are starting to extend benefits
through their State programs, even after people reach the 5-
year time limit, that is correct.
Chairman Herger. I want to thank our witnesses. Thank you
very much, Ms. Fagnoni, for your good testimony.
Ms. Fagnoni. Thank you, Mr. Herger.
Chairman Herger. I would like to call up our second panel.
This morning, we will be hearing from Marge Thomas, Chief
Executive Officer, Goodwill Industries of the Chesapeake,
Baltimore, Maryland, accompanied by Fatima Wilkerson,
Baltimore, Maryland; the Honorable Jennifer Reinert, Secretary,
Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, Madison,
Wisconsin; Dannetta Graves, Director, Montgomery County
Department of Job and Family Services, Dayton, Ohio; Mark
Greenberg, Senior Staff Attorney, Center for Law and Social
Policy; Michael Fishman, Lewin Group, Falls Church, Virginia;
Douglas Besharov, Professor, University of Maryland School of
Public Affairs, College Park, Maryland, and Resident Scholar,
Public Policy Research, American Enterprise Institute.
We will begin this panel with testimony from Marge Thomas,
Chief Executive Officer of Goodwill Industries of the
Chesapeake, Baltimore, Maryland, who is accompanied by Fatima
Wilkerson of Baltimore, Maryland. A key focus of their
testimony will be serving TANF recipients with barriers to
employment.
At this time, I would like to insert into the record a
recent study by the Urban Institute that shows that despite
what seems to be commonly accepted belief that the welfare
caseloads have gotten harder and harder to serve as the easiest
cases have left for work, the caseload is generally the same as
it was a few years ago. On page 30 of the report, the author
notes that, ``Contrary to conventional wisdom, our results did
not indicate that adults on TANF in 1999 were significantly
more disadvantaged than those on welfare in 1997.''
[The material follows:]
The majority of adults on TANF reported significant barriers to
employment. However, contrary to conventional wisdom, our results did
not indicate that adults on TANF in 1999 were significantly more
disadvantaged than those on welfare in 1997. While the data suggested
somewhat poorer health status for the 1999 cohort of TANF recipients
compared with the 1997 cohort, the differences were not statistically
significant. Education levels and caregiving responsibilities also did
not differ significantly. Of course, our results reflect a time period
when TANF was just getting underway (1997) and one after TANF policy
had evolved further (1999). While caseloads were dropping rapidly
during our two periods of observation, it may be that adults on TANF in
1997 and 1999 were more disadvantaged than those on welfare prior to
1997.
The clearest difference between the two cohorts of TANF recipients
was increased work activity, especially paid work, among 1999 TANF
recipients. While still at a relatively low level, paid work among
those with multiple barriers to employment increased fourfold (from 5
percent in 1997 to 20 percent in 1999). These results clearly indicate
the influence of a very strong economy coupled with states' strong
``work first'' programs that try to move recipients into paid jobs as
quickly as possible.
Welfare cycling continued to characterize the TANF population. Some
left but came back on, and new entrants comprised the same percentage
of TANF adults in 1999 as in 1997. Our results highlight the continuing
needs of a group of disadvantaged single mothers with low education
levels and high levels of mental and physical health problems. The fact
that one-third of new entrants were caring for an infant (compared with
1 in 5 cyclers and about 1 in 16 stayers)
[The study is being retained in the Committee files.]
Chairman Herger. With that, I turn to Ms. Thomas for your
testimony. Ms. Thomas.
STATEMENT OF MARGE THOMAS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GOODWILL
INDUSTRIES OF THE CHESAPEAKE, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, AND CHAIR,
PUBLIC POLICY COMMITTEE, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, GOODWILL
INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Ms. Thomas. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Herger, other
Members of the Human Resources Subcommittee. I am Marge Thomas.
I am the President of Goodwill Industries of the Chesapeake,
which is located in Baltimore, Maryland. I am also representing
today Goodwill Industries International. I chair the Public
Policy Committee for the Board of Directors for Goodwill
Industries, International, so I am also wearing that hat today.
Goodwill Industries International currently consists of 177
Goodwills who are operating throughout the United States. We
are celebrating 100-year anniversary this year as a movement.
Since 1902, we have had the experience of working with people
who have multiple barriers to employment. I come to you
speaking on behalf of all 177 Members.
In the year 2000, Goodwill Industries served 150,000 TANF
recipients. We have served over 450,000 since 1996. Getting a
little bit closer to home and talking specifically about our
own Goodwill, Goodwill Industries of the Chesapeake operates in
the Baltimore metropolitan area and the entire Eastern Shore.
We have experience working with people with a variety of
barriers, from folks who are crab pickers in the summertime and
do not have jobs in the winter to individuals who are living in
the inner city of Baltimore.
We operate 17 stores and 21 donation centers, which provide
a great deal of employment to individuals, some of whom could
not work if it were not for Goodwill Industries. We also
operate nine custodial and mailroom contracts, primarily with
the Federal and State governments. Those programs are used
specifically for people with multiple or severe disabilities.
In those programs, we also have been able to employ some
individuals coming off of TANF who are not disabled in the
support positions.
In addition to all of that, we operate 15 career centers
located throughout our territory. This past year, we served
over 4,000 people in a variety of different training programs.
We placed 1,140 into competitive employment outside of
Goodwill.
We operate a temporary employment agency. I was interested
in reading in some of the studies that have been referred to
during the proceedings today that a number of people who have
been on TANF are actually accessing jobs through temporary
employment. That is precisely why we started a temporary
agency. Many of our recipients were not able to go directly
into regular full-time employment because they lacked any work
experience. By starting our temporary agency, we were able to
put them out into temporary jobs. Many of the employers would
then hire them into permanent positions as a result of their
temporary work. This past year, we placed 399 people into
temporary jobs, and of that, 75 were hired into full-time
employment.
We target a variety of populations. We have a significant
problem with high school dropouts in the City of Baltimore, so
we certainly are serving that population. We work, obviously,
with people who are preparing to leave welfare or who have left
welfare. We also are operating programs with ex-offenders who
have been released or are still incarcerated. That population
also comprises a large number of people in the City of
Baltimore.
We are finding more frequently that TANF recipients coming
to us have been incarcerated or had experience with the
judicial system. This creates yet another barrier to their
employment. Additionally, we are working with a lot of people
who have been involved in substance abuse. That is probably one
of the largest number of individuals we serve as we move
further and further along in the reduction of welfare.
What it takes a person to leave and stay off of welfare
obviously gets significantly complicated as we add on all these
different barriers. In our 100-year history, we have worked
with people with disabilities. Again, that adds still another
barrier if these individuals coming off of welfare have
disabilities or have children with disabilities.
We operate a variety of programs. I want to highlight just
a couple of things that we have found are absolutely critical
in not just getting people off of welfare and but them off.
Primarily this has to do with services after they are in jobs.
Folks who are entering the job market are almost always
entering at low wages. In order to help them to move up in the
job market, we must do follow-up work. I would strongly
encourage funding for post-employment support be part of
whatever is considered for TANF reauthorization.
Finally, putting on my hat for Goodwill Industries
International, we have been holding a series of forums across
the country called Consensus to Build the 21st Century. We will
soon have results available from all of these communities.
Issues raised include the difficulty of working with multiple
funding streams and the variety of requirements resulting from
legislation to serve people in need. More coordination is
critical. We will be happy to share more information from our
consensus meetings as it becomes available.
I would like now to introduce somebody who I think you all
need to hear far more than you need to meet any of the rest of
us. That is Fatima Wilkerson and Fatima will tell you her story
and how she successfully did use the TANF legislation to gain
employment and a new life.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Thomas follows:]
Statement of Marge Thomas, Chief Executive Officer, Goodwill Industries
of the Chesapeake, Baltimore, Maryland, and Chair, Public Policy
Committee, Goodwill Industries International, Inc.
Good Morning Chairman Herger and members of the Human Resources
Subcommittee, I am Marge Thomas, CEO of Goodwill Industries of the
Chesapeake, located in Baltimore, Maryland. In addition, I currently
serve as the chairwoman of Goodwill Industries International's Public
Policy committee. I would like to thank you for inviting me and
Goodwill at large here today to speak on the issue of helping TANF
recipients with multiple barriers enter and stay in the job market.
I am here representing my particular Goodwill, as well as all of
the Goodwills in the United States, a group comprised of 177 local
entities that are autonomous, community-based, non-profit corporations
that provide career services and job training for people with barriers
to employment.
Over its 100 year history, Goodwill has maintained a strong
commitment to serving people with barriers to employment, providing the
assistance and training necessary to enable these individuals to be
engaged and effective members of our nation's labor force. Since our
beginning in serving immigrant populations in Boston in 1902, through
decades of work with persons with disabilities, to our current
expansion of services to a broad range of individuals, Goodwill
continues to back up its belief in the power of work for all people
with quality service provision.
For the context of today's testimony, it is significant to note
that since 1996, Goodwill collectively has served through pre--and post
employment services, job training, soft skills training, and job search
assistance over 450,000 TANF individuals and in 2000 alone, served over
150,000 TANF recipients.
Today, I am here to speak to you about the work Goodwill Industries
of the Chesapeake is doing to move welfare recipients into stable
employment.
Goodwill Industries of the Chesapeake serves the Baltimore
Metropolitan area and the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Our retail network
comprising 17 stores and 21 donation centers help to generate revenue
for our employment services. We also have 9 custodial and mailroom
contracts with federal agencies and the State of Maryland. These
contracts allow us to employ 194 persons, 145 of whom are persons with
severe disabilities. We are especially proud of our long-standing, 15
year + contract with the Social Security Administration.
Additionally, we operate 15 career centers where we prepare people
for employment. In 2001, these career centers and our family support
center provided services to 4,110 people. The staff at the Goodwill of
the Chesapeake helped 1,140 people to obtain employment with employee
benefits and career advancement opportunities. We operate a temporary
employment agency, Goodwill Staffing Services that in 2001 helped 399
people to gain valuable paid work experience. Of the 399 individuals,
75 were hired permanently following their temporary employment.
All of the people we serve have one or more barriers to employment
and we help them find and stay in good jobs. By design, we have
targeted employment readiness programs for high school dropouts, for
persons who need to leave welfare for employment, and for ex-offenders
leaving prison and returning to Baltimore. I also want to stress how
important it is to consider the special efforts that must be made to
assist TANF recipients who are involved with the criminal justice
system. We currently serve people who are in recovery from substance
abuse, who are homeless, and those with severe disabilities.
I would like to give the subcommittee a brief idea of what it takes
to help a person to leave and stay off welfare. To do this work, we
take our clients through a number of steps that include:
1. Intake and assessment work that consists of determining a
person's literacy and math abilities, interests and aptitudes, and need
for services such as childcare and transportation.
2. Three or more weeks of job-readiness training to fully prepare
job-seekers for employment focusing on the ``soft skills'' of how to
accept supervision, what it means to give value to your employer,
arriving at work on time and getting along with co-workers. For some of
the people we serve, three months of occupational skills training is
necessary to close a ``skills gap,'' especially the basic computer
skills many employers expect their employees to have.
3. A period of subsidized employment, usually three months, is
often required for welfare recipients who have had little or no paid
work experience. Often employers will hire these individuals
permanently following a period of subsidized employment.
4. Transition into unsubsidized employment and follow-up support
services is the most critical step in the work we do. Goodwill job
placement staff also work closely with the more than 400 employers we
place clients with and frequently makes visits to the workplace to get
progress reports.
5. On-going case management support is also an essential service we
provide to persons who have left welfare for work. Goodwill staff helps
when benefits are mistakenly cut off. They provide support and guidance
in the evenings and weekends to help clients cope with the multiple
changes that they are experiencing as full-time employees.
These are a few of the many activities we undertake to help place
and keep people in jobs.
I am accompanied by Ms. Fatima Wilkerson, who graciously agreed to
take time off from work to join me today. She has benefited from the
services I have described to you. Ms. Wilkerson will share with you her
experiences of being served by Goodwill and her successful efforts to
get and keep employment with job advancement potential.
We are particularly pleased that Goodwill has been very involved
with welfare reform and will continue to be in the future. Over the
last six months, Goodwill has been engaged in a yearlong public policy
initiative, Consensus to Build the 21st Century Workforce. This
initiative is an effort to understand the needs of our members and the
communities they serve in developing and advancing the workforce needed
in this new millennium.
Our goal is to help communities create effective programs and
systems that help individuals with barriers to work gain access to
skills, jobs and successful careers. We convened 13 grassroots meetings
in medium and large cities as well as rural communities across the
country. One of those meetings, I'm happy to share with you, was held
in Baltimore.
At these meetings, Goodwill brought together leaders from business
and government, service providers and other stakeholder communities to
elicit information on the effectiveness and efficiency of the myriad of
federal, state and local workforce development programs targeted to
individuals with low wages, low skills and/or other barriers to
successful entry into the workforce. Building on the results of these
meetings, Goodwill is working with Congress, the Administration and the
full Goodwill community to ensure better coordination and even more
successful workforce programs now and in the future.
As part of the Consensus initiative, we are hosting an
international forum this April in Austin, Texas, focusing on inclusion
of the hardest to serve in the 21st century global
workforce. This meeting will bring together CEOs, directors and
managers from local Goodwills, non-profit organizations and foreign
leaders. We will focus on lessons learned from serving those with
multiple barriers, particularly in the U.S., United Kingdom, Hungary,
the Netherlands, Ireland, Canada, Latin America and Mexico. We are
particularly excited about what we can both learn from our
international neighbors as well as share to help those with barriers
find and keep a job.
Before I close, I would like to say that Goodwill is very pleased
to be asked to comment on TANF and to be part of the ongoing discussion
concerning reauthorization. As we have learned through our Consensus
initiative, flexibility is key to eliminating the confusion among
workforce programs and rules governing those programs. We have also
learned that:
There are too many issues and too little
collaboration among programs and organizations with the same
mission;
The existing infrastructure is debilitating, not
facilitating;
There is a call for leveraging our commitment to
workforce development now because time is of the essence; and
There is a strong desire for a more coordinated
system.
Therefore, we are particularly happy with the President's proposed
``super waiver'' which is a good first step in providing a more
cohesive solution in communities to help people with multiple barriers
to acquire and maintain employment. We at Goodwill are very happy to
make ourselves available for further technical assistance in the effort
to help as many welfare recipients find and maintain careers and excel
in the workplace as possible.
Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am now happy to address
any questions that you may have concerning my testimony.
STATEMENT OF FATIMA WILKERSON, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
Ms. Wilkerson. Good morning. Good morning, Chairman and
Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Fatima Wilkerson, and I
currently receive support services through Goodwill Industries
through the Work Matters program.
When I was 16, I became pregnant with my first child, and I
was faced with a multitude of barriers before he was even born.
I was a high school dropout. I had no work experience or job
skills training and my son's father was shot in the head and
partially paralyzed and so I had to single-handedly support my
son.
When I was 17, I became employed working the night shift as
a housekeeper, from 11:00 at night to 7:30 in the morning. Even
though I had became employed, I was faced with new barriers in
finding child care and finding transportation. I also had the
burden of taking care of my two younger brothers, 12 and 6,
because both my mother and father were incarcerated. It became
too much for me, and I ended up eventually quitting my job.
I began to receive benefits from the Department of Social
Services (DSS) when I was 18. I was put into a GED, General
Education Development, training course, where I eventually
received my high school diploma. Receiving my high school
diploma was a very strong point in my life. It made me realize
that I could achieve goals, but I had no idea, no direction of
what those goals were, and how I would attribute them to me.
Being referred to Goodwill due to the Office of Employment
and Development was a changing point in my life. I was given
the support and assistance I needed to overcome my barriers. I
received assistance in transportation and with finding day
care, and I received assistance in maintaining a stable
household after constant problems with my landlord. I was given
work experience and skills training through subsidized
employment from Goodwill, and I was awarded the Better
Opportunities Through Online Education scholarship from
Goodwill, which allowed me to attend the University of Maryland
University College.
Goodwill is responsible for finding my current employer,
the MCS Group, and I was referred by Goodwill to the East
Harbor Village, which helped me open an individual development
account which will put me on the path to home ownership.
Goodwill helped me to assess where I was in life and
connect it to where I eventually want to be. Goodwill never
sheltered me from my problems. Instead, Goodwill and its staff
provided me with the support and assistance I needed to face
those problems without being sidetracked from my aspirations of
independence.
Moving from welfare to work was a very hard transition. I
was faced with problems during my subsidized employment from
DSS, being cut totally off of my cash benefits and still having
to face paying rent and maintaining my child and paying gas and
electric and just buying food and maintaining a household. My
transition from welfare to work is still in progress. However,
I am more than convinced that the services that I received at
Goodwill thus far have brought me to the level of independence
that I have achieved today, and if the Subcommittee would
contribute a little bit more time and effort and money, then I
know that I will be able to move forward and become even more
independent from the system and be more of a success.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wilkerson follows:]
Statement of Fatima Wilkerson, Baltimore, Maryland
Good Morning Chairman and Human Resources subcommittee.
My name is Fatima Wilkerson and I currently receive support
services through the Goodwill industries work matters program.
When I was 16 I became pregnant with my first child. Before my son
was even born I was faced with a multitude of barriers that would
prevent me from being able to support my child on my own. I was a high
school drop out, I had no job skills or training and my son's father
had been shot in the head and partially paralyzed leaving me to single-
handedly support my child.
I turned 17 and was able to find work as a housekeeper from 11
o'clock at night to 7:30 in the morning. As I tried to make advances
without the help of Social Services, new problems like daycare and
transportation began to arise. I also had the burden of caring for my
12 and 6 year old little brothers due to the incarceration of both my
mother and father. These crippling circumstances soon became too
overwhelming for me and I eventually quit my job.
I began to receive benefits from social services at 18. After a few
months of receiving benefits, I was enrolled into a GED training course
and eventually received my high school diploma. Receiving my diploma
helped me to realize that I could achieve goals with effort,
perseverance and patience. However, I had no idea what those goals
were. I had received my High School diploma, but had no idea what to do
with that diploma.
Being referred to Goodwill through the Office of Employment and
Development was a changing point in my life. I was given the support
and assistance I needed to overcome my barriers. I received assistance
in transportation and with finding daycare. I received assistance in
maintaining stable housing after constant problems with my landlord.
I was given work experience and skills training through subsidized
employment from Goodwill, and I was awarded the Better Opportunities
Through Online Education scholarship from Goodwill, which allows me to
attend the University of Maryland University College.
Goodwill is responsible for finding my current employer, The MCS
Group, Inc., and I referred by Goodwill to I.D.A., a program which
gives assistance that will put me on the path of home ownership.
Goodwill helped me to assess where I was in life and connect that
to where I eventually want to be. Goodwill never sheltered me from my
problems instead, Goodwill and its staff provided me with the support
and assistance I needed to face those problems without being side-
tracked from my aspirations of independence.
My transition from welfare to work is still in process. However, I
am more than convinced that the services that I received at Goodwill
thus far have brought me to the level of independence that I have
achieved today.
Thank You For Your Time.
Chairman Herger. Thank you, Ms. Wilkerson. You did an
outstanding job. I know everybody joins me and all the Members
here in congratulating you and commending you on a job very
well done----
Ms. Wilkerson. Thank you.
Chairman Herger. And for being the role model that you have
become, as well. So thank you very much.
[Applause.]
Chairman Herger. With that, we do have a vote on the floor,
and we will recess and return immediately following the vote.
[Recess.]
Chairman Herger. The hearing will reconvene. Ms. Reinert, I
apologize for the interruption, but with that, we will open it
up to your testimony. Thank you for being with us.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JENNIFER REINERT, SECRETARY, WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, MADISON, WISCONSIN
Ms. Reinert. Thank you. Chairman Herger, Ranking Member
Cardin, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting
me here today to give Wisconsin's perspective on how TANF
reauthorization can move the nation forward in our welfare
reform efforts.
I would venture to say that everyone in this room and the
State legislators and Governors of all 50 States share the same
set of goals, a reduced need for government assistance, full
employment, and healthy, self-sufficient families. The 1996
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation
Act gave us the tools to work toward those shared goals, and we
have seen remarkable success as a result.
The lessons learned in the past 5\1/2\ years of
administering the TANF programs have added tremendously to our
base of knowledge. Some of our strategies for achieving desired
outcomes have changed as a result. But the basic program
elements are still there.
The success of Wisconsin's TANF program, called Wisconsin
Works, or W-2, stems from its work focus philosophy, its wide
range of work training opportunities and work support, and its
flexibility, all targeted at empowering parents to achieve
personal responsibility for the welfare of their families.
President Bush's reauthorization proposal retains the
welfare-to-work philosophy so fundamental to our reform efforts
and leaves the funding levels and distribution formula
unchanged. These are critical to helping States move to the
next level of welfare reform. His proposal also introduces new
program elements that will serve to enhance States' efforts.
For example, a program integration waiver brings new
opportunities for States to break down the silos separating our
work programs for the betterment of our service delivery system
as a whole, and the philosophy of full engagement is one of the
cornerstones of the W-2 program, which has been in place since
implementation.
Raising the bar on work participation will make a
significant difference. States must, however, retain the
ability to decide what activities are most appropriate on a
case-by-case basis.
Given the time constraints, I am going to highlight five
key elements of W-2 that we believe have contributed to the
program's success. First, community partnerships. Wisconsin's
geographic diversity, ranging from small rural communities to
urban industrialized cities, calls for unique approaches that
match the need of participants with the local employment
conditions. To accomplish this, partnerships have developed
amongst W-2 providers, community-based organizations, and
employers, enabling communities to develop innovative solutions
and communicate on a much broader scale.
Many of our W-2 participants have multiple problems in
their lives and require a network of supporting guidance from
outside sources, and this need for support carries over into
the workplace. In response, employers are providing mentoring
relationships, specialized training, release time for education
that helps parents to balance the needs of their family and
work. Business brings invaluable resources to the program.
Their participation is critical to program success and
sustaining a healthy community.
The second element is outcome-driven performance standards
for local W-2 providers. A set of 15 performance standards deal
with such measures as successful attachment to the work force,
educational activities attainment, and increased earnings. Our
performance standards impact on W-2 agencies' contract dollars
and future eligibility to be granted a W-2 contract. The
competitive process to select the best and most enthusiastic
providers and then to hold them accountable is essential to W-2
and performance standards are what drives this process.
The third element is retention and advancement. The initial
focus of W-2 was helping people get jobs. The focus is also now
on helping participants keep their jobs and advance in their
jobs. Training, education, skill development, all enhance
employment stability and advance to higher-wage jobs.
The fourth element is integration of work force programs.
In the past, the focus was on referring to W-2 participants as
former Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
recipients. That is being reframed. We are looking now at
Wisconsin workers versus former welfare recipients. We have
merged two major divisions within the Department of Work force
Development, enabling us to look at all of our work force
programs as a spectrum of services with a goal of promoting
upward mobility and lifelong learning for all of Wisconsin's
work force.
The fifth, the last and the most important, is full
engagement. We engage everyone in work-related activities from
day one with no exceptions. Time limits, work participation,
and work requirements are important components to keep both
participants and case managers fully engaged.
In conclusion, TANF reauthorization is an opportunity for
Congress to further strengthen families through work. PRWORA's
success thus far is based on flexibility provided by Congress,
not in spite of it, and State and local innovations are driving
factors. It is difficult for researchers to study and quantify
our success because of the multiplicity of strategies across
States has created a program that looks a lot like a patchwork
quilt, but we owe it to our children and families to stay on
this path where meeting individual needs are at the very center
of every individual decision. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Reinert follows:]
Statement of the Hon. Jennifer Reinert, Secretary, Wisconsin Department
of Workforce Development, Madison, Wisconsin
Introduction
Chairman Herger, Ranking Member Cardin and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today to give Wisconsin's
perspective on how TANF reauthorization can move the nation forward in
our welfare reform efforts.
I venture to say that everyone of us in this room, and the
legislatures and Governors of all 50 states share the same set of
goals--a reduced need for government assistance, full employment and
healthy, self-sufficient families.
The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities
Reconciliation Act gave us the tools to work toward those shared goals
and we've seen remarkable success as a result. The lessons learned in
the past 5\1/2\ years of administering the TANF program have added
measurably to our base of knowledge. Some of our strategies for
achieving desired outcomes have changed as a result. But the basic
program elements are still there. The success of Wisconsin's TANF
program, called Wisconsin Works or W-2, stems from its work-focused
philosophy, its wide range of work-training opportunities and work
support, and its flexibility--all targeted at empowering parents to
achieve personal responsibility for the welfare of their families.
President Bush's reauthorization proposal retains the welfare-to
work philosophy so fundamental to our reform efforts and leaves the
funding levels and distribution formula unchanged. These are critical
to helping states move to the next juncture of welfare reform. His
proposal also introduces new program elements that will serve to
enhance states' efforts. For example, the Program Integration Waiver
brings new opportunities for states to break down the silos separating
our work programs for the betterment of our service delivery system as
a whole. And the philosophy of full-engagement is one of the
cornerstones of the W-2 program which has been in place since
implementation. Raising the bar on work participation will make a
significant difference as long as states can retain the ability to
decide what activities are most appropriate on a case-by-case basis.
W-2 Overview
The W-2 program is open to all of Wisconsin's low-income families
including non-custodial parents with income under 115 percent of the
Federal Poverty Level. Once eligible, other sources of income such as
receipt of child support, do not lower the individual's grant. The
eligibility and job service provider functions are combined to allow
the participants to develop a close relationship with one primary case
manager. All adult W-2 participants are required to work to the very
best of their ability. Like work, W-2 payments are based on
participation, not on the number of children in the family. Each hour
the individual fails to participate without good cause, the payment is
reduced by the minimum wage of $5.15.
W-2 is a multi-level program we call our ladder of employment.
There are four rungs on this ladder including:
Unsubsidized Employment: Applicants who are ready for an
unsubsidized job do not receive a cash grant, but do receive supportive
services and case management to help them find or maintain employment.
Trial Jobs: Employer receives a subsidy to provide on-the-job
training to the participant. The participant receives regular
employment wages and may be hired permanently by the employer upon
successful completion of the trial job.
Community Service Job: Participants receive $673 per month in
exchange for work training and educational activities.
W-2 Transitions: Participants with more severe barriers to work
receive $628 per month in exchange for participation in appropriate
activities that move the participant towards employment.
What has Wisconsin accomplished with the flexibility granted to us
under TANF?
We are able to tailor employment services to the needs of the
individual. States' continued flexibility here is most critical because
no two families have the same set of service needs. W-2's unique
approach combines education with a progression of subsidized work
training placements, allowing participants to get the type of training
they are most in need of. Everyone is required to participate to the
extent his or her abilities allow. Parents who are found to have more
severe barriers such as substance abuse, physical or mental health
issues or domestic violence, are offered a legitimate opportunity to
address their needs through counseling, treatment, or vocational
rehabilitation.
Let's take a case example from Wisconsin: This is a 35-year old
woman living in an urban area of Wisconsin. She struggles with both
physical and psychological issues including a back problem that is
aggravated by obesity, post traumatic stress syndrome, depression and
panic attacks. She continues on medication for depression, pain, blood
pressure, and muscle relaxants. While the W-2 agency is assisting her
in an appeal for SSI benefits, they also continue to work with her on
activities that may help her someday become self-sufficient. Activities
include:
basic education studies--12 hours per week with a
goal of completing her General Equivalency Diploma;
Physical therapy, Dr's and dietitian appointments--
24 hours per week;
Mental Health Counseling--2 hours per week;
Support groups for pain management and grief--1 hour
per week;
The next steps for the agency and this participant are a vocational
evaluation and assessment and exploration of career goals when physical
and mental health symptoms are under control. You see can see by this
example, how critical it is for agencies to have discretion in
determining what activities are most appropriate.
Once participants are employed, cash benefits end, but employment
supports continue. Child care subsidies, family health care coverage,
transportation assistance, Job Access Loans and case management provide
working participants with a network of support services that help them
stabilize and prosper in their new work environment. Through case
management, case workers help newly hired participants think through
their work related needs and develop a plan for such things as back-up
child care arrangements, money management and reliable transportation.
We are engaging the whole community. Wisconsin's geographic
diversity--ranging from small rural communities to urban,
industrialized cities--calls for unique approaches that match the needs
of participants with the local employment conditions. To accomplish
this, partnerships have developed amongst W-2 providers, community
based organizations, and employers, enabling communities to develop
innovative solutions and communicate on a much broader level about
problems that impact on their participants.
Many of our W-2 participants have multiple problems in their lives
that require a network of support and guidance from outside sources.
And this need for support carries over into the work place. In
response, employers are providing mentoring relationships, specialized
training, and job retention services that help these parents learn to
balance the needs of their family and work. Business brings invaluable
resources to the program in the form of employment opportunity,
leadership, vision and financial support. Their participation is
critical to sustaining a healthy community.
We have revolutionized how we do business with our local W-2
providers through out-come driven performance standards. A set of 15
performance standards deals with such measures as successful attachment
to the workforce, educational activities attainment and increased
earnings. Our Performance Standards impact on W-2 agencies' contract
dollars and future eligibility to be granted a W-2 contract.
The competitive process to select the best and most enthusiastic
providers is essential to W-2 and Performance Standards are what drives
this process. How did we come to rely so heavily on this strategy? We
took a step back and analyzed what administrative requirements were
making the greatest impact on our program. In the end, we came to
realize that if we tell agencies what outcomes we expect for our
participants, they will find the means to make it happen. The
flexibility and empowerment strategies combined with these performance
standards and accountability are what made welfare reform such a
success in Wisconsin.
We've invested in initiatives that not only support parent's entry
into the workforce, but also more broadly help them work toward their
career and life aspirations:
Workforce Attachment and Advancement: offers services designed
to promote upward mobility for low-income working families and
non-custodial parents. WAA provides job retention and training
services, which are essential to improving employment stability
and advancement to higher wage levels.
Literacy Initiative: established workplace and family literacy
programs for low-income families to provide job-specific
literacy and vocabulary skills to adults in the workplace; and
provide child and family tutoring to improve the literacy
skills of individual family members.
We have merged two major Divisions within the Department of
Workforce Development enabling us to look at all of our workforce
programs as a spectrum of services with the goal of promoting upward
mobility and lifelong learning for all of Wisconsin's workforce. While
W-2 is the stepping stone into the workforce for parents with barriers
to employment, the program by itself may not raise someone out of
poverty. But the service delivery system in which W-2 participants are
served extends work supports and training opportunities to individuals
at income levels well above the poverty level.
Time Limits
Wisconsin views the 60 month time limits as an important means of
motivation for both the participants and the case managers. The
philosophy is quite simple: Time limits stress mutual responsibility.
Government provides support and services designed to promote employment
while, in return, participants are expected to prepare for and enter
employment. Therefore, from the moment participants begin participating
in W-2, they are urged to increase their work skills through work
activities and education and training and enter the workforce as soon
as possible, thus saving months of eligibility for future use.
Although the time limit provisions under TANF prompted states to
develop their own tougher state-specific time limit provisions,
Wisconsin is different in that it allows up to 60-months of lifetime
eligibility for W-2 benefits, but it limits the amount of time a person
can participate in each W-2 subsidized employment positions to just 24-
months. This is meant to encourage moving up the ``W-2 ladder'' towards
self-sufficiency without abruptly ending benefits. Based on the
Department's analysis of current TANF law and regulations, Wisconsin's
estimated caseload that will go beyond 60 months can continue to be
funded using TANF, and will stay well under the 20% for a significant
period of time.
Implementation of Time Limit Policies and Procedures
As we developed our policies and procedures and implemented time
limits, we found a number of consistencies across our W-2 caseload:
Although participants may be aware of time limits,
they do not understand the specific details of the policy.
The topic of time limits was neither at the
forefront of participant's minds nor a factor in influencing
their actions.
Participant's time limited benefits as one-time
deadline without considering whether they will have to return
to cash assistance or not.
Wisconsin developed policies and procedures to address these
consistencies. Frequent explanation of time limits and the details of
the policy, beginning with application and continuing throughout a
participant's time on W-2, assists them in understanding the detail of
the policies. Our FEPs (Financial and Employment Planners) must
continually assist participants in sorting through the day-to-day
complexities they may experience and create short-term strategies for
helping them--using the reinforcements the law and policy have given
them. And, the FEPs must assist participants in exploring other
resources the participant may be able to use and explain the need to
save for the future in case of emergencies such as labor market
downturn.
In addition, because we were not the first state to reach time
limits, we looked to other states for their experiences. What we
observed is that a number of states turned to a multitude of exemptions
and extensions that allowed thousands of cases to continue receiving
assistance despite the end of the time limit. As a result, the
participants and the local agencies cannot take time limits seriously.
This was an approach Wisconsin did not want to mirror. Based on other
states' experiences, Wisconsin found that:
Blanket exemptions or extensions lessen the sense of
urgency time limits place on recipients, case workers and
service providers;
Under some circumstances, allowing cases additional
time on cash assistance is a step backward into a trap that
leaves these harder-to-serve cases dependent upon cash
assistance, just as we experienced under AFDC;
Allowing wholesale extensions to state-imposed time
limits fails to prepare participants for the 60-month TANF time
limit;
From the start, Wisconsin saw the need to prepare our administering
agencies for the impacts of time-limits by ensuring that they were
providing up-front, intensive case management. However, we recognized
that even with encouragement and application of appropriate policies,
not everyone would be successful in finding employment prior to
reaching the time limits. For that reason, Wisconsin allows for
extensions on a case-by-case basis to the time limits to give
participants additional time in obtaining the skills, education and
training and other supports they need. When determining if a W-2
participant is appropriate for an extension, considerations include
prior cooperation with work requirements; inability to work due to
incapacitation; caring for other incapacitated family members;
significant limitations to employment, such as low achievement ability;
and inability to find work due to local labor market conditions.
Thoughts on Time Limits for TANF Reauthorization
TANF reauthorization should retain time limits as they currently
exist for the following reasons:
1. We need to continue to infuse a sense of URGENCY: by
nature, people procrastinate.
2. Forging an attachment to the workforce takes time. The
longer a work history you have--the more likely you can hold
onto the job you have or get another one when times are tough.
3. Our employees who run the program need to help people
quickly--because their clients need the income now. Staff need
the push of a time limit as much as our participants do.
4. Employers need workers today not tomorrow, and the job
that's there for our participant today may be filled with
someone else tomorrow.
5. Our children need parents who are working role models
TODAY. Researchers Wolfe and Haveman followed 1,700 families
for 21 years--discovered: incidences of a child dropping out of
school dropped by one-half when the parent worked full-time.
And finally,
6. A lifetime limit encourages people to treat government
income assistance like an insurance policy or a savings
account. Used sparingly, and as a last resource.
Child-Only Caseload
Our child-only caseload is stable and consists of children of SSI
recipients and Kinship Care cases. In these cases, the parent of the
child is either unable to work due to a disability or not caring for
the child due to child welfare concerns. Both of these programs are run
by the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services--this is
particularly critical for the Kinship Care cases. It ensures that child
welfare interventions and family reunification efforts can be made as
necessary.
Where do we go from here?
In Wisconsin, we are extending our efforts at serving the more
severely barriered segment of the caseload. The W-2 program is built on
the premise that everyone is capable of doing some form of work and
there is a place for everyone in the program who is willing to
participate to their ability. Given that premise, Wisconsin was careful
to build in features that ensure those individuals with more barriers
to employment will not fall through the cracks: the extension policies
I mentioned earlier for both the 24-month and 60-month time limits;
formal assessments are required for all W-2 participants placed in the
lowest rung of the W-2 program; and flexibility in participation
requirements which allow for services such as mental health counseling,
AODA treatment, or domestic abuse services. We have a number of new
initiatives underway that will serve to enhance our understanding of
what strategies are most successful with this population. Among other
things, we are contracting with the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
to design a screening tool for multiple barriers and we recently
implemented a performance standard that bases W-2 contract dollars on
appropriate assessment of participants.
Conclusion
TANF Reauthorization is an opportunity for Congress to further
strengthen families through work. But in doing so, Congress must keep
in mind the very real differences, not just across states, but from one
community to the next:
Rural communities vary drastically in their makeup
of human service resources, transportation services, and safe,
affordable housing when compared with Urban areas of a state;
and
Pockets of high unemployment are a reality in most
states. These communities need special consideration for
programs that attract new businesses and retraining of
workers--an effort that requires a long-term planning approach;
PRWORA's success thus far is based on the flexibility provided by
Congress, not in spite of it. And state and local innovation are
driving factors. It is difficult for researchers to study and quantify
our successes because the multiplicity of strategies across states has
created a program that looks like a patchwork quilt. But we owe it to
our children to stay on this path where meeting individuals needs are
paramount to meeting the needs of the system that serves them.
Thank you.
Chairman Herger. Thank you very much, Ms. Reinert, and
particularly for the great example that your State has set in
this area.
Now, we have the great pleasure of turning to our next
witness, Ms. Dannetta Graves, Director, Montgomery County
Department of Job and Family Services, Dayton, Ohio.
Ms. Graves.
STATEMENT OF DANNETTA GRAVES, DIRECTOR, MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES, DAYTON, OHIO
Ms. Graves. Thank you. To the honorable Members of the
Human Resources Subcommittee of the House Committee on Ways and
Means and Representative Wally Herger, Chairman, I am here
today to briefly discuss from a local perspective the
implemented program strategies and the necessary flexibility
and resources for the effective administration of work
requirements and time limits under the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.
Ohio welfare reform legislation, in response to PRWORA, not
only challenged counties to implement programs and strategies
that would assist families to reach and maintain their maximum
level of economic self-sufficiency, but also limited their
receipt of TANF cash assistance to 36 months. The family is
ineligible for 24 consecutive months before eligibility for
cash assistance can be reconsidered for an additional 24
months.
The flexibility provided by Congress in PRWORA allowed
Ohio's legislature to give counties two programs under which
TANF assistance to families is provided, Ohio Works First, the
cash assistance program, and the Prevention, Retention, and
Contingency program. While Ohio's work requirements, self-
sufficiency contracts between recipients and the county
department, sanctions for those who fail without good cause to
fulfill their obligation, and their time limits played a role
in our reform of the welfare system, it was the PRC program
that allowed us to achieve the level of success we continue to
enjoy, despite the current economic slowdown.
Montgomery County in July 1992 had 41,450 individuals,
nearly 15,000 families, receiving cash assistance at an average
cost of $4.58 million per month. Today, this number is 11,448
individuals, which is 5,128 families, and $1.67 million per
month.
This reduction is a direct result of Montgomery County's
heavy emphasis on work and work preparation, investment in our
Nationally recognized job center, which has some 48 partner
agencies in it, a PRC program that focuses on providing people
with the help they need to stay off public assistance, and our
ability to involve the community and faith-based organizations,
along with public agencies throughout the PRC-funded contracts
to provide a myriad of programs to adults and youth. Many of
these programs and services are targeted in Montgomery County's
poorest neighborhoods and academic-deficient school districts.
The programs are designed to achieve the following: Improve
a families' opportunity to obtain and retain employment,
promote youth academic success and career exploration and
development, connect families to resources that enhance career
advancement and earnings potential, reduce out-of-wedlock
pregnancies, promote family formation, provide mentoring for
families and youth, reduce substance abuse, increase general
education attainment and knowledge of community resources,
promote payment and receipt of child support, promote the
opportunities for homeownership, reduce school dropout rates,
and reduce family violence.
Montgomery County in July 1999 was faced with 1,370
families reaching the 36-month time limit in the first 3 months
beginning October 1 of 2000. The need was clear. We had to
implement a strategy that would significantly reduce the number
of families who would face time limits and provide follow-up
activities to those who actually did. In Ohio, each county had
to establish the hardship criteria for extension of cash
benefits.
The agency established the outreach unit, which provides
intensive treatment to all families who have reached receipt of
20 months of cash assistance. This treatment includes home
visits and assessments of the family situation to determine the
barriers to self-sufficiency and provide access to the
resources to address or relieve them. The intense treatment
provided greater insight to the dynamics that prevent the
realization of productive potential and growth. It also
directed our efforts to seek other, more permanent resources,
such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security
disability, as well as other interventions to improve the
family's stability and chances of achieving self-sufficiency.
This strategy resulted in only 170 families that actually
faced time limits in the first 3 months beginning in October of
2000. The family situations discovered from the intensive
efforts of the outreach unit, along with community forums with
various stakeholders, established the hardship criteria. Once
the criteria was applied, only 37 families had to face cash
assistance termination in the first 3 months of the time limit.
Also attached to my testimony, is information on these
statistics so you can see where we are today.
TANF reauthorization proposed by the President, in general,
has strong support from those of us who are responsible for its
local administration. However, increasing required work hours
from 30 to 40 hours per week will dramatically increase the
cost of child care. Adopting the work first philosophy means
you must provide quality child care at the level necessary to
achieve your goal. Limiting a State's ability to transfer TANF
funding to the social service block grant from 10 percent to
4.25 percent will severely impact some of our more innovative
and effective programs to move families out of poverty.
Maintaining an enhanced TANF flexibility will be an ongoing
theme from all who come before you. It is that flexibility that
allows us to assist families that are on cash assistance as
well as those who recently left the rolls and those poor
families who do not receive or have not received cash
assistance.
Remember, welfare reform is not just getting an adult
member of the family a job. That is just the beginning. It is
making sure that the children receive quality child care,
after-school academic and cultural enrichment services, and
career preparation. It is the availability of retention and
advancement services to ensure employment now and in the
future. Finally, it is the involvement of our community and
faith-based organizations to enhance the efforts of our public
agencies to improve the quality of life in our communities.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Graves follows:]
Statement of Danetta Graves, Director, Montgomery County Department of
Job and Family Services, Dayton, Ohio
Good Morning:
To the Honorable members of the Human Resource Subcommittee of the
House Committee on Ways and Means; Rep. Wally Herger, Chairman.
My name is Dannetta Graves and I am the director of the Montgomery
County Department of Job and Family Services, Dayton, Ohio.
I am here today to briefly discuss from a local perspective, the
implemented programs, strategies, and necessary flexibility and
resources for the effective administration of the work requirements and
time limits under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). Ohio's Welfare Reform legislation,
in response to PRWORA, not only challenged counties to implement
programs and strategies that would assist families to reach and
maintain their maximum level of economic self-sufficiency, but also
limited their receipt of TANF cash assistance to 36 months. The family
is ineligible for 24 consecutive months before eligibility for cash
assistance can be reconsidered for up to 24 additional months.
The flexibility provided by Congress in PRWORA allowed the Ohio
legislature to give counties two (2) programs under which TANF
assistance to families is provided: Ohio Works First (OWF), the cash
assistance program, and the Prevention, Retention, and Contingency
(PRC) program. While Ohio's work requirements, Self-Sufficiency
Contracts between the recipients and the county department, sanctions
for those who failed without good cause to fulfill their obligations
and time limits played a role in our reform of the welfare system, it
was the PRC program that allowed us to achieve the level of success
that we continue to enjoy despite the current economic slow-down.
Montgomery County in July of 1992 had 41,450 individuals (nearly
15,000 families) receiving cash assistance at an average cost of $4.58
million per month. Today that number is 11,448 individuals (5,128
families) at $1.67 million per month. This reduction is a direct result
of Montgomery County's heavy emphasis on work and work preparation,
investment in our nationally recognized Job Center (One-Stop Career
Center with 48 partner agencies), a PRC program that focuses on
providing people with the help they need to stay off public assistance,
and our ability to involve Community and Faith-Based organizations
along with public agencies through PRC funded contracts to provide a
myriad of programs for adults and youth. Many of these programs and
services were targeted in Montgomery County's poorest neighborhoods and
academic deficient school districts. The program services are designed
to achieve the following:
Improve a family's opportunity to obtain and retain
employment
Promote youth academic success, career exploration
and development
Connect families to resources that enhance career
advancement and earnings potential
Reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies
Promote family formation
Provide mentoring for families and youth
Reduce substance abuse
Increase general educational attainment and
knowledge of community resources
Promote the payment/receipt of child support
Promote the opportunities for home ownership
Reduce school drop-out rates
Reduce family violence
Montgomery County in July of 1999 was faced with 1,370 families
reaching their 36 month time limit in the first three months beginning
October 1, 2000. The need was clear. We had to implement a strategy
that would significantly reduce the number of families who would face
time limits and provide follow-up activities to those who actually did.
In Ohio, each county had to establish the Hardship Criteria for
extension of cash benefits. The Agency established the Outreach Unit
which provides intensive treatment to all families who have reached
receipt of 20 months of cash assistance. This treatment includes home
visits and assessment of the family's situation to determine the
barriers to self-sufficiency and provide access to resources to address
or relieve them.
This intense treatment provided greater insight to the dynamics
that prevent the realization of productive potential and growth. It
also directed our efforts to seek other more permanent resources (i.e.,
SSI and SSA disability) as well as other interventions to improve
family stability and the chances of achieving self-sufficiency. This
strategy resulted in only 170 families that actually faced time-limits
in the first three (3) months beginning in October 2000. The family
situations discovered from the intensive efforts of the Outreach Unit
along with community forums with various stakeholder groups established
the Hardship Criteria for extended benefits. Once the criteria was
applied, only 37 families had their cash assistance actually terminated
in the first three (3) months under time limits. Once again, PRC funded
programs are used in the intensive efforts to reduce the number of
families that face losing eligibility for cash benefits.
TANF Reauthorization proposed by the President in general has
strong support by those of us who are responsible for its local
administration. However, increasing the required work hours from 30 to
40 hours per week will dramatically increase the cost of chid care.
Adopting the ``Work First'' philosophy means you must provide quality
child care at the level necessary to achieve your goal. Limiting a
state's ability to transfer TANF funding to the Social Service Block
Grant from 10% to 4.25% will severely impact some of our more
innovative and effective programs to move families out of poverty.
Maintaining and enhancing TANF flexibility will be an ongoing theme of
all who come before you. It is that flexibility that allows us to
assist families that are on cash assistance as well as those who
recently left the rolls and those poor families who do not receive cash
assistance.
Remember, Welfare Reform is not just getting the adult members of
the family a job--that's just the beginning. It's making sure that
children receive quality child care, after school academic and cultural
enrichment services, and career preparation. It's the availability of
retention and advancement services to ensure employment now and in the
future. Finally, it's the involvement of our Community and Faith-Based
organizations to enhance the efforts of our public agencies to improve
the quality of life in our communities.
[Attachments are being retained in the Committee files.]
Chairman Herger. Thank you very much, Ms. Graves. Now, we
will hear from Mr. Mark Greenberg, Senior Staff Attorney,
Center for Law and Social Policy. Mr. Greenberg?
STATEMENT OF MARK H. GREENBERG, SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY, CENTER
FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY
Mr. Greenberg. Thank you. Mr. Herger and Members of the
Committee, I appreciate being asked to testify today and
appreciate your continuing interest in welfare reform.
As we look ahead to reauthorization of the 1996 law, I
think it is important to step back and acknowledge what an
extraordinary shift there has been in the basic direction and
orientation of State programs in recent years. This shift began
well before the 1996 law, but was clearly accelerated by the
1996 law. It has had the effect of fundamentally reorienting
State welfare programs as programs that see their goals as
helping to link families with employment. There are sometimes
controversies about how States go about doing it and the best
ways to do it, but I think there has been a broad-based shift
across the country toward this basic orientation.
A number of features of the 1996 law, not just the
participation rates, contributed to this reorientation. The
fixed funding contributed, both by telling States they had a
limited amount of funding to use and at the same time that when
their caseloads went down, that they would be able to redirect
it to an array of other activities, including a whole set of
activities to support low-income working families.
The time limits likely contributed to the reorientation.
The provisions of the law that involved engagement and work
within a 2-year period contributed. The increased funding for
child care contributed. The increased availability of health
care outside the welfare system contributed. In short, a whole
set of things contributed to a fundamental reorientation of how
States saw what they were trying to do.
Over the last number of years, we have seen an
unprecedented caseload decline and we know from a lot of
research that most of the families that have left assistance
have entered into employment. At the same time, we know that
often that employment is not stable, often that employment is
low-wage, without basic benefits.
As States and others now focus on the next directions for
welfare reform, a lot of the conversation involves the families
still receiving assistance, and there is a very strong sense
that many of those families have multiple barriers to
employment. While these barriers may not prevent work, the do
call for different strategies.
I am aware of the Urban Institute research and the GAO
research on this topic, and I can only tell you that if you
talk to State and local administrators, they will readily
describe to you the extent of multiple barriers that they are
now seeing and trying to figure out now to address.
At the same time, there is enormous interest in trying to
address the issue of how to help people find better jobs. Part
of it is a conversation about what should happen while families
are receiving assistance. Part of it is focused on what should
happen to provide supports after families receive assistance.
And there is a conversation about how to try to ensure that
those families who do enter work are able to meet their health
care needs and their child care needs and make ends meet.
I have been struck over the course of the morning at the
extent of focus on things like child-only cases and separate
State programs. I can tell you that I know of no State in the
country that is interested in trying to find ways to structure
programs where people who are able to work can avoid work
obligations. That is not the focus of the State efforts.
There was clearly a significant number of States that did
move two-parent families into separate State programs. They did
so because they looked at the Federal participation
requirements, they saw a 90-percent rate, and they recognized
that if they helped two-parent families in their TANF programs,
they would face serious risk of Federal penalties. That is why
they did it. But politically, fiscally, conceptually, they have
no interest in running programs where people are provided
indefinite assistance without being expected to work.
I do think that there is a serious data issue in trying to
have a better picture of the extent of engagement in work-
related activities. From Federal participation data, we have
good information about the numbers of families who are engaged
in activities enough to count toward Federal participation
rates. We do not have good information about what families are
doing that does not count toward participation rates, because
States are free to report that information on a voluntary basis
but are not required to report it. A number of States clearly
do not. We can state with confidence that at least 40 percent
are engaged in activities. We know that the numbers are surely
higher than that, but we do not have good information as to
what those are.
As you look ahead to reauthorization, it surely makes sense
to get rid of a caseload reduction credit, because it simply
rewards caseload reduction without regard to employment. It
makes sense to put the focus on employment, and to have a
measure of people leaving due to employment.
It makes sense to broaden the countable activities to give
States broader flexibility. I think it makes sense to provide
additional funding to States so they expand the use of
subsidized work programs, not on an indiscriminate basis, but
for targeted use for families with serious employment barriers.
And, it makes sense for States to have the flexibility to
provide ongoing help to low-income working families without
having to face Federal time limits restricting the ability to
help those who go to work.
I hope that these themes can be explored in the continuing
discussion of reauthorization. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Greenberg follows:]
Statement of Mark H. Greenberg, 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 closely followed research and data relating to
implementation of Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act. In addition, we often talk and visit with state
officials, administrators, program providers, and individuals directly
affected by the implementation of welfare reform efforts.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This testimony reflects ongoing collaborative work with a
number of CLASP colleagues, including Steve Savner, Julie Strawn,
Rutledge Hutson, and Hedieh Rahmanou.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's hearing focuses on implementation of work requirements and
time limits in state programs under the 1996 law. In the next few
minutes, I'll briefly discuss the requirements of the law, experience
since 1996, and potential issues for reauthorization. While I'll focus
on the specific details of the law, my principal points are:
Since 1996, the nation has seen an unprecedented
increase in employment among welfare recipients and, more
generally, among low-income single parent families.
Work-related provisions, time limits, and other
features of TANF made important contributions, but have not
been the only factors, in this employment growth.
The 1996 law set broad directions, but allowed
states enormous flexibility in the structuring their programs,
and states have used that flexibility to take a range of
approaches, but all focusing on expanding work among low-income
families.
While work has increased, there are at least three
work-related concerns that need to be addressed in
reauthorization: how to increase employment among those
families with the most serious barriers; how to help families
get better jobs; and how to ensure that low-earning families
receive needed health care and child care assistance and have
enough income to make ends meet.
To address these concerns, Congress should:
broaden states' abilities to count a range
of activities toward participation rates, so that
states can develop individualized plans that are most
effective in helping families enter sustainable
employment;
end restrictions on states' ability to use
vocational training as a strategy for helping parents
attain access to better jobs;
eliminate the TANF caseload reduction
credit, which currently rewards states for any caseload
reduction, whether or not it is due to employment;
instead, establish a structure under which states are
rewarded based on families leaving assistance due to
employment, with greater emphasis on higher-paying
jobs;
provide additional dedicated funding to
encourage states to implement transitional jobs
programs for TANF recipients and other low-income
individuals with serious employment barriers;
improve access to public benefits for low-
earning families, expand child care funding, and allow
states to use federal TANF funds to provide ongoing
help to low-earning working families without that help
being subject to TANF time limits.
The Administration's proposal would raise TANF
participation rates, require 40 hours of participation to fully
count toward participation rates, and limit the activities that
could count toward the first 24 hours of participation to a set
of ``direct work'' activities. Unfortunately, this approach
would significantly restrict state flexibility, compel states
to adopt models that do not reflect their best judgments about
how to structure programs, and pressure states to adopt
approaches that are not consistent with key research findings
about the most effective welfare-to-work programs. Moreover,
any proposal that envisions significant increases in numbers
and hours of participants needs to carefully consider and
adequately address the program and child care costs that would
necessarily arise in meeting such requirements.
Employment Outcomes Under TANF
The 1996 welfare law sought to emphasize work in a number of ways:
by giving states fixed funding that would remain constant as caseloads
fell, expanding child care funding, imposing time limits on federally-
funded assistance, ending entitlements to assistance, ensuring that
low-income families could receive Medicaid without participating in
welfare, encouraging a ``work first'' philosophy, requiring that
families must be ``engaged in work'' as defined by states within 24
months, and by providing that states would face federal penalties
unless they met annual work participation rates. At this hearing, much
of the focus will be on participation rate rules. While it is valuable
to review states' experience with participation rates, it is also
important to appreciate that participation rates have only been one
aspect of an overall effort to reorient welfare systems and promote and
support work.
All available evidence points to a dramatic increase in employment
among low-income single mothers in recent years. In announcing its
welfare reform proposal, the Administration reported that after a
decade in which the annual employment rate for single mothers hovered
around 58%, the rate had increased every year through 2000, and reached
over 73% of mothers heading families in 2000. Moreover, employment
rates for never-married mothers increased from under 46% in 1995 to
nearly 66% in 2000, an increase of over 40% in just five years. The
Administration observed: ``These employment increases by single mothers
and former welfare mothers are unprecedented. By 2000, the percentage
of single mothers with a job reached an all-time high.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Working Toward Independence, pp. 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TANF played an important role in this employment growth, though it
is probably impossible to isolate TANF's independent role. The growth
in employment of low-income single mothers with young children began
between 1992 and 1993. During the 1990s, a set of factors contributed
to this employment growth: the strong national economy, the expansion
of the Earned Income Tax Credit, increased availability of child care
subsidies, expansion of health coverage for children, the minimum wage
increase, and improved child support enforcement. There seems to be a
consensus among researchers that welfare reform efforts played an
important role, with the effects more pronounced in latter years.\3\
Other factors occurring at the same time all pushed in the same
direction, and we don't know how the same policies would have worked in
a different economy, or how one component would have worked without the
others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Rebecca M. Blank, Declining Caseloads/Increased Work: What Can
We Conclude About the Effects of Welfare Reform?,'' FRBNY Economic
Policy Review, (New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, September
2001), Available online: www.newyorkfed.org/maghome/econ--pol/2001/
801rbla.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``TANF effect'' involved both additional requirements and
federal block grant funds that became available because of caseload
declines. Since funding levels were generally set to reflect welfare
caseloads from the early-mid 1990s, and caseloads began falling in
1994, states were able to redirect funds previously spent on cash
assistance to employment-related services, among other activities.
Notably, by FY 2000, nearly $4 billion in TANF funds was being
committed to child care, much of it directed to expanding child care
for low-earning working families outside the welfare system. States
also committed freed-up funds to expanding transportation assistance;
state earned income tax credits, nonrecurrent-short term benefits,
employment retention and advancement initiatives, and other
expenditures to help low-earning working families.
Challenges in the next stage of welfare reform
As states, researchers, and others have reviewed TANF's record,
there has been little dispute about states' strong emphasis on work.
Rather, work-related concerns have often centered in three key areas:
how to help families with the most serious
employment barriers enter employment;
how to help families get better jobs; and
how to help families entering employment receive
needed health care and child care assistance and have enough
income to make ends meet.
First, families still receiving assistance often have serious and
multiple barriers to employment. A General Accounting Office study
found that 44% of TANF recipients had at least one physical or mental
impairment.\4\ Estimates of the prevalence of substance abuse among
TANF recipients range from 6% to 27%.\5\ Two studies found that about a
quarter of TANF recipients have a child with an illness, disability or
emotional problem.\6\ Estimates of recent or current domestic violence
are generally in 20-30% range--while estimates of lifetime experience
of domestic violence tend to be in the 50-60% range.\7\ In 1999, about
44% of adult TANF recipients lacked a high school diploma or GED.\8\
Studies in three states suggest that between a fifth and a third of
parents receiving TANF have learning disabilities.\9\ Limited English
proficiency is also a problem in many places; for example, in Los
Angeles County, 41% of the TANF caseload had limited English
proficiency.\10\ The existence of barriers doesn't preclude work, but
multiple barriers make it more difficult.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: More
Coordinated Federal Effort Could Help States and Localities Move TANF
Recipients With Impairments Toward Employmen t, GAO-02-37, (Washington,
DC, October 31, 2001), 3. Available online: http://www.gao.gov
\5\ Amanda Barusch, Mary Jane Taylor, and Soleman Abu-Bader,
Understanding Families with Multiple Barriers to Self Sufficiency,
(Salt Lake City: University of Utah, Social Research Institute, 1999),
21; Sandra K. Danziger, Ariel Kalil, and Nathaniel J. Anderson, ``Human
Capital, Physical Health, and Mental Health of Welfare Recipients: Co-
occurrence and Correlates,'' Journal of Social Issue s, Vol. 56, (4),
(Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2000), 635-654; Rukmalie Jayakody,
Sheldon Danziger, and Harold Pollak, ``Welfare Reform, Substance Use
and Mental Health,'' Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, Vol.
25(4), (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2000); Gretchen Kirby &
Jacquelyn Anderson, Addressing Substance Abuse Problems Among TANF
Recipients: A Guide for Program Administrators, Final Report,
(Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research Inc., July 2000).
\6\ Heidi Goldberg, Improving TANF Program Outcomes for Families
with Barriers to Employment, (Washington DC: The Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, January 2002) available online at http://
www.cbpp.org.
\7\ Richard M. Tolman and Jody Raphael, ``A Review of Research on
Welfare and Domestic Violence,'' Journal of Social Issue s, Vol. 56(4),
(Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2000), 655-82.
\8\ Sheila R. Zedlewski and Donald Alderson, Before and After
Reform: How Have Families on Welfare Changed?, (Washington, DC: The
Urban Institute, April 2001), available online at: http://
newfederalism.urban.org/html/series__b/b32/b32.html
\9\ Heidi Goldberg, Improving TANF Program Outcomes for Families
with Barriers to Employment, (Washington DC: The Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, January 2002) available online at http://
www.cbpp.org.
\10\ Heidi Goldberg, Improving TANF Program Outcomes for Families
with Barriers to Employment, (Washington DC: The Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, January 2002) available online at http://
www.cbpp.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, while employment growth has been dramatic, much of the
employment has been in low-wage jobs. For working adults receiving
assistance, earnings averaged $597.97 per month in FY 99.\11\ According
to the Urban Institute's Nation Survey of America's Families, median
wages for recent welfare leavers in 1999 were $7.15 an hour.\12\ State
studies typically report wages in that range. A CLASP review of more
than 30 recent leavers studies found that median wages ranged from
$6.00 to $8.47 an hour, while median first quarter earnings ranged from
$1,884 to $3,416, with most states showing median quarterly earnings of
$2,000 to $2,500.\13\ In CLASP's review, five states reported average
annual earnings for leavers continuously employed since leaving, and in
no case did the average earnings exceed the poverty guideline for a
family of three. Moreover, while there is some earnings growth over
time, earnings remain low for most of the affected families. CLASP's
review found that in most states, earnings in the fourth quarter after
exit grew by only a few hundred dollars above first quarter earnings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
``Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients,
Fiscal Year 1999,'' Available online: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/
opre/characteristics/fy99/analysis.htm
\12\ Pamela Loprest, How Are Families That Left Welfare Doing? A
Comparison of Early and Recent Welfare Leavers, (Washington, DC: The
Urban Institute, April 2001), 3. Available online: http://
newfederalism.urban.org/pdf/anf__b36.pdf
\13\ Elise Richer, Steve Savner, and Mark Greenberg, Frequently
Asked Questions about Working Welfare Leavers, (Washington, DC: Center
for Law and Social Policy, November 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the fact that those entering employment often have low
earnings underscores the importance of access to ``work supports''--
Food Stamps, Medicaid, child care assistance, and child support
services--as a strategy for helping families in low-wage jobs meet
basic needs. However, participation in Food Stamps and Medicaid sharply
declines after families leave assistance, most working leavers do not
receive child care assistance, and most leavers do not receive child
support. And, under current law, if a state uses TANF funds to provide
ongoing help to a low-earning working family, that assistance counts
toward the federal five-year time limit. Thus, one key set of issues
for reauthorization concerns how to improve access to work support
programs for low-earning working families.
TANF participations rates: background
The 1996 law has two separate participation rates: an overall rate
and a separately calculated two-parent rate. States risk penalties if
they do not satisfy these requirements. To count toward a participation
rate, an individual must participate in a federally ``countable
activity'' for a specified number of hours each week. The overall rates
increased from 25% in 1997 to 50% in 2002, and two-parent rates
increased from 75% to 90%; however, under a provision known as the
caseload reduction credit, a state's actual rates can be adjusted
downward if the state's caseload has fallen since 1995 for reasons
other than changes in eligibility rules, and as a result, states have
typically had effective rates far below the listed ones.
To count toward the overall rate, single-parent families with
children under age six must be engaged in countable activities for at
least 20 hours a week; all other families must be engaged for at least
30 hours a week. Generally, a state can count hours in paid or unpaid
work, job search and job readiness (for up to six weeks) and vocational
training (for up to a year for part of the caseload) toward the first
20 hours of activity, and a broader list toward required hours in
excess of 20.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ More precisely, under current law, to count toward the all-
families rate, at least 20 hours per week must be attributable to:
Unsubsidized or subsidized employment;
Work experience and community service programs, i.e., work
without wages in return for receiving the welfare grant;
On-the-job training;
Provision of child care services to an individual who is
participating in a community service program;
Vocational educational training for up to 12 months,
provided that no more than 30% of those counting toward a state's
participation rate may do by being engaged in vocational educational
training or by being teen parents engaged in school completion;
Job search and job readiness assistance for up to 6 weeks
(or twelve weeks in periods of high unemployment).
In addition, teen parents can count toward the participation rates
by being engaged in school completion or education directly related to
employment, but such activities are counted within the 30% cap
described above.
For the all-families rate, hours in excess of 20 may be counted
when an individual participates in:
Job skills training directly related to employment;
Education directly related to employment, for a recipient
who has not received a high school diploma or a certificate of high
school equivalency; or
Satisfactory attendance at secondary school or in a course
of study leading to a certificate of general equivalence, for a
recipient who has not completed secondary school or received such a
certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In FY 2000, every state met its overall participation rate
requirement.\15\ The national overall participation rate was 34%. Every
state qualified for a caseload reduction credit, and most states had
adjusted required rates of 10% or less. At the same time, most states
exceeded their adjusted required rates by thirty percentage points or
more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Vermont's participation level was not determined, because the
state asserted it was not subject to the participation rate
requirements until the expiration of its waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most common activity counting toward satisfying participation
requirements was participation in unsubsidized employment: In FY 2000,
two-thirds (66%) of those counting toward participation rates did so
through unsubsidized employment, followed by job search (11.7%); work
experience (10.6%); vocational educational training (10.5%); community
service (6.4%), with the remainder in other countable activities. At
the same time, states varied significantly in their approaches. For
example, in five states (Montana, Wisconsin, South Dakota, West
Virginia, and Wyoming) more than half of countable participants were
engaged in work experience or community service. But, in most states,
less than 10% of those counting toward participation rates were in such
activities, and in five states (Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana,
Connecticut, and Iowa) less than 1% were engaged. Similarly, states
also took very different approaches to using vocational educational
training in their programs, with nine states reporting over 20% of
those counting toward participation rates in vocational educational
training, while thirteen states reported less than 5%.
A state's participation rate is not a measure of the extent of
``engagement'' among families, because it counts the number of persons
who participated in a federally-specified set of activities for a
specified number of hours during the month. States can voluntarily
choose to report additional participation in other activities, and some
states elect to do so. From that reporting, one can determine that at
least 40% of TANF adults were engaged in state-reported activities each
month. The actual figure would surely be higher if all states were
reporting engagement in state-approved activities, but from current
reporting, one cannot determine the actual numbers engaged, or what
they were engaged in, or what share were engaged over a period of
months.
Similarly, the participation rate is not a measure of state success
in job placements or of the quality of job entries. In fact, in some
circumstances, a state might find that rapid job entries translate to a
lower participation rate, particularly if entering employment means
immediate or rapid loss of assistance. Some states have clearly sought
to maximize participation in federally-specified activities, and others
have adopted different approaches, but from available data, it is not
possible to determine whether one approach has had stronger impacts in
increasing employment.
For two-parent families, the 1996 law established participation
rates escalating from 75% to 90%. A number of states made judgments
that it would be impossible to reach a 90% rate, and that they would
face federal penalties if they assisted two-parent families in their
TANF programs. As a result, in FY 2000, seventeen states did not assist
two-parent families in their TANF programs; instead, HHS indicates that
fourteen states designed ``separate state programs,'' using maintenance
of effort funds, and assisted all or some of the state's two-parent
families in these separate programs. Generally, the goal of these
programs was not to avoid work requirements for two-parent families,
but rather to be able to assist them, impose work requirements, and
provide needed work-related services without subjecting the state to
risk of federal penalties. And, the participation rate in separate
state programs--43.1%--was close to the national average participation
rate of 48.9% in TANF-funded two-parent families. Nationally, only two
states (Illinois and Rhode Island) reported reaching a 90%
participation rate for two-parent families.
TANF Participation Rates: Recommendations
A threshold question is whether there could be a better approach to
measuring employment outcomes than the current participation rate
structure. The 1996 law provided for high performance bonuses, and
bonuses were awarded in 1999 and 2000 for state outcomes relating to
job entries, earnings gains, and employment retention. Some
administrators have expressed concern that participation rates only
measure ``process,'' and that it would be better to have an option to
be measured by employment outcomes. There are a number of difficult
questions about how to design such a system, but in reauthorization,
Congress might consider building in sufficient flexibility to allow
states to elect to be accountable for a set of outcome measures in lieu
of participation rates.
Assuming a basic participation rate structure, though, we recommend
four key changes for reauthorization:
First, Congress should replace the caseload reduction credit with a
credit that reflects families leaving assistance due to employment. The
caseload reduction credit has rewarded caseload reduction whether or
not it translated to employment. It should be replaced with a measure
that actually focuses on whether leavers are employed, and gives states
more credit for families entering sustainable employment at higher
wages.
Second, the separate two-parent participation rates should be
eliminated, so that states need not fear that they will risk federal
penalties by assisting two-parent families in their TANF programs.
Third, the law's restriction on counting vocational educational
training should be removed. In the TANF structure, a state has no
incentive to allow participation in training unless the state believes
that the training will help an individual enter employment or get a
better job. The state should be free to make that choice.
Fourth, states should be allowed to have broader discretion to
count ``barrier removal activities'' toward participation rates. As
states have begun working with families with multiple barriers (e.g.,
health, mental health, disability, substance abuse, domestic violence,
lack of English language proficiency), they have typically been unable
to count involvement in individualized, barrier removal activities
toward the rates. Again, a state has no incentive to allow or pay for
such activities unless the state believes it will be an effective means
to help a family move toward employment.
H.R. 3625, introduced by Reps. Cardin, Stark, Levin, McDermott, and
Doggett, reflects a number of constructive provisions in its approach
to participation rates. The bill would eliminate the caseload reduction
credit, and substitute an employment credit; eliminate the 30% cap on
vocational training and allow such training to count toward
participation rates for up to 24 months; and allow barrier removal
activities to count toward participation rates for up to six months.
Finally, Congress should make available additional funding, on an
optional basis, for states to expand the use of transitional jobs.
Since 1997, several states (including Washington, Pennsylvania, and
Minnesota) and more than 30 cities have established transitional jobs
programs to help increase employment and earnings of TANF recipients
who have been unable to find stable, unsubsidized employment. Such
programs generally combine wage-paying jobs with skill development
activities and related support services. Over 30 programs responding to
a CLASP survey reported promising results, but transitional jobs are
typically not used in state TANF programs, in part because they are
more expensive than other alternatives. While we do not recommend
requiring states to adopt such programs, we do recommend providing
additional funding to encourage their replication and expansion.
Participation Rates: The Administration's Approach
The Administration has proposed an extensive set of new
requirements, and the full details are not yet available. However, key
provisions would:
Increase the monthly participation rate from 50% to
70% by 2007, while phasing out the caseload reduction credit.
Increase weekly participation requirement from 20
hours for single parents with children under 6 and 30 hours for
other parents to 40 hours for all families with children age 1
or older.
Provide that in meeting the 40-hour requirement, at
least 24 hours must be in ``direct'' work activities--
unsubsidized or subsidized employment, supervised work
experience or community service programs, on-the-job training
and school completion for teen parents. Vocational training and
barrier removal activities would generally not be countable
toward the first 24 hours each week. For up to 3 months in a 24
month period, states could count participation in short-term
substance abuse treatment, rehabilitation, and work-related
training toward meeting the 24-hour direct work requirement.
In addition, states could count individuals who leave TANF due to
employment for up to three months, and could exclude families from the
participation rate calculation for the first month of assistance.
We share the Administration's goals of increasing engagement of
families with the most serious barriers, and of helping families enter
sustainable employment and advance to better jobs. At the same time, we
have three principal concerns about the Administration's specific
proposal, and an additional concern about potential costs.
First, the proposal is significantly more prescriptive and
restrictive than current law. The combination of increasing effective
rates, raising hourly requirements, and limiting the activities that
can count toward the first 24 hours of engagement would allow states
far less flexibility in structuring activities than they currently
have. For example, a state may now count full-time engagement in
vocational training for up to 12 months (subject to a limit on the
total number countable), but under the proposal, no more than 3 months
of full-time engagement in vocational training would be allowable.
States may now count engagement in job search for up to six weeks a
year, while under the proposal, any counting of job search would
compete with any other activity that a state wanted to count toward the
``flexible'' three-month allowance. States can now choose whether to
require more than 20 hours of participation for single parents of
children under age 6, while under this proposal, they would be required
to establish 40-hour participation plans for such families with
children age 1 and older.
Second, the proposal does not reflect the best judgment of most
states about how to structure their programs. The Administration's
approach reflects a particular program model, and any state is free to
adopt that model under the current TANF structure, but states have
generally not elected to do so. In structuring their TANF programs,
some states have placed strong emphasis on job search programs aimed at
connecting families with employment as rapidly as possible. Some have
greatly liberalized their policies to broaden support to families who
enter low-wage jobs. Most states significantly reduced the role of
education and training in their programs (at least in part due to
federal participation rate rules), but education and training remains a
significant component in some states. Generally, most states have made
only limited use of unpaid work experience and community service
programs, and even more limited use of subsidized employment and on-
the-job training. No state reports that participants averaged 40 hours
of engagement a week. At least in part, this is because a parent
employed for forty hours a week will not be eligible for continuing
TANF assistance in most states. Rather, in FY 2000, states reported an
average of 29 hours a week for those reported participating in one or
more work-related activities.
One of the strongest themes in state experience has been concern
about imposing one-size-fits all rules. For some recipients in some
circumstances, a well-structured work experience program may be an
entirely appropriate activity that can help the individual move toward
unsubsidized employment. But, for an individual with substantial recent
work experience, it may be wholly inappropriate. And, some individuals
with multiple barriers may be able to move into a structured work
activity within three months, but one would be hard-pressed to say that
that would be true for all individuals at all times. And, some training
programs can be completed in three months, but the federal government
is ill-suited to say that three months is right and four months is
wrong.
Finally, the Administration's proposed approach is not what would
be suggested from the welfare-to-work research. The best evidence from
two decades of evaluations of welfare-work strategies is that the most
effective approaches are ``mixed strategy'' programs. Such programs
provide a range of services, such as job search, life skills, work-
focused basic education, and occupational training. The most successful
site by far in National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies
(NEWWS)--Portland, Oregon--stressed moving individuals into the
workforce quickly but emphasized finding good jobs and allowed the
first activity for each person to vary depending on skills, work
history, and other factors.\16\ Portland not only increased overall
employment and earnings by much more than the other ten sites but also
helped people stay employed longer and increase their earnings
more.\17\ More generally, programs achieving the biggest and longest-
lasting impacts on employment and earnings have consistently been those
using a mix of services, and have not have had large work experience
components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Freedman, Stephen, Daniel Friedlander, Gayle Hamilton, JoAnn
Rock, Marisa Mitchell, Jodi Nudelman, Amanda Schweder, and Laura
Storto. 2000. Evaluating Alternative Welfare-to-Work Approaches: Two-
Year Impacts for Eleven Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Education.
\17\ National Evaluation of Welfare to Work Strategies: Four-Year
Impacts of Ten Programs on Employment Stability and Earnings Growth,''
Stephen Freedman, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, December
2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, programs that have raised wages typically provided
substantial access to job training. While many moved into jobs quickly
in Portland, some received adult education and vocational training for
a year or more, attaining occupational certificates that enabled them
to qualify for higher paying jobs.\18\ The NEWWS evaluation, and
earlier research on the Center for Employment Training, suggest that
access to occupational training, especially for those without a high
school diploma or GED, may be a key to helping recipients find higher
paying jobs. The three NEWWS sites that most increased hourly pay for
nongraduates--Columbus, Detroit, and Portland--also boosted
participation in postsecondary education or occupational training.
Nongraduates in Portland were four times more likely to receive a trade
license or certificate than those not in the program. Other programs,
such as Alameda County GAIN and Baltimore Options, have used training
to increase wages for high school graduates.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Scrivener, Susan, Gayle Hamilton, Mary Farrell, Stephen
Freedman, Daniel Friedlander, Marisa Mitchell, Jodi Nudelman, and
Christine Schwartz. 1998. The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work
Strategies: Implementation, Participation Patterns, Costs, and Two-Year
Impacts of the Portland (Oregon) Welfare-to-Work Program. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of
Education.
\19\ Strawn, Julie, and Karin Martinson. 2000. Steady Work and
Better Jobs: How to Help Low-Income Parents Sustain Employment and
Advance in the Workforce. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sharp contrast, the best research evidence indicates that work
experience programs have not increased employment or earnings. Based on
research conducted on a number of unpaid work experience in the 1980's,
the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation concluded, ``there is
little evidence that unpaid work experience leads to consistent
employment or earnings effects.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ ``Unpaid Work Experience for Welfare Recipients: Findings and
Lessons from MDRC Research'' Thomas Brock, David Butler, and David
Long, MDRC, September 1993, p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transitional Jobs programs that combine paid work with education
and support services have achieved promising results. In contrast to
unpaid work experience, research on the Washington State Community Jobs
program, a Transitional Jobs program that provides paid work and access
to education, training and other services shows positive placement and
wage rates for recipients with significant and multiple barriers to
employment.\21\ Transitional jobs programs are costly, however, and not
appropriate for everyone and so cannot be implemented on the scale that
would be needed to meet the Administration's proposed requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ ``Effects of WorkFirst Activities on Employment and Earnings,
Marieka Klawitter, Evans School of Public Affairs, University of
Washington, September 2001, p. 4-5, http://www.wa.gov/WORKFIRST/about/
studyActiv.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drawing from this research, we do not recommend a single model for
all states, but rather that states should continue to have flexibility
in structuring their programs; it is appropriate for a participation
rate structure to encourage states to increase engagement, but not for
the federal government to mandate the specific strategies that states
must use.
Finally, it seems clear that greatly increasing numbers of
participants and numbers of hours of participation will result in
increased program costs and increased child care costs. Yet the
Administration has proposed continuing TANF funding at FY 01 levels and
continuing child care funding at FY 02 levels. The fact that a proposal
would cost money is not, in itself, an argument against the proposal,
but it is an argument for ensuring that the costs are estimated and
adequately addressed. In FY 01, TANF spending by states exceeded the
amount of state basic block grants, and it is unclear what states would
be expected to cut in order to address the program costs. And, with
fixed child care funding, states would face the specter of cutting
child care funding for low-earning working families outside the welfare
system in order to meet the new requirements.
Time Limits
The 1996 law imposed restrictions on the use of federal TANF funds
for the provision of assistance to families. Generally, the law
provided that states could not use federal TANF funds to provide
assistance to a family that includes an adult for more than sixty
months, with states allowed exceptions for up to 20% of their cases.
Since the law's restrictions applied to use of federal TANF funds,
states were allowed flexibility to determine whether to impose time
limits when assistance was provided with state funds.
As with other aspects of TANF design, states have taken a wide
range of approaches in their time limits policies. Twenty states
elected to establish time limits shorter than five years, with
seventeen of those states terminating assistance to all family members
when the time limit was reached. Most states elected to establish five-
year time limits, though they vary in their exceptions to time limits
and in whether assistance is terminated to all or some family members
when the time limit is reached. Two states (Michigan and Vermont)
elected not to impose a time limit. They are entitled to do so under
the TANF structure, because the federal time limit is a restriction on
the use of federal funds, and states are ultimately free to determine
their own approach when using state funds.
To date, there is very little information about families reaching
federal time limits, because states first began to reach the 60-month
limit in 2001, and some states will not do so until July of 2002. There
is no federal administrative data currently available about the number
of families whose cases have closed due to time limits. The best
available information about the number of families who have lost
assistance due to time limits comes from an Associated Press survey
which reported that as of Spring of 2001, about 125,000 families had
assistance terminated and roughly another 29,800 families had their
assistance reduced due to time limits, though the numbers are likely to
have grown significantly since that time.
One of the most striking findings from states that have elected
shorter time limits is that a significant share of those terminated due
to time limits are often low-earning working families. In part, this
occurs because in implementing TANF, most states liberalized ``earnings
disregards'' rules, i.e., so that assistance was not reduced on a
dollar-for-dollar basis as families entered employment. One virtue of
these earnings disregards policies is that they allow states to provide
ongoing help to families working in very low-wage jobs. But, as a
consequence, these families become more likely to receive enough months
of assistance to reach state time limits. In a number of states that
implemented time limits shorter than five years, from 40% to 87% of all
families whose benefits were terminated as a result of time limits were
employed, though often with very low earnings, at the time they were
terminated.\22\ Compared with other TANF leavers, time limit leaver
families were likely to have fewer hours of work, lower earnings, and
higher poverty rates. Poverty rates reported for time limit leavers in
state studies were high: for example, 73% in Utah, 74% in North
Carolina, 82% in Cuyahoga County, 86% in Virginia. In experimental
demonstrations in Florida and Connecticut, average family income fell
when families began reaching time limits, because gains in employment
income did not offset the losses in public benefits.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Mark Greenberg, ``Time Limits and Those Still Receiving
Assistance: Background and Issues for Reauthorization,'' presentation
to Senate Finance Committee Forum Series, November 19, 2001.
\23\ Dan Bloom, Laura Melton, Charles Michalopoulos, Susan
Scrivener, and Johanna Walter, Jobs First: Implementation and Early
Impacts of Connecticut's Welfare Reform Initiative, (New York: Manpower
Demonstration Research Corporation, March 2000), 78. Available online:
http://www.mdrc.org/Reports2000/Connecticut/CT-JobsFirst.pdf; Dan
Bloom, James J. Kemple, Pamela Morris, Susan Scrivener, Nandita Verma,
and Richard Hendra, The Family Transition Program: Final Report on
Florida's Initial Time-Limited Welfare Program,(New York: Manpower
Demonstration Research Corporation, December 2000), 180. Available
online: http://www.mdrc.org/Reports2000/Florida-FTP/FTP-Final-
FullRpt.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A set of states--including Illinois, Delaware, Rhode Island, and
Maryland--have adopted policies under which assistance for low-earning
working families is paid with state rather than federal funds, so that
the state can provide continuing help to low-earning families. However,
taking this approach depends on having sufficient flexible state funds,
and adds administrative complexity to program design.
The federal time limit applies to families in which an adult is
receiving assistance. Thus, it does not apply to ``child-only cases,''
though states are free to impose their own time limits and restrictions
on such families. While the absolute number of child-only cases fell
from 978,000 in 1996 to 718,642 in 2000, their share of the caseload
increased from 21.5% to 31.5%, because the overall caseload declined
faster than the child-only caseload.\24\ In 1999, almost two-thirds
(65.5%) of children in child-only cases lived with a parent; twenty-two
percent lived with grandparents and 8.5% lived with other
relatives.\25\ In general, children could be residing with a parent
ineligible for TANF due to receipt of Supplemental Security Income
(SSI), to their immigration status or their sanction status. The Lewin
Group has reported that in 1997, 39% of the cases were non-parent
(relative caregiver) cases, while 23% of the cases had parent(s)
receiving Supplemental Security Income, 16% had parent(s) ineligible
because of immigration status, and 9% had sanctioned parent(s).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Department of Health and Human Services, Temporary Assistance
to Needy Families: Third Annual Report to Congress, Table 10:3,
(Washington, DC: 2000); Department of Health and Human Services, TANF
Participation Rates and Case Characteristics, Table 3A, available
online at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/paticip/index.htm.
(Washington, DC; 2002).
\25\ Department of Health and Human Services, Temporary Assistance
to Needy Families: Third Annual Report to Congress, Table 10:26.1,
(Washington, DC: 2000). HHS has not yet released this breakdown of
child-only cases by type for 2000.
\26\ Department of Health and Human Services, Understanding the
AFDC/TANF Child-Only Caseload: Policies, Composition, and
Characteristics in Three States, available online at http://
aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/child-only-caseload00/execsum.htm (Washington, DC:
2000). Note that in 1988, 12% of the cases consisted of children living
with parents who were ineligible for other reasons or for which the
reason was not known. In 1997, the comparable percentage was 13%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time Limits: Recommendations
Our principal recommendation concerning time limits is that states
should be allowed to use federal TANF funds to provide ongoing
assistance to low-earning working families, without needing to apply a
time limit against working families. Under current law, work policies
and time limits policies work at cross-purposes with each other. On the
one hand, states are often seeking to encourage families to take any
available job, and want to provide help to families who are working in
low-wage jobs. But, if federal TANF funds are used to provide that
assistance, the month counts against the federal time limit and
potentially disadvantages the family in the long run. States should not
be restricted in their ability to use TANF funds to help working
families.
Over the coming months, there will be much discussion about whether
the 20% allowable exception under current law provides sufficient
flexibility to states. On the one hand, a state's ability to provide
exceptions is effectively greater than 20%, because states are free to
use state funds, and because the allowable 20% figure is calculated
based on the entire caseload, including child-only cases. On the other
hand, caseloads have fallen far more than anticipated in 1996, and 20%
of the current caseload is a far smaller figure than would have been
envisioned in 1996. A number of states are reporting that, at least
initially, they will not approach the 20% allowable exceptions, but
reauthorization will occur well before there is substantial experience
with the adequacy of the figure.
Ultimately, we recommend that each state should have discretion to
develop its own rules for exceptions to the federal time limit. In the
TANF structure, no state has any political or fiscal incentive to
provide assistance to a family for any period longer than necessary to
provide basic support and to help ensure that families who are able to
work enter the labor force.
Conclusion
Thank you for allowing this opportunity to testify. Please let us
know if we can provide any additional information.
Chairman Herger. Thank you very much, Mr. Greenberg. Now,
we will hear from Mr. Michael Fishman, Lewin Group, Falls
Church, Virginia.
Mr. Fishman.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL E. FISHMAN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND
PRACTICE DIRECTOR, LEWIN GROUP, FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA
Mr. Fishman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
Members of the Committee. It is a pleasure to be here today. I
was asked to come today because in 1998, the Department of
Health and Human Services funded the Lewin Group to gather
information about the child-only population within both the
prior AFDC program and the then-new TANF program and our study
at that time was the first to look comprehensively at the
trends in the growth of this segment of the welfare caseload
and it was for the composition of the child-only caseload.
As you know, under the 1996 welfare reform law, child-only
cases where only a child or children are receiving assistance
and not the adult are generally exempt from work requirements
and time limits. I guess there are four points I would like to
try to make in the brief time I have today.
First, as we have heard, while overall welfare caseloads
have dropped dramatically since 1994, the child-only caseload
has remained fairly steady in number during that period, and as
a result, they make up an increasing proportion of the TANF
caseload, 31 percent in the year 2000 from the Federal data we
have, and that number ranges anywhere from 14 to 69 percent
across different States, and that is up from in the
neighborhood of 10 percent in 1989, so there has clearly been
growth, and most of the growth in the actual number took place
in the late 1080s or early 1990s.
Second, the child-only population is not an homogenous
population. Cases become child-only under a variety of
circumstances. These circumstances may be subject to State
policy choices. Under several sets of circumstances, children
become child-only cases because their parents who live with
them do not qualify for TANF assistance, and this represents
almost two-thirds of the child-only cases that we had
information on in 1997.
There are three primary ways that these cases come to be.
States may remove the adult from the grant if they do not meet
work requirements or cooperate with child support enforcement
and they come into a sanction status. This is the case we found
in California at the time of our study. If the adult is
removed, it becomes a child-only case. States could also chose,
however, with sanction policy to reduce the grant or remove the
family from the grant entirely, in which case you would not
have a child-only case. Sanction cases represented a little
under 10 percent of the child-only cases in 1997.
Children who are U.S. citizens may become child-only cases
if their parents are not legal aliens or are legal but not
qualified for TANF, and that represented about 15 percent of
the child-only cases in 1997.
And then finally, if parents are in the household, if the
parents themselves are receiving SSI, then the children can
still qualify for assistance as child-only cases, and that
represented about 25 percent of the child-only caseload in
1997.
It is also possible for time limits to create child-only
cases, but at the time that we did our study, we did not see
any evidence of that.
Children may also qualify as child-only cases if they
reside with a non-parental caregiver, usually a relative. A
little more than a third of the cases that we looked at in 1997
fell into this category. In the cases we examined, about two-
thirds of the non-parental caregivers were grandparents, most
of whom were over 50 years of age and many of whom were older
than that, and the assistance they received helped to offset
the costs of caring for their child but not themselves. They
themselves were not included in the assistance unit.
So we have a heterogeneous population that become child-
only cases for a variety of reasons.
We also found that States did not think of child-only cases
as a class. As we talked to State officials, we did not hear
people saying, well, we have established this policy for child-
only cases. The policies that they had in their States that
created or affected child-only cases either emanated from their
overall goals and policies that they had related to welfare
reform or they created specific policies that affected specific
classes of cases, be they special programs for kinship and
relative caregivers, but they did not sit there and say, how do
we do something with our child-only population as a whole?
And fourth, the information that we have, and hopefully we
will have better information, I see GAO has new information for
us today about the composition of child-only cases, largely
predated welfare reform and there is reason to believe that
this composition could have shifted over the last several
years, but we do not have access to that information right now
and did not at the time of our study.
So in conclusion, as you think about future policy related
to welfare reform, I would recommend that the Committee get the
most recent information you can on the composition of child-
only cases and focus policy considerations on specific
subgroups within the child-only caseload rather than focusing
on the overall size and proportion that the caseload makes up
of the TANF population. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fishman follows:]
Statement of Michael E. Fishman, Senior Vice President and Practice
Director, Lewin Group, Falls Church, Virginia
Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Committee:
It is an honor to testify before the Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Human Resources on the important topic of child-only
cases under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program.
In 1998, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
contracted with The Lewin Group to obtain more information about the
characteristics and trends of the child-only population. The report,
``Understanding the AFDC/TANF Child-Only Caseload: Policies,
Composition, and Characteristics in Three States'' published in
February 2000, describes how federal and state policies affect child-
only caseloads, discusses the national TANF and child-only caseload
trends, and examines the characteristics of child-only cases. For a
more in-depth review, the report also focused on three states--
California, Florida, and Missouri--interviewing state and county
officials and staff, conducting case file reviews in one county in each
state, and analyzing administrative data. My testimony today draws
primarily from that report. My co-author, Mary Farrell, provided
assistance to me in preparing this testimony and is here with me today.
We have not had an opportunity to update the information we
collected several years ago on state policies and practices nor have we
looked recently at local caseload characteristics. In preparing this
testimony we have reviewed more recent national data and incorporated
that into our findings. I include state and local information from our
report in my written testimony because I believe it helps exemplify the
importance of state demographics and policy choices on the size and
nature of a state's child-only caseload. However, I will focus my
remarks on the national picture.
Under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996, most families receiving Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) are subject to work requirements
and time limits on benefit receipt. However, one portion of the TANF
caseload, cases where only a child or children are receiving
assistance, are generally exempt from these federal requirements. These
``child-only'' cases are not currently growing in absolute numbers but
are becoming an increasing proportion of the overall TANF caseload. In
1998, child-only cases made up 23 percent of the TANF caseload
nationally, ranging from 10 percent to 47 percent of state caseloads.
By 1999, their percentage of the TANF caseload had grown to 29%. This
has led to increasing interest in understanding the characteristics of
child-only cases and the program services they receive.
A variety of circumstances result in child-only cases. In some
cases, the child is not living with a parent, but with a relative, who
chooses not to be included in the assistance unit or whose income and
assets preclude him or her from receiving cash assistance. In other
situations, the child is living with a parent, but the parent is a
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipient, a non-qualified alien, a
qualified alien who entered the country after August 1996, a sanctioned
adult, or otherwise excluded.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For example, adults are ineligible if they have a drug felony
conviction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. TANF POLICIES
State TANF policies affect the number and composition of child-only
cases; five policies in particular are worth noting:
Sanction policy. Under federal TANF, states must sanction
families for refusing to comply with work requirements or not
cooperating with child support, although states have substantial leeway
in deciding what constitutes noncompliance, the severity of the
penalty, and the appeals process which restores benefits.\2\ These
policies may include removing the parent's benefits from the TANF case
(which converts the case to child-only), reducing the overall benefit,
but keeping the adult in the assistance unit, or closing the TANF case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Kaplan, J. (1999). The Use of Sanctions Under TANF.Welfare
Information Network. Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alien policy. PRWORA distinguishes between ``qualified''
aliens, a category which includes permanent residents, refugees,
asylees, and certain others granted conditional entry, and ``non-
qualified'' aliens, which includes both undocumented aliens and those
in PRUCOL (permanently residing under color of law) status, among
others.\3\ In general, the federal block grant does not fund TANF
benefits for most qualified aliens who entered the country after August
1996 for five years after entering the country or unqualified aliens.
However, in both cases, the children may receive assistance if they are
United States citizens (often because they were born in the United
States).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Kramer, F. (1997). Welfare Reform and Immigrants: Recent
Developments and a Review of Key State Decisions. Welfare Information
Network. Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment of SSI. Individuals who are aged, blind, or
disabled and who have little or no income and resources are eligible
for SSI benefits. In almost all states, the SSI income is excluded when
calculating TANF benefits and adult SSI recipients may not receive TANF
assistance for themselves, but can apply for their children.
Non-parental caregivers. Unlike parents who are caring for
their children, in most states, non-parental caregivers may choose to
apply for cash assistance for children under their care and themselves
or for the children only. Non-parental caregivers are most often
caregivers related to the children, although some states allow non-
relative caregivers who have legal custody or guardianship to receive
cash assistance.
Time limit policy. The federal block grant can be used to
provide assistance to families that include an adult or teen parent
head-of-household (or spouse) for up to five cumulative years. Some
states have indicated that they plan to apply time limits to the
parents only, which transforms the case to a child-only case at the
time limit. States may also impose a time limit that is shorter than
five years.
In addition, many states are creating alternative programs for
relative caregivers, offering higher payments than TANF, which may
result in a shift of cases from TANF into the alternative programs.
Depending on state financing choices, these cases may or may not be
counted as TANF child-only cases.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ These alternative state programs, which are discussed for three
states below, may also be alternatives to foster care for relative
caregivers. Foster care often requires licensing, home studies, and
supervision by child welfare agencies, although payments may be higher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of Key Findings
A. Nationally, Over Time
In 1994, when the national AFDC caseload peaked, 5.0 million
families were receiving cash assistance; in 1999, 2.7 million families
were on the welfare rolls, a 46 percent decline. The child-only
caseload did not follow this trend; the number of child-only families
receiving AFDC/TANF assistance increased steadily throughout the 1990s,
declining somewhat after 1997. As a result, the TANF caseload consists
of a growing proportion of child-only cases. This is illustrated in
Exhibit A.
Exhibit A
AFDC/TANF Child-Only Cases, 1985-1999
(Number and Percentage of Total AFDC/TANF Families)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8903E.005
______
These child-only cases can be categorized into parental cases, in
which the child is living with the parent who is ineligible, and non-
parental cases, in which the child is living with a non-parental
caregiver who is generally a relative. The parental cases can be
further categorized into cases in which the parent is ineligible
because he or she is an SSI recipient, an alien, or has been
sanctioned.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A parent may not be on the assistance unit for other reasons,
although these are less common. For example, adults may be ineligible
if they have a drug felony conviction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Exhibit B shows, the largest growth in child-only cases occurred
prior to the passage of PRWORA in 1996. Within the child-only caseload,
both parental and non-parental caregiver cases increased, although the
parental cases increased at a greater rate than non-parental cases from
the late 1980s to early 1990s. Specifically, non-parental cases grew
from approximately 206,000 to 321,000 between 1988 and 1994, a 56
percent increase, while parental child-only cases grew from about
162,000 to 501,000, an increase of 209 percent, during the same period.
Exhibit B
Number of AFDC/TANF Child-Only Cases by Type of Child-Only Case
(in thousands)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8903G.007
Source: AFDC QC Data. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research,
and Evaluation.
______
There are several explanations offered for the growth in child-only
cases during this period:
An increase in sanctions for non-compliance with
program requirements. The Family Support Act (FSA) of 1988
required non-exempt AFDC recipients to participate in job
search, work experience, or education and training activities
or be sanctioned. States sanctioned cases by removing the
parent from the assistance unit, converting regular AFDC cases
to child-only cases.
An increase in the number of individuals eligible
for SSI. Congress enacted a series of legislation reforms in
the mid-eighties and early-nineties that significantly expanded
the scope of the SSI program. The biggest change was the
enactment of the 1984 Disability Reform Act that significantly
expanded eligibility, particularly for those with mental
impairments.
An increase in the number of non-qualified aliens.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) allowed
formerly illegal immigrants to attain legal status, although it
barred them from receiving AFDC for the first five years after
their legalization. It is possible that the new legal status of
the parents increased the likelihood that they would seek
benefits for their citizen children. In addition, IRCA
instituted employer sanctions for knowingly hiring illegal
aliens, perhaps putting more non-qualified aliens in need of
cash assistance for their families. Finally, illegal aliens
living in the U.S. began growing by about 200,000 to 300,000
each year starting in 1989, after IRCA initially reduced the
number of non-qualified aliens.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Fix, M. and J. Passel (1994). Immigration and Immigrants
Setting the Record Straight. Urban Institute. Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An increase in non-parental caregivers. Current
Population Survey data show an increase of kinship care between
1983 and 1993.\7\ This growth in relative caregivers may have
increased the number of TANF children living with relatives and
receiving assistance on child-only cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Harden, A.W., and R.L. Clark (1997). Informal and Formal
Kinship Care. Report prepared for HHS, ASPE, Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Child-Only Policy and Practices in Three States
Our study examined in more detail the policies and practices in
California, Florida, and Missouri. These states were selected, in part,
because they offer a range of policies that could influence the size
and composition of child-only cases.
All three states sanctioned cases for failure to
meet work requirements, although the penalty for noncompliance
varies; the policy changes directly affect child-only
caseloads.
California removed the adult from the assistance unit, converting
regular TANF cases to child-only cases, while Missouri kept the adult
in the assistance unit, but reduced the overall benefit by 25 percent.
Florida's policy in effect the summer of 1999 closed the TANF case for
the first incident of noncompliance and closed the TANF and food stamp
case for second and third incidents. However, for the second and third
sanctions, parents could apply for assistance for their children
through a protective payee (a third party agreeing to accept the check
on the children's behalf) making the case child-only.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In December 1999, Florida changed their sanction policy,
closing the food stamp case for the first incident if the adult does
not receive a food stamp exemption. Other members of the household may
apply for food stamps after one month. For second and third sanctions,
if the adult does not receive a food stamp exemption, the case is
closed, although the other members may apply for food stamps after
three months and six months, respectively. As was the case under the
previous policy, protective payees may be assigned after the second and
third sanctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The time limits will affect child-only caseloads
differently in each of the three states.
Only in California will cases be automatically converted to child-
only cases when adults begin reaching the time limit in January 2003.
In Florida, where some welfare recipients have reached the time limit,
cases become child-only when the state assesses that the children are
at risk of entering foster care and assigns a protective payee. This
had occurred in relatively few instances. In Missouri, cases will be
closed at the time limit; welfare recipients will begin reaching the
time limit in June 2002. Pertinent to all states, if time limits
produce severe financial hardship, resulting in more children living
with relatives, child-only caseloads could increase.
California and Missouri used state funds to provide
assistance to qualified aliens who entered the country after
August 1996; Florida did not.
As discussed above, federal TANF funds cannot be used to provide
assistance to qualified aliens entering the country after the passage
of PRWORA until they have resided in the country for five years.
However, California and Missouri continued to provide assistance using
state funds.
With the exception of sanctioned cases in Florida
and Missouri, child-only cases are not subject to time limits,
nor are child-only caregivers required to work or participate
in employment-related activities.
Child-only cases have not declined as rapidly as regular TANF
cases, in part, because these cases are subject to fewer work
requirements. Children are assisted until they reach age 18, assuming
children have little income and resources.
As a condition of receiving TANF benefits, parents
must assign child support rights to the state. In California,
Florida, and Missouri, this applied to relative caregivers as
well.
In all three states, relative caregivers must cooperate with the
state by supplying information on each parent absent from the home,
which is forwarded to the state child support agency. In addition, the
states required that relative caregivers also assign child support
benefits over to the state. The child support agency pursues the absent
parent to establish a support order, if none is in place, or to enforce
an existing order.
The three states were creating alternative programs
for relative caregivers that offer higher payments than their
TANF programs with additional requirements for eligibility.
Relative to foster care, these programs generally have less
stringent licensing requirements.
Newly created relative caregiver programs in all three states
offered higher payments than TANF, required legal guardianship or court
supervision of the child, and required some level of background review,
licensing, and/or training for the caregiver, although requirements are
generally less stringent than foster care requirements. States were
using some combination of TANF, maintenance-of-effort (MOE), and state
and local funding to support these programs.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ MOE dollars are expenditures states must make from their own
funds as a condition of receiving the TANF block grant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides the creation of these alternative programs, no special
plans were being made to serve the child-only cases within the scope of
the regular TANF program in the counties visited. While these cases
make up an increasing proportion of the TANF caseload, child-only cases
are perceived as easier to work than regular cases.
C. Child-Only Caseload in Three Counties
A case file data collection effort was conducted in three
counties--Alameda County (Oakland), California, Duval County
(Jacksonville), Florida, and Jackson County (Kansas City), Missouri--to
document the characteristics of child-only cases. Data were collected
from 761 child-only case files that were open in May 1999. The key
findings include the following:
Non-parential caregiver cases comprise two-thirds of child-only
cases in Jackson and Duval counties while most of the remaining cases
are due to parental receipt of SSI; the Alameda County caseload is more
evenly divided among non-parental caregiver, SSI, alien, and sanctioned
cases (see Exhibit C).
Exhibit C
Composition of the Child-Only Caseload in Three Counties
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8903F.006
Source: Lewin Case File Review, 1999.
______
Due to differences in demographics and state TANF policies, Alameda
County's child-only caseload is more diverse than Duval and Jackson
county caseloads. Specifically, more aliens reside in Alameda than in
Duval and Jackson and, unlike the other two counties, the vast majority
of cases sanctioned result in child-only cases.
Among the non-parental cases, the reasons children
come to reside with non-parental caregivers vary widely. Major
reasons include desertion, substance abuse, incarceration,
child abuse, and neglect on the part of the parent.
Desertion was a common reason children came to reside with non-
parental caregivers, accounting for between 26 and 41 percent of the
cases in the three counties. Substance abuse by a parent led to a non-
parental caregiver arrangement for over one-quarter of the cases in
Duval. It is important to note that these reasons may be subjective and
are generally not mutually exclusive as the child often came to reside
with the caregiver for a combination of related reasons. In addition,
the welfare offices differed in terms of how they categorized the
circumstances surrounding these cases.
Caregivers of child-only cases are substantially
older than adults on regular TANF cases; within the child-only
caseload, non-parental caregivers are substantially older than
parental caregivers.
The average age of a regular TANF payee is about 30 in Duval and
Jackson counties, while child-only caregivers are approximately 44
years of age, on average.\10\ Within the child-only caseload in
Alameda, Duval, and Jackson counties, parental caregivers average 34
years of age and non-parental caregivers have an average age of 53.\11\
This discrepancy is largely due to the fact that grandparents are
caregivers of two-thirds of the non-parental caregiver cases. Also, it
is not uncommon for great-grandparents to be caregivers. As a result,
about 60 percent of non-parental caregivers are over the age of 50 and
almost 10 percent are over age 70. Among parental child-only cases, SSI
recipients tend to be older.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ These figures are calculated using county administrative data
from Duval County and Jackson County.
\11\ Calculated from Lewin case file data for Alameda, Duval, and
Jackson counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-parental cases have higher total income than
parental child-only cases.
Non-parental caregivers have higher total income, defined as income
from cash assistance, food stamps, and other sources, including
earnings, SSI, and pensions. This is true despite the fact that in all
counties, non-parental caregivers are less likely to receive food
stamps and in Duval and Jackson counties, they are less likely to
receive SSI. As compared to parental caregivers, non-parental
caregivers receive a larger portion of their income from sources other
than TANF or food stamps.
It should be noted that this discussion reflects only income that
is reported on the TANF and food stamp applications. While income
information was requested and often entered on the application, this
information was not required of non-parental caregivers who were not
receiving food stamps, although was required on food stamp
applications. Therefore, this is an underestimate of non-parental
caregivers' total income.
III. Implications for Work Requirements and Time Limits
It is important for the Committee to understand that a significant
and growing proportion of the TANF caseload is not generally subject to
work requirements or time limits. For child-only cases where the parent
resides in the household, the adult may have been removed from the
grant due to sanctions or time limits and the child or children may
continue to receive assistance. The adult may also be ineligible for
assistance due to receipt of SSI or due to their alien status.
A significant proportion of child-only cases is composed of non-
parental caregivers, usually relatives, who seek assistance only for
the needs of the child or children in their care. In this circumstance,
neither their income nor their needs are considered in determining the
child's eligibility or benefit level. These caregivers are not
generally subject to work requirements nor is the assistance they
receive on behalf of the children in their care subject to time limits.
States have significant discretion in establishing policies that
affect both the number and nature of child-only cases in their states.
These decisions are often embedded in the broader context of decisions
states make about the overall goals, philosophy and approach of their
TANF program. In fact, our study revealed that states do not generally
think about their ``child-only'' caseload as a whole, but rather focus
on the type of child-only case. Given the diversity of circumstances
that create child-only cases, it is probably wise for national policy
makers to follow suit.
It is important to keep in mind that this study was conducted in
1999, and is based on AFDC quality control data available through 1997.
Since then, states have made substantial changes to their TANF programs
in response to the 1996 welfare reform legislation. For example, more
states are implementing sanction policies that reduce the grant size,
but keep the adults in the assistance unit, or close the case
completely. Thus, we might see a reduction in the number of cases that
are child-only due to sanction status. In addition, as mentioned above,
PRWORA banned the use of the federal block grant for most qualified
aliens who entered the country after August 1996. We might see an
increase in the share of cases that are child-only due to alien status
because the adults are not allowed to receive assistance, but their
children are, if born in the United States. At the time of our study,
few families had reached time limits and we did not observe the
conversion of adult-headed cases to child-only cases. Finally, there
has been substantial growth in the number of special kinship care
programs, which may also be having an effect on the size and
composition of the TANF child-only caseload.
I would like to close by emphasizing again that while it is
convenient to discuss the TANF child-only caseload as a single class of
cases, these cases are composed of families in a diverse set of
circumstances. As the Committee considers future policy options with
regard to child-only cases, they would be wise to focus on specific
types of child-only cases and seek the most up-to-date information on
their participation in TANF.
Chairman Herger. Thank you very much, Mr. Fishman. Now, we
will hear from Douglas Besharov, Professor, School of Public
Affairs, University of Maryland, College Park Maryland.
Mr. Besharov.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS J. BESHAROV, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF
MARYLAND SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND, AND
RESIDENT SCHOLAR, PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE
INSTITUTE
Mr. Besharov. Mr. Herger and Members of the Committee,
thank you very much for having me here. This has been quite a
hearing in that, in the debate or the discussion about welfare
reform, it sometimes feels as if there is a fog here. I think
the general public thinks that welfare reform was about
mandatory work for welfare recipients. In my testimony, I cite
some polls about this and that is what most of the rhetoric
about welfare reform is about.
In my prepared testimony, on page 11, is Table 1-A, which
was prepared with the help of my colleague, Marie Cohn. It lays
out the numbers, which are common to all the testimony and
these are Federal numbers, of all TANF adult recipients, so I
am leaving out the child-only cases. Sixty percent of them are
not in countable activities, countable by the definition of
TANF. Forty percent are. That is the number that tends to get
used. Forty percent are doing work-related activities.
That is true, but more than half of that number, about 65
percent, are families that are on welfare and working pursuant
to an earnings disregard. Now, that is work. I believe in it,
and there are some very good things about it. The government
calls that an unsubsidized job. I call that a subsidized job
because they are still on welfare.
None of the proposals that we have before us addresses that
very complicated factor, and I will come back to it in a
minute.
If you look at this table, about 4 percent of the national
caseload is involved in mandatory work. I did not say 40, I did
not say 14, I said 4, and about two-thirds of that number are
represented in this room, which is to say Ohio, Wisconsin, and
New York, because I see Jason Tenner in the room. If you take
those three locations, and New Jersey, out of this number, you
have hardly anyone in this nation in mandatory work under TANF.
I will say that again. You have hardly anyone in mandatory work
under TANF.
Now, this table leaves out the other thing that you have
heard about today, and that is not deliberate, it is that there
is no data on the subject, and that is the work-related
activities that are funded with State-only funds. There are
State programs that provide work-related activities. You heard
only part of what those activities are. Yes, some of them are
training, some of them are education, but some of them include
taking care of your own child. Some States give people 2 days'
credit of work for going to sign up their kids for Head Start.
There are some problems at the State level as well as the
national level.
We were asked here to talk about what we think should
happen to the welfare bill, and specifically about time limits
and work requirements. Let me start by saying I have a
tremendous problem in answering that question because, to me,
TANF is the Abe Lincoln of Federal legislation. I will say that
again. It is the Abe Lincoln of Federal legislation, which is
to say every individual part of TANF is ugly as can be. The
nose stinks. The caseload reduction credit stinks. The absence
of a rainy day fund stinks. The fact the block grant does not
vary this way and that, every part of it stinks.
You can take a look and say, Abe needs a nose job, he needs
his chin fixed, or he could wear a beard the way I do--he did--
and so forth. But the fact is, put together, this ugly
combination of provisions has given the States the flexibility
to do the things you have heard about today and you see in
these studies.
The problem in addressing any specific provision is it is
part of a whole. So I might not like the caseload reduction
credit, but I look at the two fixes that have been proposed.
One fix, from my friends on the right, says only count
recipients who have left welfare for work. Well, over 40
percent of the people who leave welfare do not leave for work.
They leave for marriage, cohabition, co-residency, SSI, or
other sources of support. Now, we will not talk about SSI.
Maybe we should not count them. But I thought we should be
happy when people leave welfare because they get married, and I
am not talking here about a Federal program to encourage it.
These are people who have left, and to deny a State credit for
that is, I think, the wrong idea.
Now, the Administration has done the same thing on the
caseload reduction credit, which is to say it has got this 3-
month rule. The problem with that is it does not reflect entry
effects. You have heard that AFDC's reduction is largely
because when people come in, they are encouraged to get a job.
Neither Mark's proposal, the class proposal, and I think the
Democratic proposal, nor the Administration's proposal, fits
this need.
I could go through all this, but my little red light is on.
All I say is, remember Abe Lincoln. Give him a beard but do not
change the face. [Laughter.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Besharov follows:]
Statement of Douglas J. Besharov, Professor, University of Maryland
School of Public Affairs, and Resident Scholar, Public Policy Research,
American Enterprise Institute
Chairman Herger, and Members of the Subcommittee on Human
Resources:
Thank you for inviting me to testify on state implementation of
work requirements and time limits under the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. My name is Douglas J.
Besharov. I am a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
for Public Policy Research, where I conduct research on children and
families. I am also a professor at the University of Maryland School of
Public Affairs, where I teach courses on family policy, welfare reform,
and evaluation.
Ask people on the street what ``welfare reform'' means, and most
would probably answer ``work in return for welfare.'' According to Kent
Weaver, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, public opinion
polls conducted between 1993 and 1995, on the eve of welfare reform,
revealed that ``The clear public favorite among welfare reforms is work
requirements, which is consistent with the new paternalism approach to
reform.'' 1 Lawrence Mead of New York University explains:
``public opinion polls show that while voters want the government to
assist needy families, they also want adult welfare recipients to work,
like the taxpayers who support them.'' 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ R. Kent Weaver, Ending Welfare As We Know It (Washington, D.C.:
Brookings Institution Press, 2000), p. 181.
\2\ Lawrence M. Mead, ``The Politics of Conservative Welfare
Reform,'' in The New World of Welfare, edited by Rebecca M. Blank and
Ron Haskins (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Press, 2001), p. 203.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF) was
enacted, most analysts expected states to develop large mandatory work
programs in order to meet its mandatory ``participation'' requirements.
TANF requires states to place an increasing percentage of adults on
welfare in work activities. It establishes two separate ``work
participation rates'': (1) an ``all-family'' or overall rate, and (2) a
rate for two-parent families (which is higher than the rate for one-
parent families because it is considered easier for one parent in a
two-parent household to work than it is for a single mother).
1. The all-family rate (or overall rate) requires that at
least 25 percent of TANF families with an adult (or minor child
head of household) be involved for 1997, 30 percent for 1998,
35 percent for 1999, 40 percent for 2000, 45 percent for 2001,
and culminating at 50 percent for 2002 and
thereafter.3 In order to be counted as
participating, adults in one-parent families must have been
engaged in work activities for at least twenty hours per week
in 1997 and 1998, twenty-five hours in 1999, and thirty
thereafter.4 (Single parents with a child under six
need only participate twenty hours per week to be counted.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ TANF's ``participation rates'' are computed as an average of
the state's participation rates for each month of the fiscal year.
\4\ Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act, Section 407(c)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The two-parent family rate is higher (presumably because
there are two parents available to care for the children): 75
percent for 1997 and 1998, and 90 percent thereafter. The
number of required hours is also higher: In two-parent
families, the parents must have been engaged in activities for
at least thirty-five hours per week. (The parents can share the
hours.) 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act, Section 407(c)(1)(B).
States that do not meet these participation rates are subject to a
financial penalty.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families Final Rule 45 CFR 261.20(d), Federal
Register, April 12, 1999, p. 17885.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TANF also requires states to reduce or end assistance to people who
refuse to engage in such work activities without good
cause.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act, Section 407(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These ``participation standards,'' however, have turned out to have
little meaning because of the way the participation rates are
calculated and because they can be satisfied by recipients combining
welfare with work (``combiners'').
Caseload reduction credit. What if a state successfully moves a
substantial number of recipients from welfare to work? On the theory
that it would be unfair to ignore this achievement, the required
participation rates are reduced by the ``caseload reduction credit.''
The credit reduces the state's required participation rate by one
percentage point for each percentage point that the state's welfare
caseload falls below the 1995 level. (Caseload reductions due to
eligibility changes, such as full family sanctions, cannot be counted
in measuring the caseload decline.)8 Significantly, thus
recognizing ``entry effects'' gives states an incentive to invest
resources and time in helping applicants avoid welfare through various
diversion activities and keeping leavers from returning by offering
child care and post-employment services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Some eligibility changes, such as expansions in earnings
disregards, actually increase caseloads. States are required to
identify each eligibility change, estimate its effect on the caseload,
and then adjust the caseload by the net effect of all the changes. See
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, ``Guidance on
Submitting Caseload Reduction Credit Information, the TANF Caseload
Reduction Report (Form ACF-202) and Instructions,'' November 5, 1999,
available from: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofa/pa99-2.htm,
accessed February 8, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The caseload reduction credit was established in relation to 1995
welfare caseloads and, because of the sharp decline in the rolls since
then, it has all but eliminated the need for states to establish
mandatory work programs.
For the all-families participation rate, in 2000, thirty-one states
did not have to place anyone in a work activity because their caseload
declines were so large. In other words their ``adjusted'' participation
rate was zero. Eleven states had ``adjusted'' all-families
participation rates of under 10 percent.9 Moreover, these
participation rates are so low that they are easily satisfied because
recipients combining work and welfare (pursuant to earnings disregards)
count toward the participation rate. As a result, in 2000, all states
and the District of Columbia met the all-families participation
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families, Table 1A, ``Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families: TANF Work Participation Rates, Fiscal Year 2000,'' available
from: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/particip/im00rate/
table1a.htm, accessed March 4, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meeting the two-parent participation requirements has been more
difficult for the states-even though the number of such cases has
plummeted nationally 10 (from about 363,000 in 1994 to just
56,000 in 2000, an 85 percent drop) 11--because both the
participation rate and minimum hours of participation are higher.
Nationally, in 2000, only about 40 or 50 percent of two-parent cases
(with enormous variations among the states) were participating for a
sufficient number of hours to meet the two-parent work
requirement.12 However, with the help of the caseload
reduction credit, twenty-five states and the District of Columbia met
or exceeded their adjusted two-parent work participation
rates.13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Part of this decline was caused by the shift, in some states,
of two-parent cases to separate state programs.
\11\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families, Indicators of Welfare Dependence: Annual
Report to Congress 2001 (Washington, D.C.: Author, 2001), p. A-8, and
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Table 3A, ``Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families: Average Monthly Number of Parents in Two-Parent Families Who
Are Participating in Work Activities for a Sufficient Number of Hours
for the Family to Count as Meeting the Two-Parent Families Work
Requirements, Fiscal Year 2000,'' available from: http://
www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/particip/im00rate/table5a.htm, accessed
March 5, 2002.
\12\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families, Table 5B, ``Average Monthly Percent of
Parents in Two-Parent Families Who Are Participating in Work Activities
for a Sufficient Number of Hours for the Family to Count as Meeting the
Two-Parent Families Work Requirements, Fiscal Year 2000,'' available
from: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/particip/im00rate/
table5b.htm, accessed March 4, 2002.
\13\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families, Table 1A, ``Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families: TANF Work Participation Rates, Fiscal Year 2000,'' available
from: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/particip/im00rate/
table1a.htm, accessed March 4, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only seven states did not meet their adjusted two-parent
participation rate.14 In earlier years, some of these states
entered into corrective compliance plans with the federal government,
and a few states have simply paid the penalty for not meeting their
two-parent participation rates. (The penalties tend to be small because
they are based on the proportion of two-parent cases in the state,
which is generally small.) 15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families, Table 1A, ``Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families: TANF Work Participation Rates, Fiscal Year 2000,'' available
from: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/particip/im00rate/
table1a.htm, accessed March 4, 2002.
\15\ Personal communication from Mack Storrs, Senior Policy
Analyst, Office of Family Assistance, Administration for Children and
Families, to Peter Germanis, January 9, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the major reason so few states were not out of compliance is
that eighteen or more had, in effect, exempted themselves from the
requirement by creating a separate state program for all or some of
their two-parent families (or not having a program at all), up from
fifteen states in 1999.16 These separate state-funded
programs are not subject to the work requirement (or other TANF
provisions such as the five-year time limit).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Indeed, in Rhode Island, if a family meets the two-parent
participation rate, then federal funds are used and they are included
in the rate. If not, the family receives assistance from a separate
state program. (One HHS official observed, ``Obviously, they aren't
perfect at this game, since their two-parent rate was 95.8 percent-not
100 percent).'' (This compares to a 6.8 percent participation rate in
their separate state program.) As far as we know, Rhode Island is the
only state doing this now, but others have discussed adopting the
strategy, and more are likely to if participation requirements become
more stringent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The growing proportion of the caseload composed of ``child-only''
cases is also watering down participation requirements. For, there is
no work requirement imposed on families that do not have an adult
parent receiving aid, even if the parent is living in the same
household as the child. In 1997, 23 percent of the national TANF
caseload was thus exempt from a work requirement for this
reason.17 By 2000, the figure was up to 32
percent.18 Some of these child-only cases involve children
placed with relatives (``kinship care'') because their parents cannot
care for them.19 Some involve immigrant families, where the
adult immigrant is not eligible for benefits but their native born
children are. Some involve situations where the parent is receiving SSI
and is not included as part of the TANF grant (while the child is). And
some involve families in which the adult has been sanctioned for some
reason and is, therefore, off the grant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Understanding the
AFDC/TANF Child-only Caseload: Policies, Composition and
Characteristics in Three States (Washington, D.C.: Author, February 1,
2000), p. 7.
\18\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families, Table 3A, ``Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families: Status of Families as Relates to All Families Work
Participation Rates,'' Fiscal Year 2000,'' available from: http://
www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/particip/im00rate/table3a.htm, accessed
March 4, 2002. Despite the increase in the proportion of the caseload
composed of child-only cases, the total number of such cases actually
declined from 822,000 to 719,000.
\19\ These are assistance cases under TANF. However, it is also
possible for states to shift these cases to their child welfare
programs, and relabel them ``kinship foster care'' cases. See Douglas
J. Besharov, ``The Welfare Balloon: Squeeze Hard on One Side and the
Other Side Will Just Expand,'' The Washington Post, June 11, 1995, p.C4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual participation. Despite initial expectations, therefore,
participation in the activities counted toward the TANF participation
requirements (``countable work-related activities'') has been quite
limited. In an average month in 2000 (the most recent year with data),
only 40 percent of adult TANF recipients participated in a countable
activity.20 And, even that is a misleading statistic,
because about 61 percent of those participating are simply combining
work and welfare (in large part because of the newly generous earnings
disregards described above). TANF calls this ``unsubsidized
employment,'' but that clearly is a misnomer since the families
continue to receive welfare payments, which can be a substantial
portion of their original grants. First the Clinton Administration and
now the Bush Administration have helped muddy the waters by repeatedly
reporting that large percentages of welfare recipients were
``working,'' when, in fact, the vast majority were taking advantage of
earnings disregards to combine work and welfare.21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families, Table 6A, ``Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families: Average Hours of Participation in Work Activities, Including
Waivers, For All Adults Participating in Work Activities, Fiscal Year
2000,'' available from: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/particip/
im00rate/table6a.htm, accessed March 4, 2002.
\21\ See, e.g., U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
``States Continue to Meet Welfare Reform's Work Participation Rules,''
Press Release, February 14, 2002, available from: http://www.hhs.gov/
news/press/2002pres/20020214.html, accessed March 4, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, in 2000, only somewhere between 16 to 23 percent of all
adult recipients were participating in activities other than
``unsubsidized'' employment,22 and only about 4 percent were
in ``work experience.'' Most of the rest of those not combining work
and welfare were either in job search (5 percent) or vocational
education (3 percent).23 (See Tables 1 and 1A.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The range for this category reflects the fact that there may
be recipients participating in more than one activity, so that it is
not possible to estimate precisely the number of adults in countable
activities other than ``unsubsidized employment.''
\23\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families, Table 6A, ``Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families: Average Hours of Participation in Work Activities, Including
Waivers, For All Adults Participating in Work Activities, Fiscal Year
2000,'' available from: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/particip/
im00rate/table6a.htm, accessed March 4, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importantly, four states--New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and
Wisconsin-accounted for over 60 percent of the participants in work
experience programs (37,971 out of a national total of
61,643).24 In these states, the percentage of adults in work
experience ranged from 6 percent in New York to 57 percent in
Wisconsin. (See Tables 2 and 2A.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families, Table 6A, ``Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families: Average Hours of Participation in Work Activities, Including
Waivers, For All Adults Participating in Work Activities, Fiscal Year
2000,'' available from: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/particip/
im00rate/table6a.htm, accessed March 4, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because most states have had no trouble meeting the all-family
participation rate--and because they have unspent TANF funds resulting
from the decline in their caseloads--many states have also funded
activities and services that may not count toward TANF participation
requirements. Sometimes they mandate participation in them. These
services include substance abuse treatment, skills assessment, mental
health services, domestic abuse services, or adult literacy. Sometimes
these services are provided in conjunction with some form of work
experience or subsidized employment, and sometimes not.
Such activities are presently not countable toward participation
requirements. If they were, they would have added appreciably to the
number of recipients in countable activities. (In 2000, they accounted
for as much as 15 percent of total participation.)25 In New
York City, for example, in November 2001, adding the participants in
normally noncountable activities would increase the number
participating there by 7,683 (18 percent). The number of participants
would rise from 43,669 to 51,352 (with 1,281 in substance abuse
treatment, 1,831 in wellness/rehab, and 4,571 who are ``needed at
home'' to care for a dependent).26
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ In fact, given the wide flexibility states have in defining
their activities, participation in many of these activities could be
classified under ``community service,'' a countable activity for TANF
participation requirements.
\26\ New York City Human Resources Administration, ``FA/TANF--
November 19, 2001--Weekly Report.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A word of warning about these statistics: In conversations with
state and county officials, it was clear that many had very poor data
on the numbers of participants in various activities, and discrepancies
in some states' data suggest significant inaccuracies. Moreover, the
data seems to have little meaning or utility to state officials, and
many seem to make little use of the data that they have.
TABLE 1. AVERAGE MONTHLY PARTICIPATION IN WORK ACTIVITIES BY ADULT TANF
RECIPIENTS, FISCAL YEAR 1999
Number of Adult Percent of all
Group Recipients Adult Recipients
Adult TANF recipients a........... 2,112,143 100
Adult recipients not participating 1,226,679 58
in any work-related activity.....
Adult recipients participating in 885,464 42
one or more work-related
activities b.....................
Recipients in unsubsidized 585,396 28
employment c.....................
Recipients in other work-related 300,068-381,766 14-18
activities d.....................
Job search and job readiness 125,244 6
assistance.......................
Work experience................... 78,225 4
Vocational education.............. 63,730 3
Community service................. 31,273 1
Satisfactory school attendance.... 30,394 1
Job skills training............... 19,732 1
Education related to employment... 17,079 1
On-the-job training............... 7,140 <1
Subsidized public employment...... 4,162 <1
Subsidized private employment..... 3,982 <1
Providing child care.............. 796 <1
a Includes minor heads of household.
b Not all of these adults were counted toward TANF work participation
rates because not all of them had enough hours of participation to be
counted.
c Includes recipients who are employed part-time or full-time and are
still eligible for TANF, often because they live in states that
``disregard'' (do not count) a certain amount or proportion of earned
income in the calculation of welfare eligibility and benefits.
d The range for this category reflects the fact that there may be people
who were in more than one activity, including unsubsidized employment.
If none of the recipients in other work-related activities were also
employed, then there would be 300,068 adult recipients in these
activities; if some of them were also employed, then there could be as
many as 381,766 in other work-related activities.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Program: Third Annual Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, August, 2000), pp. 48-49,
available from: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/annual3.pdf,
accessed September 19, 2001.
______
TABLE 1A. AVERAGE MONTHLY PARTICIPATION IN WORK ACTIVITIES BY TANF ADULT
RECIPIENTS, FISCAL YEAR 2000
Number of Adult Percent of all
Group Recipients Adult Recipients
Adult TANF recipients a........... 1,588,651 100
Adult recipients not participating 957,519 60
in any work-related activity.....
Adult recipients participating in 631,132 40
one or more work-related
activities b.....................
Recipients in unsubsidized 382,604 24
employment c.....................
Recipients in other work-related 248,528-363,881 16-23
activities d.....................
Job search and job readiness 78,737 5
assistance.......................
Work experience................... 61,643 4
Vocational education.............. 54,692 3
Community service................. 40,852 3
Satisfactory school attendance.... 25,116 2
Job skills training............... 17,104 1
Education related to employment... 17,012 1
On-the-job training............... 2,113 <1
Subsidized public employment...... 4,414 <1
Subsidized private employment..... 3,788 <1
Providing child care.............. 327 <1
Additional waiver activities...... 30,959 2
Other............................. 27,124 2
a Includes minor heads of household.
b Not all of these adults were counted toward TANF work participation
rates because not all of them had enough hours of participation to be
counted.
c Includes recipients who are employed part-time or full-time and are
still eligible for TANF, often because they live in states that
``disregard'' (do not count) a certain amount or proportion of earned
income in the calculation of welfare eligibility and benefits.
d The range for this category reflects the fact that there may be people
who were in more than one activity, including unsubsidized employment.
If none of the recipients in other work-related activities were also
employed, then there would be 248,528 adult recipients in these
activities; if some of them were also employed, then there could be as
many as 363,881 in other work-related activities.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, unpublished data.
______
TABLE 2. AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER OF ADULTS IN WORK EXPERIENCE, UNSUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT, OR SANCTIONED: FISCAL YEAR 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. CA IL MI NJ NY NYC a OH PA TN TX WV WI
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adults...................................................... 2,112,143 539,259 101,821 69,284 45,762 260,641 171,507 77,463 96,173 40,812 82,729 14,348 8,473
Work experience............................................. 4% <1% 5% <1% 16% 7% 10% 22% <1% <1% <1% 8% 64%
78,225 4,073 4,541 65 7,372 18,229 17,229 17,280 808 299 735 1,176 5,434
Unsubsidized................................................ 28% 41% 43% 36% 16% 17% 15% 27% 26% 21% 5% 7% 29%
employment b................................................ 585,396 219,237 43,462 25,282 7,237 44,227 26,356 20,890 25,214 8,423 3,877 939 2,447
Sanctions c................................................. 5% 1% 10% 3% 8% 6% 9% 22% 5% NA 15% NA 23%
105,607 5,069 9,968 2,224 3,679 d15,583 15,583 1,689 5,284 12,798 1,928
Engageablee................................................. 1,421,140 314,953 48,391 41,778 34,846 200,831 129,568 54,794 65,675 32,389 66,054 13,409 4,098
Percentage of engageable in work experience................. 6 1 9 <1 21 9 13 32 1 1 1.1 9 133
March 1994 caseload......................................... 5,098,288 916,427 241,817 227,114 123,025 457,660 308,685 254,021 211,711 111,740 286,613 41,521 78,739
June 2001 caseload.......................................... 2,087,999 462,238 58,866 72,129 44,426 221,757 155,901 82,195 81,543 59,880 127,539 14,953 18,107
Caseload decline............................................ 59% 50% 76% 68% 64% 52% 49% 68% 61% 46% 56% 64% 77%
3,010,289 454,189 182,951 154,985 78,599 235,903 152,784 171,826 130,168 51,860 159,074 26,298 60,632
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a New York City data are as of July 28, 1999.
b Although the 1996 welfare reform law calls this category ``unsubsidized employment,'' the term is misleading, because it involves the ongoing provision of a welfare grant.
c Based on sanction rates reported by the U.S. General Accounting Office for 1998.
d The number of sanctions in the state of New York was not reported; the data are thus limited to the number of sanctions in New York City.
e The term ``engageable'' is intended to identify the number of recipients who are potentially available for participation in work-related activities, because they are neither in unsubsidized
employment nor in sanction status.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program: Third Annual Report to Congress (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, August, 2000), pp. 48-49, available from: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/annual3.pdf, accessed September 19, 2001; New York City
Human Resources Administration, ``FA/TANF--July 28, 1999--Weekly Report''; and U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: State Sanction Policies and Number of Families Affected
(Washington, D.C.: GAO, GAO/HEHES-00-44, March 2000).
--------
TABLE 2A. AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER OF ADULTS IN WORK EXPERIENCE, UNSUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT, OR SANCTIONED: FISCAL YEAR 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. CA IL MI NJ NY OH PA TN TX WV WI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adults........................ 1,588,651 304,705 66,143 54,679 33,056 232,540 65,129 63,879 44,003 90,275 10,157 5,710
Work experience............... 4% <1% 5% <1% 18% 6% 22% 2% <1% <1% 8% 57%
61,643 1,613 2,984 62 6,016 14,601 14,127 1,257 253 417 776 3,227
Unsubsidized employment a..... 24% 25% 39% 40% 20% 20% 31% 25% 20% 6% 6% 8%
382,604 75,631 25,478 21,782 6,658 45,508 20,279 15,911 8,646 5,733 632 438
Sanctions b................... 5% 1% 10% 3% 8% NA 2% 5% NA 15% NA 23%
79,433 2,864 6,475 1,755 2,658 1,420 3,449 13,966 1,299
Engageable c.................. 1,126,614 226,210 34,190 31,142 23,740 187,032 43,430 65,675 35,357 70,576 9,525 3,973
Percentage of engageable in 6 1 9 <1 25 8 33 1 1 1 8 81
work experience..............
March 1994 caseload........... 5,098,288 916,427 241,817 227,114 123,025 457,660 254,021 211,711 111,740 286,613 41,521 78,739
June 2001 caseload............ 2,087,999 462,238 58,866 72,129 44,426 221,757 82,195 81,543 59,880 127,539 14,953 18,107
Caseload decline.............. 59% 50% 76% 68% 64% 52% 68% 61% 46% 56% 64% 77%
3,010,289 454,189 182,951 154,985 78,599 235,903 171,826 130,168 51,860 159,074 26,298 60,632
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Although the 1996 welfare reform law calls this category ``unsubsidized employment,'' the term is misleading, because it involves the ongoing
provision of a welfare grant.
b Based on sanction rates reported by the U.S. General Accounting Office for 1998.
c The term ``engageable'' is intended to identify the number of recipients who are potentially available for participation in work-related activities,
because they are neither in unsubsidized employment nor in sanction status.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program: Third Annual Report to Congress (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, August, 2000), pp. 48-49, available from: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/annual3.pdf,
accessed September 19, 2001; New York City Human Resources Administration, ``FA/TANF--November 19, 2001--Weekly Report''; and U.S. General Accounting
Office, Welfare Reform: State Sanction Policies and Number of Families Affected (Washington, D.C.: GAO, GAO/HEHES-00-44, March 2000).
--------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8903H.008
------
Conclusions
1. I believe that the past six years' experience establishes that
mandatory work-related activities are a key element in any successful
program of welfare reform. They can:
Reinforce Work First efforts,
Make time limits enforceable,
Enhance human capital, and
Build public support for further welfare reform
efforts.
2. Up to now, almost all the work participation under TANF has been
composed of recipients combining work and welfare, generally because of
the very generous earnings disregards adopted by the states.
3. States are far from having the infrastructure and expertise to
operate large mandatory work programs.
4. There is substantial interest among the states, for good or for
bad, in offering services (and mandating participation) in activities
other than work, such as drug treatment and remedial education. (Some
of this may have been driven by the belief among states that, if they
did not spend their TANF surpluses, they would lose them. In this
regard, the Administration's proposal to allow states to create their
own ``rainy day'' funds is most welcome.)
5. The current law contains many ways that states can minimize (and
even avoid) TANF's participation requirements-such as by creating
separate state programs or child-only cases, by adopting loose
definitions of work, and by increasing the number of those combining
work and welfare (by increasing earnings disregards even more and by
suspending the time-limit clock).
6. Although most attention is being placed on requiring states to
increase participation rates, it is equally important to remove
barriers to their doing so. An important example is the need to exempt
work-related activities from the reach of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
and especially its minimum wage requirements.
7. Finally, any effort to increase TANF's participation rates--
which I strongly support--will require a keen appreciation of the
complex factors that will shape state responses--and should be prepared
for unintended consequences.
Chairman Herger. Thank you very much, Mr. Besharov. Now, we
will turn to questioning, and the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr.
Lewis, to inquire.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Graves, I understand you learned an interesting lesson
when you tried to help your 10 hardest cases find employment
before exhausting their benefits. Can you describe this for us?
Ms. Graves. What we found when we were out in the district
was that these cases who refused to go to work at all had other
incomes, and not necessarily legal incomes, coming in the
household, or they had someone else who was taking care of the
family. So the need or the urgency to go get a job was not
there for them.
In only one situation did we find that it was a domestic
violence situation that kept the individual from seeking work,
and that was because she was afraid to leave the house. Now,
for that--and only because we continued to investigate and
continued to investigate what was going on did we find out that
domestic violence was the problem. But the other nine all had
other activities going on.
Mr. Lewis. I see. In your testimony, you mentioned your
program's principle is to reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies and
promote family formation. What specifically have you done to
achieve those?
Ms. Graves. We have two programs, one with Project Impact
and one with the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance.
Those are two faith-based organizations. We do not specifically
contract with them for family formation, but their programs,
one is Family Works, the other one is Family to-Family, the
mentoring that they did, they finally figured it out that to
help that family become stable was to involve the fathers in
the family, and from that, because they introduced the faith-
based part to it, they got them in church and involved in many
activities that led to those families forming and becoming
mates.
But I tell you one problem with the family formation, the
reason why we do not push it so hard is, number one, some of
those are not healthy formative situations, and number two, not
all of the children have the same father. Which father are we
trying to form with them?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. Yes. Thank you.
Ms. Graves. Thank you.
Chairman Herger. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. The gentleman from
Michigan, Mr. Levin, to inquire.
Mr. Levin. I am not sure Mr. Lewis got the answer you
wanted.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. Well, we are looking for the truth.
Mr. Levin. I misspoke--the answer you expected. I did not
mean that in any other way.
But I think that that is the utility of this hearing, and I
hope that a transcript can be made available soon, because when
Mr. Greenberg was testifying, I saw a number of you shaking
your heads in agreement, on certain points, anyway. It is
interesting, there is more common ground than there is
disagreement, up to a point.
Mr. Besharov, I will tell you what most people in the
district I represent think welfare reform means, and I
represent a suburban district, I will not describe it otherwise
perhaps because it is not easy to describe, but welfare reform
has always been an issue of real importance.
I think when I ask them, what do they think welfare reform
is all about, they would say, moving people off of welfare into
work. That is what they mean, not those on welfare working. It
is people who are receiving assistance moving off of
assistance, and that is why they, in Michigan, under Governor
Engler, there has been major income disregard. People who have
moved off of welfare are in very substantial numbers still
receiving some assistance. The same is true in Wisconsin and in
many other States.
And so I think we need to talk through this very issue,
what we mean, where our focus is. If our focus is on making
sure people who are receiving assistance are working rather
than getting people moving from welfare into work and
eventually earning enough so there is no income disregard,
there is a difference there.
In some States, they may not get cash assistance. They
receive services. I guess that is maybe true in Wisconsin. Is
there any cash assistance at all to people who have moved off
of welfare to work?
Ms. Reinert. No.
Mr. Levin. There is none. In Michigan, it is very
substantial. I think that is an argument for flexibility, and I
noticed, to the Secretary of the Department in Wisconsin, you
said that raising the bar on work participation will make a
significant difference as long as States can retain the ability
to decide what activities are most appropriate on a case-by-
case basis. I think you have to read that that the
Administration's proposal does not do that.
Ms. Reinert. I would disagree with you on that. I believe
that the work participation bar is absolutely necessary in
terms of accountability.
Mr. Levin. I am not disagreeing with that, but as long as
States retain the ability to decide what activities are most
appropriate on a case-by-case basis, do you think the
Administration proposal does that?
Ms. Reinert. I guess I am talking about a broader
flexibility in terms of utilizing the 20-percent exclusion,
too. We are looking for flexibility within the State to treat
people as individuals. But I am in full support of the plan
relative to work participation and work requirements.
Mr. Levin. But it changes the flexibility of the States as
to what the mix is. Everybody acknowledges that the flexibility
of the States as to the mix of activities. There is no other
way to read that. I know you are from Wisconsin, but----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Levin. I mean, it changes the flexibility, does it not?
Do not answer that. I do not want to put you on the spot. But
it does.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Levin. I mean, in terms of vocational education, if it
goes from a year to 3 months, it changes it. The 24-16 changes
it, does it not, Ms. Graves?
Ms. Graves. Yes. Every time you prescribe something, you
limit flexibility. It has to be on a case-by-case basis. For
some families, 16 hours would be fine, but for others, it may
be that we get them in a drug counseling program for 4 hours a
week, but we may have education for 10 hours. Being able to
count what that family needs to do to become stable and in a
work situation is what is important, not prescribing that you
do 16 hours of education and 24 hours of work. We know work has
to be in there, but let the case determine. Let the State
determine what that needs to be.
Mr. Levin. Will you come on Tuesday?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Levin. You are working at the grassroots, as some of
the others are. I just urge that we pay attention to this. I
think if we do not, we are saying, and I will finish with this,
that we like flexibility as long as the States agree with us.
If they do not, then we believe in inflexibility, and I do not
think you can have it both ways. There have to be some
standards, but I think we need to ask ourselves what they
should be, and also going back to you, Mr. Besharov, I think we
need to have a good discussion as to the meaning of welfare
reform. To me, the objective is to get off of welfare.
Chairman Herger. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Levin. I know, but there is nobody else here, so I
thought I would----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Levin. Mr. Cardin, if I might indicate, is not here
only because he is debating this bill on the floor, and I am
now going to go and do that and give you the rest of the time,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Herger. I thank the gentleman.
I do want to point out, my understanding is 16 hours of
those 40 hours are flexible that the President has put into
that program, so it would be flexible from the State.
Secretary Reinert, if I could inquire of you, you have
noted that Wisconsin provides extensions of the time limit for
certain individuals with special circumstances. Is that an
extension from the 60-month time limit, and are you anywhere
close to reaching the 20 percent cap on hardship exemptions?
Ms. Reinert. We are nowhere near reaching that cap. The 20
percent gives us more than enough room. We have--our cap would
be 3,600 cases, and we have 75 active extensions at this point
in time. So we believe we have a tremendous amount of
flexibility within that 20 percent, and perhaps that is the
issue of flexibility that I was trying to address there, that
there is flexibility in the overall program to meet individual
needs and not do a cookie cutter approach.
Chairman Herger. Thank you. I would have to agree with Ms.
Graves and virtually everyone we talked to. This flexibility is
very important with perhaps some guidelines in there, but I
believe everyone I talked to agrees with that.
Another question. I also note, Ms. Reinert, your point on
page 10 of your testimony about the need to help communities
with pockets of high unemployment attract new businesses and
retrain workers, and I totally agree. Some have proposed going
beyond that to say that we should exempt individuals who live
in disadvantaged areas from work requirements and time limits.
That may sound compassionate at first, but I am afraid it could
effectively seal off such communities from the pro-work message
and all the energy that has helped transform welfare in so many
communities in America in recent years, and I would welcome
your thoughts on this. Are there areas of Wisconsin where you
feel that people simply cannot find or at least prepare for
work?
Ms. Reinert. Our strong position has been all along that we
are not going to leave anyone behind. It does not matter where
they live geographically, what the economic situation is, what
their personal situation is. We believe that everyone can be
engaged in activities that can move them toward self-
sufficiency. So I am not sure if that thoroughly answers your
question, but it is a strong philosophical base that W-2 has.
Chairman Herger. I believe it does, and I think the point
there is not that we cannot--the bottom line is, we do not want
to leave anyone behind.
Ms. Reinert. Exactly.
Chairman Herger. And perhaps in the area where they are
most in need in these communities is perhaps where they need
the most help not leaving them behind.
Ms. Reinert. And that goes to the community partnership,
looking at what are the economic needs in the area and the
employers and matching the training to meet those needs.
Chairman Herger. Finally, do you know of any area in your
State where you would find that you would want to exclude?
Ms. Reinert. No.
Chairman Herger. I thank you for that. With that, I want to
thank each of our witnesses----
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Herger. Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Lewis. Could I ask one more question of the panel?
Chairman Herger. Yes.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Chairman Herger. Since you are the last one----
Mr. Lewis. I am the only one.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. I recently met with a group of people, senior
citizens, that are taking care of their grandchildren, and I
understand there are about 6 million in the country today. I
think in the State of Kentucky, there are about 60,000. How are
the States dealing with these children? I mean, most of these
grandparents that I talked to were, of course, on fixed income,
retired. They are barely able to take care of themselves, but
they want to keep that family together as much as possible. How
are the States dealing in making sure those kids are provided
for with those basic necessities, education, health care, and
so forth? How are you dealing with that? And do you have enough
flexibility to deal with that?
Ms. Graves. Flexibility is one of the problems, but
resources. In the State of Ohio, they have what they call
Kinship Navigator, that we have taken some of the dollars from
TANF and put in Title XX to actually help those people. It is
not so much the medical but what do you do with a child that is
in juvenile court and you are a grandparent? It is knowing what
resources, where they go to get this, where they go to get
that. That is where the Kinship Navigator comes in and that is
where States have fallen off.
I hear them talking about illegal aliens and all that. In
our county, the number one, the highest percentage of cases are
with grandparents because of the drug culture, because of
criminal activity and these people are incarcerated. And the
grandparent, who knows nothing about the new school system, who
knows nothing about where to go to get help, that is where the
shortfall comes.
But if you take away our ability to fund those activities
by reducing down to 4 percent on Title XX, then we cannot offer
those kinds of services to people who sorely need them.
Mr. Lewis. And if those grandparents cannot take care of
those kids, then those kids end up in foster homes.
Ms. Graves. You put them in the most expensive system out
there, child welfare. Now, you have got a choice.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. And if we are looking at holding the family unit
together, it seems to me we are much better holding them there
with their grandparents, and the grandparents want to. It is
just a matter of they cannot go back to work. It is beyond
their ability to do that. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Ms. Graves. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Does anyone else have anything to say about it?
Thank you.
Chairman Herger. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from
Kentucky for your question.
I would like to include in the record a written statement
from Ronald H. Field, Vice President for Public Policy,
Volunteers of America.
[The statement of Mr. Field follows:]
Statement of Ronald H. Field, Vice President for Public Policy,
Volunteers of America, Alexandria, Virginia
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Volunteers of America, a
national, spiritually based housing and human service non-profit,
thanks the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit comments
concerning welfare work requirements and time limits. Through our job
placement and training programs, family transitional living programs,
homeless shelters, emergency food and clothing assistance, and
counseling and treatment services, we serve many low-income children
and families. As an organization that provides an array of programs and
services to assist children and families who are in financial and
emotional crisis, we are concerned that stringent time limits and work
requirements are not the most effective way to help people transition
out of poverty and become economically independent. States need more,
not less, flexibility to determine the definition of work, the extent
of work requirements, and the appropriate time limit for receiving
benefits. States need this flexibility in order to be able to provide
recipients adequate and appropriate services to help them be successful
in the workplace.
Recommendation #1
The effectiveness of work requirements hinges upon the definition
of work. Volunteers of America recommends that the definition of work
include a full course of education or training, counseling and
treatment for substance abuse, mental health, and domestic violence
issues, or physical disability. Expanding the definition of work to
include these aspects will allow people to address the issues that are
keeping them in poverty, and then enter the work force, succeed, and
become economically independent.
Through Volunteers of America's experience in providing services to
TANF recipients, we have found that education and support services are
missing pieces of the puzzle for many. Our FindWork program in
Shreveport, Louisiana is a 4-month program that combines job training
and placement. Our staff have encountered first hand the struggles that
low-skilled individuals face in finding adequate employment. ``We
helped one client to learn the alphabet, and most clients read below a
sixth grade level. Such low skills make it almost impossible for job
placement. Employers are reluctant in hiring the participants due to
lack of education,'' states Dewanna Lovelace, the FindWork Program
Coordinator. Ms. Lovelace also sights manifestations of mental illness,
substance abuse, and domestic violence as significant barriers to
meaningful employment. ``In order to place people with these barriers
in jobs, they need to receive services first. Some employers that I
work with feel that participants lack the support services that they
would need to maintain the jobs.''
``Women who have multiple barriers to obtaining and holding
employment will be the least likely to obtain economic self-sufficiency
under the new welfare regime begun by the 1996 Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Act'' is the conclusion of the Women's Employment
Study (WES) conducted by the University of Michigan. The WES study
found that of the TANF recipients studied, 31.4 percent had no high
school diploma, 25.4 percent had experienced a major depressive
episode, and 14.9 percent had experienced recent severe domestic
violence. The presence of these barriers will affect the likelihood of
obtaining and retaining employment. The current ``rapid employment''
approach cannot address these severe barriers. Exhibiting one or more
of these barriers does not mean that a recipient is unemployable,
simply that they will need more time and support services to be
effective in the workplace.
The ability to access real education and training opportunities is
essential to placing recipients on true career paths rather than short-
term, low-wage employment. The W.K. Kellogg Foundation, in its
Devolution Initiative, explores the current ``work first'' approach
that is integral to TANF. ``Work first'' rests upon the key principle
that pre-employment education and training are not as effective as
standard job searches in increasing employment and earnings for
recipients with little or no work experience. The implication of ``work
first'' is that immediate job placement, regardless of the quality of
the job, is the best way to advance in the work place. Contrary to this
approach, the Devolution Initiative has found that the factors that
predict job advancement among adults leaving welfare for work include
higher wages in the first job, having or acquiring higher basic skills,
postsecondary education, and post-secondary training (including English
as a second language). All of these factors illustrate the importance
of education and training to long-term job success.
Robert A. Moffitt, of the Brookings Institution's Welfare and
Beyond project, identified that the employment rates of less educated
welfare leavers are considerably below those of their more educated
peers, and the poverty rate of those less educated recipients is
higher. For recipients to become permanent members of the work force,
States have to be given the flexibility to allow education and training
to count as a full work activity.
Recommendation #2
Volunteers of America recommends that time limits not apply to
families who are making an effort to comply with program requirements,
but are still not self-supporting. Program requirements must include an
expanded definition of work, including expanded education and training,
treatment and counseling for mental illness, substance abuse, domestic
violence, and physical disability. States need the flexibility to
provide benefits until a recipient is able to work, and work income is
high enough that a family is no longer in need of assistance.
Leo McFarland, Chief Executive Officer of Volunteers of America
Greater Sacramento & Northern Nevada, has found time limits to be a
barrier for recipients who take part in his programs. Mr. McFarland
states, ``In a recent study of 700 TANF recipients in two California
counties, more than half reported that, over the previous 12 months,
they had experienced domestic abuse, had one or more mental health
issue(s), and/or had abused alcohol or drugs. In our programs for TANF
eligible women, 100 percent of the women we serve battle substance
abuse or mental health issues. For these women in treatment, the
current welfare reform policies adopted in 1996, with its time
limitations, have placed a formidable barrier to their goals to provide
a stable and productive family environment for themselves and their
children. Crucial to aiding this population is the need to provide
system flexibility that would allow for the additional time necessary
for substance abuse or mental health treatment. Effective treatment for
serious barriers requires a different amount of time for each person,
and cannot be held to a time clock.''
The TANF program must be flexible enough to be able to respond to
regional and national economic changes. During times of economic
downturn that result in a scarcity of jobs, TANF must continue to
provide assistance. Rebecca M. Black, of the Brookings Institution,
concludes in ``Welfare and the Economy'' that the financial burden of
an economic crisis now lies with the States. When a recession hits, and
the need for incomes support rises, inevitably State's budgets are also
hard hit and have little flexibility to shoulder the increase. States
need to have the flexibility to allow people back into the program,
even if they have used up their lifetime limit. The contingency fund
that provides additional dollars for states to access during times of
economic downturn must be adequately funded, and have reasonable
criteria for accessibility.
Summary
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to bring you
our thoughts and experiences having to do with TANF work requirements
and time limits. We assure you and all members of the subcommittee that
Volunteers of America is strongly committed to helping TANF recipients
become productive members of society and economically independent. We
are confident that the TANF program can work effectively and
efficiently to help families.
Chairman Herger. I want to particularly thank each of you
who has appeared before us as witnesses today. Your testimony
and your answers have been very helpful to us as we move
forward in reauthorizing TANF. I think that it has been made
clear today that the current TANF program over the last 5 years
has had a great deal of flexibility, both in time and in work,
and again, I want to thank you for your testimony and would
hope that you would continue working with us as we move forward
for coming up with reauthorization this year.
Thank you very much, and this hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Submissions for the record follow:]
Statement of Leslie Abrahamson, Westmont, Illinois
As you consider TANF reauthorization, please remember that the goal
is not simply to get people off of cash assistance and then forget
about them. The system needs to be able to be flexible to meet the
diversity of needs in our communities. Some people need help with
substance abuse, some need help with housing, some need education and
training and others need help with transportation and/or child care. If
we create a one-size-fits-all public policy that just pulls people from
assistance and throws them into the workforce without the kind of
supports they need, those people will not be able to succeed. It is
more cost effective and better for everyone in the community if we
provide the types of supports people need to achieve self-sufficiency.
Some need more supports for longer periods of time than others. Please
listen to the experts in the field who work with clients needing
supports so you can develop public policies that will create
meaningful, permanent differences in people's lives.
Alliance for Children & Families
Washington, DC 20006-1503
March 18, 2002
Honorable Wally Herger, Chairman
Human Resources Subcommittee, House Ways and Means Committee
U.S. House of Representatives,Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Herger,
Please consider this cover letter and the attached document as our
submission for the printed record of the March 7 hearing in your
subcommittee on ``The Implementation of Welfare Reform, Work
Requirements and Time Limits.'' We believe that it is imperative that
you take into consideration the circumstances, successes and setbacks
of the individuals who have first-hand experiences with the last six
years of the TANF program.
As your committee prepares to review and reauthorize the work
requirements and time limits of TANF, we ask that you consider the
recommendations of the Alliance for Children and Families, a national
association of nonprofit, human service organizations that serve almost
four million families in over 6,500 communities. Our research on the
experiences of individuals affected by the welfare act has been
compiled in Faces of Change: Personal Experiences of Welfare Reform in
America. The stories represent families from a broad diversity of
cultural, regional and economic backgrounds who have relied on the
public welfare system for support in their times of crisis. Their quest
for self-sufficiency has many common themes and our recommendations for
improvements in the welfare law are based on these themes:
Ensure that the definition of work includes job
training and post-secondary education;
Provide incentives to the states to tailor job
training, job placement and job retention strategies to the
multiple and diverse talents and needs of the participants;
Ask the states to keep track of their former
recipients and provide follow-up job assistance and assessments
to ensure that the workers and their families are on the path
to leaving poverty, not just off the welfare rolls;
Establish new temporary waivers that ``stop the
clock'' for recipients who cannot meet work or looking-for-work
mandates:
When chronic physical and mental health conditions
of the recipients and their children temporarily prevent them
from working;
When childcare, housing or transportation
emergencies temporarily prevent them from working;
When unemployment is high or when available jobs
require advanced skills that the welfare recipient has neither
the talents nor training to qualify for these positions.
We ask that you carefully review both the successes and the
multiple barriers faced by the recipients of public welfare as they
juggle their responsibilities of parenting, working, keeping their
families healthy and safe, and providing food, clothing, shelter and a
decent livelihood for their children. Like many of us, welfare
recipients have their own personal challenges which limit their
success, including substance abuse, domestic violence, learning
disabilities, short-circuited education training and homes that are
many miles from day care and employment sites. Transitional support
services that address these challenges must have your support.
Please feel free to contact the Alliance for Children and Families
and our member agencies all across the nation. Our website lists our
members in every state (www.alliance1.org) and both our Milwaukee
headquarters and our Washington, D.C. policy office can answer your
questions about our research and our recommendations.
Respectfully,
Carmen Delgado Votaw
Senior Vice President, Public Policy
______
FACES OF CHANGE
ENDS THAT DON'T MEET: WHAT WORKERS' STORIES TELL US ABOUT EMPLOYMENT
UNDER WELFARE REFORM
By Jamie Harris, M.A. and Thomas E. Lengyel, MSW, Ph.D.
Jennifer Rogers is a 24-year-old single parent from East Orange,
New Jersey. Her story is typical of many transitioning workers who find
jobs with low pay, few or no benefits, and little flexibility when a
child becomes sick: Pulled in opposite directions, these working
parents attempt to meet their employment and family obligations:
My job now is at a security company making $8 [an hour]. It was
hard with a child. They weren't that flexible, it's hard with a
child and [with him] having asthma. It's extra rough. I can get
a job, and everything can be going along fine for a month or
so, and then he gets sick. And then it's like, ``Oh, God, what
should I do? Should I stay here with him, or should I try to go
to work?'' If I go to work and he has an attack, they are going
to call me, and then if I'm at work, I'm not supposed to leave
post. So that's rough. I've usually tried to take the first job
that comes my way, no matter what it pays. I feel like maybe
something else will open up.
For Jennifer and workers like her who have few resources to manage
the competing demands of family and work, the real challenge for them,
and for welfare reform in general, is for employment to be flexible
enough to accommodate the needs of parents, and materially rewarding
enough that provides a path to self-sufficiency.
So I'm not really worried about finding a job, because I know I
can get one. It's the challenge of keeping it, with my son, and
not letting the employer think I'm a person who doesn't want to
work. It's not that. It's that I've got a lot of responsibility
being the only one and maintaining my apartment and everything
else with my son being sick. (NJ-9)
Experiences like Jennifer's--juggling the competing demands of work
and family while working in a low-wage job market--are crucial to
understanding the challenges that confront current workers
transitioning off welfare. The narratives in the Faces of Change study
provide an important vantage point from which to see how the conflict
of work and family come together and unfold in this new policy context.
While the author narratives reveal a dogged determination to leave
welfare behind and go to work, it is a determination tempered by the
day-to-day realities workers must confront in a low-wage labor market,
realities that can make their efforts seem futile or even leave them
worse off.
The main thrust of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 has been a ``work-first'' approach, with
federal rules requiring work participation in exchange for TANF
benefits. A key assumption of this welfare reform is that there are
ample jobs available for former welfare recipients to take, and that by
requiring work, PRWORA will be able to increase the job skills and work
experience of former welfare recipients and end their present and
future dependence on public assistance in the process (Strawn,
Greenberg, and Savner 2000). However, as discussed in greater detail in
each of the following chapters, many authors face significant barriers
to work and need several supports in order to find and keep jobs that
will meet the basic needs of maintaining a household and family.
In addition, many workers have serious educational and skill
deficits.\1\ Since the passage of the bill, however, there has been
little emphasis on job training. Most welfare-to-work training programs
across the country have consisted of workshops on how to find a job
(e.g., resume writing, interviewing skills) and job placement
assistance (e.g., referrals) with very few programs devoted to
vocational training in specific fields or support for post-secondary
education. This pattern is faithfully reflected in our study of 208
author narrative accounts. Given the reality of health problems and
other barriers, low education and training levels, and limited work
experience, most of the jobs authors find are not sufficient in and of
themselves to support a family above the poverty line. Nor are they
flexible enough to accommodate the needs of single parents. In our
analysis, most workers find it difficult to make ends meet even though
they are working, while for a small group of employed authors, the
transition to employment has been more positive and has successfully
moved their families toward self-sufficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Forty percent of the authors in this study lack a high school
diploma or GED, and very few have completed a college program or
degree. The Urban Institute's National Survey of American Families
found similar results-44% of TANF recipients lacked a high school
diploma or GED (Zedlewski and Alderson 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Accounts for a Lack of Employment? The group of nonworking
authors in this study is quite diverse and their lack of employment
relates to a number of different factors. The most common explanation
for nonworking status appears to be having multiple barriers such as a
chronic health problem coupled with limited education or work
experience; a second smaller group relates to those who, though
healthy, have been unable to find work or get hired; a third group is
made up of authors involved in job readiness programs or other training
and education opportunities, often outside the TANF framework.
Barriers to Employment: Many of the nonemployed authors in this
study must contend with a significant single barrier or multiple
barriers to employment. This includes such conditions as serious,
chronic health problems (among both children and adults), drug
addiction, mental health limitations, domestic abuse, and limited
education and work experience. Of those authors who fall in this group,
a chronic health problem is the most frequent and significant barrier
to working.\2\ One third of the nonemployed authors identified a
chronic health condition,\3\ and 40% described their health condition
as a major conflict with work or school. In fact, many authors report
more than one chronic health problem as is true for this 48-year-old
unemployed mother of four from Bridgeport, CT:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Chronic health conditions were only slightly less common among
employed authors in the study (29% to 33%). However, a much higher
percentage of the nonemployed authors identified their chronic health
issue as creating an impediment to work or school than working authors
(40% to 26%).
\3\ A recent GAO study found that 44% of current TANF recipients
have work impairment or disability, three times the non-TANF
population. The study also found, that those with impairments were much
less likely to work. (GAO 2001). Similar findings were reported by
Lengyel, Thompson and Niesl (1997, 40-41).
I have a lot of health problems. For me to get a job would be
difficult because I have arthritis in all my body, and in the
morning [it] is hard for me to get out of bed and to function
because I'm in pain, and I take medication for my anxiety and
my depression and some days my depression is so bad that I
don't want to get out of the room. I stay in the room all day
long. I don't want to see nobody, don't want to do nothing.
And, you know, I'm afraid to get a job because some days I
won't be able to go to work. Difficult problems I have with my
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
health. (CT-13)
Among nonworking authors, mental health issues were nearly twice as
common as the group of working authors.\4\ In addition to health issues
of varying degrees, authors in this group often have severe educational
deficits and, not surprisingly, the least job experience. This can make
the transition to employment particularly difficult and make them less
appealing to potential employers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Eighteen percent of nonworking authors described mental health
limitations compared to 10% for working authors. Both figures are
likely underestimates since authors were not asked to comment directly
on their mental health, and there is likely some reluctance to comment
on one's mental health.
For me getting a job is kind [of] difficult because I'm
illiterate and I was never sent to school and now it's very
hard for me to learn. It seems like I would know something
right then . . . but then 10 minutes later it'll go back and I
won't even understand it or know what it was. So they want to
do some type of testing to see if I do have a disability `cause
I have a child with a disability . . . a learning disability.
So the jobs are very limited that I can . . . could get and
they would not pay enough for me to be able to pay rent and
doctor bills and so forth and so on. So it's very difficult for
me to find a job with my education . . . which is near none . .
. be able to support a family right now.--A 36-year-old mother
of three, no education, living with HIV in East Point, Atlanta
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(GA-10).
There are also several authors in our study who have a serious
disability or care for a child or spouse with a disability. While some
of these authors are receiving SSI, SSDI, or VA assistance, at least
five authors were not receiving disability for themselves, and at least
seven were not receiving disability for a disabled child or spouse.
Some had recently applied for disability and had been denied. Without
disability assistance, these individuals face a daunting set of
challenges to meet the work requirements imposed on TANF participants
as this mother of a child with spina bifida in Brooklyn, New York
relates:
It was very hard for me as a mother of two young kids and one
with spina bifida in the wheelchair. I have to come home to get
her off the bus every day by 3:15 p.m. That make it very hard
to keep a job and her doctor appointment--some time it two a
week. No job don't want that and then time I work I don't make
enough money to pay all the bills and buy food. Some morning I
get up cry because it very hard for me and my kids. (NY-9)
It is these ``hardest to serve'' families with significant barriers
that increasingly make up the bulk of welfare recipients remaining on
caseloads. To overcome their multiple barriers, this group will need
more time and access to an extensive array of supports. For some,
employment simply may not be possible. Despite this, many of these
individuals are facing or will shortly face time limits to assistance.
Any discussion of TANF reform needs to consider strategies that address
the needs of individuals with multiple barriers and that ensure a TANF
safety net for these families.
Why Healthy Authors Are Unable to Find Jobs or Get Hired?: Even for
authors who are otherwise healthy, many still find it hard to find
work. Even with low levels of unemployment nationally at the time
authors were interviewed (spring 2000), many nonemployed authors report
being unable to find work. Part of the high level of unemployment among
this group may be explained by the spatial mismatch of jobs and
workers, a problem compounded by poorly developed public transportation
systems. Unemployment also may be related to some reluctance on the
part of employers to hire workers with limited skills.
Right now I'm looking for a job. I don't have one but I've been
looking hard, but it seems like every place [I go] I have to
fill the application out, I end up calling them but they don't
ever call me back . . . so I don't know what the problem is
there. But I look over the application and it's filled out the
way it's supposed to, but they just never call me back.--An 18-
year-old woman raising her child and currently training at a
tech school in Milwaukee. (WI-13)
Some nonemployed authors are not working currently because they are
engaged full-time in job training or education. While some authors are
currently engaged in job readiness programs through TANF, other authors
are pursuing education or vocational training. Most of these authors
have been terminated from receiving TANF assistance because most states
do not allow for postsecondary education. As a result, these authors
must rely on family and other sources of help such as student financial
aid to complete their studies or training programs. The chapter on job
training examines these authors' experiences more fully.
Ends That Don't Meet: The group of working authors, a little over
half of those in the study (55%), found employment and had been engaged
in work for some period of time, often as a direct result of new TANF
rules that make employment a requirement of the 1996 law. Despite being
employed, however, most in this group struggle to make ends meet and
are unable to attain self-sufficiency for their families. A smaller
number of working authors have had a more positive work experience, and
as a result can be described cautiously as a something of a ``success
story.''
For the vast majority of working authors in this study, employment
has not brought them out of poverty. 80% of working authors reported
incomes that place their families just at or below the poverty line.
They report frequent loss of jobs or fluctuating income due to family
conflicts, erratic work schedules, part-time work, and jobs that pay
low-wages without benefits, often with few or no opportunities for
advancement. Given the relatively low skill and training levels of most
of the authors in this study and the relatively few job training and
education options available to workers, these are the working
conditions that most workers transitioning from welfare must confront
and they often complicate efforts to achieve self-sufficiency and
sustain employment. Their experiences highlight the need for a range of
worker supports and increased training and advancement opportunities if
the transition to work is to be meaningful and sustaining.
Wages, Benefits, Flexibility, and Opportunities: Analysis of the
authors' narratives reveals a wide variety in the kinds of employment
transitioning workers have found after leaving welfare. Employment in
the health, retail, food, and beauty fields, as well as a variety of
light manufacturing and factory positions indicate both a diversity of
employment options and a variety of skills and interests among the
participants in this study.\5\ Although these jobs vary significantly
in their content and required skills, many of them share some key
features that bear on the economic health of transitioning workers and
their families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Food service jobs were most frequently reported among authors
in the study, followed by in roughly equal proportions, health, retail,
and temp jobs which typically involved clerical-office type work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the pay for the jobs authors found ranged from minimum
wage to $12.50, most jobs were grouped in the $7 to $9 an hour area.\6\
The ability to sustain a decent income, however, is more dependent on
the hours and consistency of the work available than the wage paid by a
job. For many authors, employment did not provide full-time work. Many
workers report work that is temporary, or jobs they got through temp
agencies that vary from day to day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A national study found the median wage for families who left
the welfare rolls between 1997 &'99 was $7.50 an hour in 1999 dollars
(Goldberg and Collins 2001).
The work I found was only $8.50 an hour and very inconsistent
with the hours available. The personnel director said I was
hired after other employees, so I was at lower priority to get
hours . . . I was getting 25, if I begged for it.--A 21-year-
old TANF recipient living with her three children in Lafayette,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN (IN-4)
When I get a job, it's mostly temporary. So if they need me,
they do, if they don't, they don't. Work availability is OK if
you call in the morning for a temporary job. It's kind of
harder getting a permanent job, depending on your
application.--A 20-year-old woman living with her spouse and
child and working temp jobs in Green Bay (WI-8)
Many jobs also lack general employment benefits such as annual
leave and sick days or these critical benefits are deferred for
significant periods. Without these benefits, workers face economic
hardship if they have to take off for the inevitable illness or family
problem.
My job doesn't offer any benefits. Nothing. If I don't work, I
don't get paid. I don't have sick leave or annual leave.--A 48-
year-old mother with one child working full-time with no
benefits (DC-6)
I started working at Sears Outlet, 8/99. They usually give me
32 hours a week but they have cut back my hours because there
is not enough work. I will go full-time in June. After I have
been here for a year I will get benefits. I like this job
because it is something I can do. I only have a 5th grade
education, so a lot of places won't hire me. My starting pay
was $6.50. Now it's $7.35/hour.--A 46-year-old mother working
and living with her 2 children in Pinellas Park, FL (FL-4)
Many of the jobs authors found provide little in the way of
security or opportunities for advancement. Some authors recognize that
these jobs promise little for their future.
My current job started in February of 2000. I am a cashier and
I do odds and ends: collect paper work, keep refreshments
stacked and stuff like that. There are no opportunities to
advance. On rainy days, I don't work at all because it is
closed. It is not a great job because it is dead-end . . . My
hours are 7:45 a.m., until closing. I never get out before 6 or
6:30. It is a long day. There are no benefits of any kind.--A
24-year-old car wash cashier living with her two children in an
extended household in Washington, D.C. (DC-1)
Some workers said that their skill level and the lack of training
opportunities limited their potential for advancement.
My last dietary job started at $6/hour and increased to $7.50/
hour after training. I was paid $8/hour as a home health aide .
. . There is no room for advancement as a home health aid
unless you get more medical training.--A 36-year-old unemployed
mother living with her two children in St. Petersburg, FL (FL-
7)
Choosing Between Parenting and Wages: Given the low-wages, poor
benefits, and limited opportunities in this labor market, many authors
are faced with a choice between meeting their parenting
responsibilities or working. Although all parents have difficulty
balancing work and family, most parents are able to rely on employer-
based provisions such as vacation and sick leave to cover time missed
to care for a sick child or a daycare conflict without fear of a loss
of income or losing one's job. In addition, given that the vast
majority of parents in our study are single parents, their ability to
manage the day-to-day demands of parenting or to care for the needs of
a child is further limited. Without the benefit of employer provisions
and a second parent, many transitioning workers find they are forced to
choose between neglecting their families and neglecting work.
In these narratives, the authors frequently acknowledge their
limited employment options. They often identify with clarity the trade-
offs that working in certain jobs present for their families. However,
they also recognize that they have few options and while disturbed by
their limited options, many transitioning workers accept unfavorable
employment even if it means neglecting family needs.
Yes, I am working . . . I go along with the rules but the work
hours are very difficult for me . . . I start at 10 p.m. and I
leave at 5 a.m. They pay me $7 per hour . . . what I need to do
is learn English . . . for the moment I am studying and working
but I ignore my children a lot in order to advance at work . .
. there is no opportunity to move up because there are too many
people . . . The qualifications they want is that you have two
years [on the job] to change positions and it's impossible for
the people to last that long since the work is very hard and
the work hours, too.--A 45-year-old mother living with her
spouse and four children in Chicago Lawn, Chicago (IL-1)
[translated from Spanish]
I put in a lot of hours at my job. I work Monday-Friday from 9-
4:30, then I go home and work at least every night five hours
on opening mail for my company. I work for a mail order
company. By me bringing work home at night I am able to spend
very little time with my four children. On weekends, I spend as
much as 8 to 11 hours opening mail, so I don't get to spend as
much time with my family as I would like to.--A 31-year-old
mother working for a mail order company, living with her spouse
and four children in Norwalk, CT (CT-6)
I don't have anything against going to work, but my daughter
was sick a lot, and my son had ADHD so it was hard to find
sitters. It still is hard to find sitters. Now my main problem
is I am working two and three jobs, driving my kids nuts,
stressed out all the time, and public aid is helping me even
less.--A 30-year-old mother working three jobs, living with her
two children in Le Claire, IA (IA-2)
These examples illustrate some of the ways authors respond to the
conditions inherent in a low-wage job market. By pursuing a strategy of
working long hours and/or working multiple jobs, authors are able to
increase their earnings to some degree. However, as the first author
points out, it is often an unsustainable strategy.
While some transitioning workers accept this trade-off, many do
not, and are willing to sacrifice potentially higher wages or increased
hours for work that is more compatible with meeting what they perceive
to be their parental responsibilities. For these authors, their primary
concern is providing adequate care for their children. Employment
becomes secondary, and is frequently looked upon as self-defeating.
I believe that my son comes first, that I feel I have to work
around his needs. Bartending is not an end-all, but it's a
solution for me right now. If a job can work around my son's
needs, then that's where I'll put my efforts . . . I think
being a parent is the most important job, and I take it
seriously. My life centers around him.--A 42-year-old bartender
home-schooling her son in El Paso, TX (TX-1)
Most job[s] I obtain, I have to make sure that the hours are
suitable to work around my son's school schedule. Most of those
types of jobs are too far out to travel to. By me remaining
local, I'm limited to very low paying jobs with no room for
advancement.--A 34-year-old mother supporting her three
children in St. Petersburg, FL (FL-8)
Lately, my jobs have been hard. You want to earn more money,
but then your benefits suffer, and most jobs I go for are not
set schedules, so I can't receive child care. Because I would
like to be with my kids during the day, it's hard to find night
child care.--A 25-year-old single mother supporting her two
children in Green Bay (WI-10)
Making sure the needs of their children are met, even if it means
sacrificing higher paying jobs or even employment itself, represents
one type of family adaptation to the set of contradictory pressures
often facing these working parents. In striving to increase employment
outcomes and reduce the welfare rolls, questions about parenting and
how welfare leavers should best care for their children have often been
ignored. This reflects, in part, the sharply divergent work and
parenting experiences of most policy makers and the public as a whole
for whom work and family do not frequently represent such a stark
trade-off. Although the public may not fully appreciate the trade-offs
that confront these parents, their desire to do what is best for their
children is a broadly shared value.
Low-Wage Jobs and the Demands of Family: Even when working and
increasing one's income is a central priority, the conditions of work
found in the low-wage job market can frustrate the best of efforts. For
example, temp jobs which are often endorsed by welfare offices in job
fairs or promoted by caseworkers to their clients present a set of
distinct challenges. In addition to having virtually no job security,
limited hours, and often low pay and few or no benefits, these jobs can
be especially difficult for working parents, who, unable to predict
when they may be called to work, must quickly secure daycare
arrangements.
I have not been able to find full-time employment, but have had
some part-time jobs through a temp service as a secretary. The
pay is OK. Once I find full-time employment, I know I'll be
able to provide for me and my child. Working with a temp agency
is kind of hard because I have to go in when they call and I
need a babysitter right away.--A 22-year-old single mother with
1 child making $800 a month in Detroit through a temp agency
(MI-7)
Erratic work schedules or hours that are incompatible with family
life or daycare often mean transitioning workers will have difficulty
keeping their jobs. The authors in this study often describe losing
jobs because they missed some time from work to care for a sick child
or due to conflicts with work hours and arranging daycare.
I found a job working for GIANT, and the hours did not work out
with daycare, so I left. I missed three days, when my daughter
was sick, and got laid off because you can't miss three days in
the first 90 days on the job. I then moved on to inventory and
the hours again did not work out, because I was supposed to
report at 5:30 in the morning at the babysitter but she can't
accept children that early in the morning.--A 19-year-old
mother working and living with her two children in Washington,
D.C. (DC-2)
Working low-wage jobs compounds problems for transitioning workers
who often lack transportation and have high daycare costs that absorb
much of their income. These workers may lose their jobs when they miss
work or need to reduce hours in order to take care of children.
I had problems with transportation . . . buses are infrequent
and don't go where I need to go . . . and do not work for
getting to and from work because most work is too early or too
late for buses. Also, when I or my children got sick, jobs
didn't like that. Work is hard to find where I live. The pay is
low and employers do not help a small family.--A mother of four
from Laurel, Delaware trying to make ends meet on $350 a month.
(DE-3)
I have not had a job in the last year that I was able to keep.
My son needed day care and I did not have any transportation.
After I paid someone to watch him, I barely had enough money to
pay bills. They were just minimum wage jobs, with no chance for
advancement. If I didn't work the extra hours they needed me
to, I would get fired, but I had to get my son. I'm currently
unemployed.--A 23-year-old unemployed mother with one child
living in Detroit, MI (MI-4)
These examples illustrate the contradictory pressures felt by
transitioning workers. Even when working, these authors often find that
their ``success'' in the labor market can be quickly derailed by the
routine disruptions of parenthood since their jobs provide few of the
resources or flexibility needed to manage family responsibilities.
Rather than provide the route to self-sufficiency that policymakers
have envisioned the intersection of work and family in a low-wage job
market appears deeply problematic and incompatible.
TANF Rules and the Transition to Work-Finding Employment May Reduce
Critical TANF Supports: While these workers encounter a host of
problems in the labor market that complicate their transition to
employment and self-sufficiency and challenge their ability to meet
parental responsibilities, TANF rules can offset some of the problems
facing workers. Rather than compensate for the inadequacies found in a
low-wage job market, however, TANF rules often reinforce them, a
subject that will be taken up in greater detail in the following
chapter on public benefits. In many cases, workers find they are unable
to pay for daycare and other family needs once they start working and
their benefits are reduced or ended.
When I started working, it was only 3 days a week for 2 or 3
hours. Not to mention my check being cut down to $130 a month.
So it seems like after I got a part-time job, I started
struggling. I had to pay $100 a month for daycare, and also buy
diapers and wipes for the month. The little bit of change I
made from work was spent to buy my son's clothing. I was
struggling because they cut my check down.--An 18-year-old
woman raising a child with a chronic illness and attending
school, living in College Park in the Atlanta area. (GA-9)
It's really hard when you work. When you're on W-2 and you're
going through their program you have no problems with getting
food stamps, but [as] soon as you get a job--they won't cut
your medical benefits, you'll always get medical benefits--but
they'll cut your food stamps. The food stamps are gone; they'll
give them to you for a couple of months--A 26-year-old
certified nursing assistant living with her two children in
Milwaukee, WI (WI-7)
Meeting Family Responsibilities May Reduce TANF Supports In
addition, family needs that arise can complicate meeting TANF
obligations, which in turn can further exacerbate both family and
employment problems. Some authors report being sanctioned or losing
TANF assistance or other support benefits because they were unable to
meet a program requirement or had to leave a program to care for a sick
child. A 38-year-old mother who was working for the 2000 U.S. Census
and living with her child in Hartford, CT, relates:
My daughter started failing in her grades . . . So, what I did
was that I left that position, for her. Because I felt like she
was accustomed to having me there, so, to help her with her
homework and so forth and I wasn't there so you know, that had
to be the reason for it. So I left that position and the state
terminates me, completely. And that left me in dire straits.
Um, I went through the hearing and everything and it still
turned out with my having no monies to actually pay my rent.
Because that's what that helped me for and if I worked and
that's to get odds and ends for the house and pay bills and
whatever. So she went up in her grades, thank the Lord. But we
lost our monies and so forth. I've been temping since. I'm
trying to obtain a permanent position but it hasn't been easy.
(CT-3)
TANF Rules, Advancement and Higher Wages: Current TANF program
rules may inadvertently work to restrict advancement and higher wages
for transitioning workers by sanctioning or ending benefits if a
participant leaves a job. Under TANF program rules in many states,
transitioning workers who are stuck in dead-end jobs frequently face
the dilemma of losing valuable supports if they lose their jobs or
reduce their hours to look for something better or to seek out job
training and education to land better paying jobs. This, despite the
fact that several studies find that voluntary job changes lead to
higher wages among former welfare recipients, and the long established
positive correlation between income and education.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For a review of several studies, see Strawn, Greenberg, and
Savner 2001, 15-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Serendipitous Success: Some of the employed authors in this study
can be considered a kind of ``success story.'' Of the 106 families in
our study that are working, approximately 14 have found jobs and life
circumstances that bring their families a degree of material security
and who appear to be on the path to self-sufficiency or have already
achieved it. What is clear from this group is that success is as much
based on the co-incidence of family supports, positive life
circumstances, and simple good fortune as it is on finding that ``great
job.'' Thus, rather than being able to point to some successful
strategy, these authors' success reflects a decidedly serendipitous
element. In many ways the work histories and training and educational
backgrounds of this group of workers are quite similar to those who are
working but aren't ``making it.'' What stands out among this group is
the positive confluence of multiple factors in their lives that are key
to making the transition to work successful in terms of self-
sufficiency and employment, sustainable over the long term.
Still, their level of success is quite relative and precarious.
This group of more successful workers is only marginally better off
than the other group of working authors. With incomes that put them in
a ``near poor'' status, and with several lacking postsecondary
education or a clearly defined vocational degree, their situation is
delicate enough that one change in their life situation could place
them in the group of workers struggling to make ends meet.
Working Conditions That Distinguish the ``Success Stories'': These
authors have higher earnings than other workers in the study. Many of
these workers were employed in jobs that paid $8-12 an hour which
generally included benefits, a somewhat better situation than the
majority of working authors. Often these workers have found employment
that offered advancement in the last couple years. However, nothing
about the type of jobs or fields represented among this group of
``success stories'' suggests a distinct advantage from working in a
particular field or industry. These workers hold jobs in the health
field, in clerical office jobs, and in retail--fields that are common
to both groups of workers.
What distinguishes this group is these workers appear more likely
to have full-time work, and in some cases overtime, which help to
increase their incomes. Their higher incomes help to absorb the high
costs of child care, though some describe needing more assistance in
this area. Many of these workers are also offered advancement and tell
of employers who encourage them to apply for new positions and show
concern and support when problems arise in their work or family life.
Some of these employers provide flexible scheduling to manage family
needs, something that many workers in the other group cite as a cause
of losing or having to quit a job. One author describes a workplace
that is flexible enough to accommodate the parenting needs of caring
for a small infant while working.
I applied for a job as a bookkeeper before I had my baby, and
got it because of the skills I learned while at the nursing
agency. I make $11 an hour and have room for advancement. I
make the best money I have ever made. I got really lucky with
this job because I don't have set hours. I get paid for a 40-
hour work week, but only have to work until I get everything
done that needs to be done. Also, I can also take my son with
me which works out wonderful because I am breastfeeding.--22-
year-old bookkeeper living with her two children, Raleigh, NC
(NC-1)
Many of these workers also had affordable private insurance through
their work. Although this group in general had few health issues to
contend with, the combination of good benefits with the willingness of
an employer or supervisor to be supportive of an employee's family life
is noteworthy. One author describes the support she received from her
supervisor during a rocky period after a divorce. She explains that she
was encouraged to seek out some counseling through her private health
insurance to help her through this hard time. Without this level of
support from a supervisor and the easy access to counseling services,
it is possible she might have quit or lost her job. Taken individually,
each of these aspects may not seem significantly different from other
worker experiences, but taken as a whole for this group of workers,
they represent a more optimal labor market situation than for the
majority of workers for whom employment has not brought self-
sufficiency for their families.
In addition to experiencing a better set of working conditions and
benefits of employment, these workers are also notable for some of
their life circumstances and the level of social resources they are
able to bring to bear on managing the demands of work and family. For
example, this group of workers and their children have few health
problems. This contrasts sharply with the other group of workers and
those not working, among whom chronic health problems are common. This
group is also notable for its access to private transportation. Nearly
all of the authors in this group had a car or access to one. They
commented that it was needed to manage work with family, as when
children had to be dropped off at multiple locations some distance from
home, or when getting to work involved a significant commute.
I own my own car. I fill my tank when I get paid each week and
it lasts until the next week. I have just always budgeted for
that. I spend about 30-35 minutes one way to get to work,
including dropping my daughter off at school and dropping my
son off at daycare.--A 34-year-old mother with three children
balancing work and family life in Wake Forest, North Carolina
(NC-5)
The overall resemblance of this group of workers with those workers
not making it is instructive. Although this group of authors and their
stories are not distinguishable by some successful strategy they have
adopted, the few but significant differences in their social resources,
life circumstances, and work experiences do suggest a formula for
expanding the reach of self-sufficiency to more families. Such a
formula must address both supports for working parents and improvements
in the job market environment.
The Role of Worker Supports: As their accounts reveal for both
working and nonworking authors, finding jobs, sustaining employment,
and advancing in the labor market do not occur in a vacuum. These goals
are mediated by the level of family and worker supports that may or may
not be in place to meet such vital needs as child care, transportation,
and health care. Although the group of ``success stories'' generally
had access to health care through an employer, and either could rely on
family help to provide child care or could afford private child care,
the vast majority of transitioning workers need these supports through
TANF and other programs. Currently, many do not receive them.
The levels of worker supports offered to transitioning workers vary
in part due to state by state differences in the scope of programs and
eligibility. In terms of health insurance, a relatively high percentage
of authors (83%) who were employed have access to medical insurance,
most of it coming from state Medicaid programs rather than private
health insurance from an employer. While this finding is encouraging,
it signals that a significant number are without any health insurance
and that very few working authors receive health insurance through
their employer.\8\ As will be discussed in the chapter on health care,
a number of gaps exists in Medicaid programs and many participants lose
these benefits once they are working or their incomes rise, regardless
of whether they have access to private forms of health care from their
employers. Rather than base Medicaid eligibility on income, the
availability of private health insurance should be the main criterion
for continued eligibility. On the other hand, a much smaller percentage
had access to child care assistance (roughly one half of those working
in our study). However, the need for child care assistance and greater
access, particularly hours of operation that fit with many work
schedules, emerge clearly in these narratives as a worker support
absolutely critical to transitioning workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Only 18 working authors received private health insurance
through their employer.
Child care on the most part is good but sometimes it impacts on
getting to work or looking for work. There should be more child
care options, like having one at my apartment complex. Also a
lot of child care is geared at 8 to 4 or 9 to 5 jobs, but about
half the jobs are very-early-starting jobs or end late or on
weekends. Then child care becomes a nightmare. This is
especially where central locations of child care should be
available.--A mother with four children from Laurel, Delaware.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(DE-3)
I have had a lot of trouble finding a job. I don't have any
degrees or experience, so I am blown off right away most of the
time. However, most recently I found that I could have applied
for many jobs. I have a better chance than I've ever had before
now. Yet, the biggest pitfalls remain the same. Many employers
want you to be very flexible with your schedule and work
weekends and holidays. My babysitter doesn't work weekends or
evenings. This makes it hard for me to find a job sometimes.
Also, I have to work around my son's school schedule because I
don't have any family [or] friends to help me do things. I
really need a job that is flexible with me--one that allows me
to take care of my family as well as my work. Most jobs just
don't understand that you may not have anyone else who can take
your kids to the doctor's, etc. I make more money right now
than ever before, but I still couldn't pay for child care for
two children. I just don't know what I will do when my child
care assistance ends! Will I be on the streets again? Probably!
It is very sad!--A 28-year-old mother working and living with
her two children in El Cajon, CA.(CA-2)
The disparity between health insurance coverage and child care
assistance is most likely a reflection of the greater
institutionalization of state Medicaid programs and the relatively
recent focus on child care programs nationally since the passage of
PRWORA in 1996. Nonetheless, these accounts point to the need for
greater resources and assistance directed at child care for
transitioning workers. One state that has provided such an approach is
Wisconsin. Wisconsin recently increased the income eligibility for
child care assistance to 185% of the federal poverty level (or $26,172
for a family of three) and participants remain eligible until their
income exceeds 200% (or $27,756) of the poverty level (Ehrle et al.
2001). These issues will be taken up in greater detail in our chapter
on child care.
Finally, having access to a car appears to be an important factor
in the group of success stories. Innovative programs that provide loans
to purchase a car, and other programs that help transitioning workers
gain access to private transportation are likely to be an effective
strategy to help families manage the competing demands of work and
family and promote self-sufficiency. The chapter on transportation will
outline these programs in greater detail.
The Role of the Private Sector: Although most of the jobs authors
found lacked a number of basic provisions and the flexibility needed to
manage both family and work, a few authors (from both groups of working
authors) describe some positive work experiences that made the
difference between losing a job and keeping one. These authors describe
a workplace that is family-friendly and willing to accommodate frequent
interruptions in work to care for a child.
Holding a job was very hard for two reasons. It was my weight
and the other was my son's disability. I would often need days
off for my son's doctor's appointments or even weeks if he was
hospitalized. I knew there wasn't an employer on this earth
that would be that flexible or understanding. So needless to
say, I lost a lot of jobs. Child care has always been my field
and the only jobs that I ever had . . . which brings me to
where I am today at a very family-oriented day care center
where they are very flexible to my situation and they help me
out a lot.--A 29-year-old mother of two from East Orange, New
Jersey. (NJ-3)
I've worked at Food Lion for about a year and a half . . . The
management works with me because I have young children I care
for, so they work around my schedule. They give me time to find
someone to take my grandchildren so I can come in if they need
me.--A 55-year-old single mother caring for her two
grandchildren and working full-time as a baker at a local
grocery store in Raleigh. (NC-4)
These positive examples of employers providing greater flexibility
with time off and increased understanding of the challenges faced by
transitioning workers appear to be an important influence on whether
workers are able to succeed in the labor market. Thus far, however,
there has been no real effort to provide incentives for employers to
provide these kinds of benefits and flexibility. While having a policy
influence in the private sector poses some serious challenges, a number
of incentives could be developed such as providing tax credits to
employers who provide provisions for such things as on-site day care
and offer flexible scheduling for working parents.
Flexibility is not enough, however. As the working poor status of
the majority of authors in this study attests, most of their jobs
simply do not offer a wage capable of sustaining a family, even when
working full-time. Two strategies that can be pursued in tandem should
be explored to address this wage reality. On the one hand, TANF should
be expanded by allowing recipients to continue receiving assistance
while they work. These wage supplements, known as Earned Income
Disregards (EIDs), create both a strong incentive to work and ensure
that employment provides a route to material security for families.
Providing this kind of worker wage supplement will be addressed more
thoroughly in the chapter on public benefits. A second and broader
strategy attempts to address the issue of low-wage work in the economy
as a whole by advocating for increases in the minimum wage and
increases in the EITC benefit. Minimum wage laws have not kept up with
the cost of living. If the minimum wage had kept up with its actual
value in 1968, it would currently be $8.14. Current laws need to be
raised and indexed for inflation. Currently, the level of $5.15 an hour
cannot support a family of three above the official poverty line, with
one adult working and assuming full-time, year-round employment, an
assumption that this study shows applies infrequently to transitioning
workers. Given that many poverty scholars consider the official poverty
level far too low, a much higher wage is needed to provide a family-
supporting wage for welfare leavers and low-wage workers. Without
addressing these problems of low-wage work, many families will find it
difficult, if not impossible, to make the transition to work and become
self-sufficient, an outcome that is contrary to the objectives of
PRWORA and sound social policy.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For a discussion of the inadequacy of minimum wage laws and the
federal poverty standard see Schorr (2001). A self-sufficiency standard
developed by Diana Pierce at the University of Washington as part of
the Family Economic Self-Sufficiency Project is a useful alternative to
the federal poverty benchmark. The self-sufficiency standard used here
incorporates many more factors than the current ``bread basket''
federal poverty formula. The self-sufficiency measures encompasses
geographic location, taxes, age of children which reflect different
level of costs, and costs associated with working, to come up with an
income level needed by a family to be considered self-sufficient. The
website can be reached at: http://www.sixstrategies.org/homepage.cfm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendations
1. Given the reliance on low-wage work, and the frequent inability
of transitioning workers to work full-time, policies should be
implemented that increase the earnings of workers and make it
financially meaningful to leave welfare. Federal and state policy
should be committed to reducing poverty and promoting work that
provides for a family-supporting wage. Several policies can be pursued
to ensure that employment and poverty do not go hand-in-hand and which
make allowances for working parents. One approach is to increase the
minimum wage and index it to inflation. Minimum wage levels have not
kept up with the cost of living and the current level of $5.15 an hour
cannot support a family. To that end we support HR 2812, Minimum Wage
Restoration Act. In addition to increasing the base wage of workers,
changes to the tax code that would count dependent child exemptions and
credits for families who do not owe income taxes would further help to
supplement workers' income.
2. Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit. Currently EITC levels are
capped at $4,000 for a family with two children and decline as income
exceeds $12,500. Either the cap should be raised, or the level at which
it begins to decline should be increased. The measure should also take
into account family size. The 11 states that currently offer a state
income tax EITC should make similar changes and states that do not
currently offer the benefit should.
3. Adopt a ``balanced work first'' approach that acknowledges that
the current standardized system of job readiness with an emphasis on
immediate employment is not appropriate for the majority of welfare
recipients. This would require a reevaluation of the definition of work
to include activities such as job training and post-secondary education
and an easing of the federal work participation requirements. An
increased emphasis on training and educational credentials is key to
the twin goals of sustained employment and self-sufficiency under
PRWORA.
4. Provide incentives for states to implement a comprehensive
tailored approach to job training which would require attainment of a
GED for those without a high school diploma, needs assessment prior to
training, and more targeted training. This approach would also offer a
mix of education, job training, job search, and work that is connected
to a particular type of employment. Follow-up and continued training
must be part of the package. An important goal of the programs would be
a commitment to family-supporting employment, not simply any job.
5. While policy changes directed at increasing the wage and yearly
income for low-wage workers are important, finding ways to address the
competing demands of parenting and work are also important. This means
acknowledging the much higher level of physical and mental impairments
for this group of working parents and their children. One approach that
moves in that direction is to strengthen and expand the Family and
Medical Leave Act so it applies to smaller businesses and to workers
who have worked less than 12 months. In addition, states should be
allowed to link the FMLA benefit to their unemployment trust fund
program or similar program. To that end, we support HR 226, Family
Income to Respond to Significant Transitions Insurance Act. Expanding
FMLA in this way would help low-income parents who must take time off
to care for a child or parent by providing a needed income supplement.
6. Make it a national goal to promote a family-friendly work
environment. Provide tax incentives to employers who offer flexible
work scheduling for families, on-site daycare, health care, and other
provisions and forms of leave. TANF funds can be used in various ways
to provide these incentives to employers who hire TANF recipients.
7. Expand the wage supplements known as Earned Income Disregards
(EIDs) to help to create a strong incentive to work and ensure that
employment provides a route to material security for families. Access
to worker supports such as Medicaid, food stamps, childcare subsidies,
and other benefits for TANF leavers and other low-income workers should
also be expanded. And states should add post-employment supportive
services such as job training and retention. Finally, TANF should
remain available to all workers as a safety net. TANF is a vital
protection against unemployment, disability or when family
responsibilities interfere with work for wage earners. To ensure TANF
is able to provide this needed role, the percentage of caseloads that
can be exempted from 5-year time limits should be expanded to reflect
the need of current recipients.
American Association of Community Colleges
Washington, DC 20036
March 8, 2002
The Honorable Wally Herger
Chairman
Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means
B-317 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Herger:
The American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) represents
more than 1,100 public and private, regionally accredited two-year
institutions of higher education. On behalf of AACC, I hereby submit
our statement for inclusion in the printed record for the March 7
hearing on the implementation of welfare reform work requirements and
time limits. We should say at the outset that we believe that the
implementation of the welfare work requirements was flawed from the
start, because the law provided most of its incentives for job
placement and few for education and training.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
(PRWORA), the 1996 welfare reform law, dramatically changed federal-
state welfare programs designed to aid low-income American families. It
replaced the entitlement to cash welfare benefits with a new state
block grant, the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program,
to provide flexible funding to states to operate welfare programs to
achieve certain goals--the primary one being to end long-term
dependency. To that end, and with strong federal inducements, states
dramatically reduced their welfare caseloads and met their work
participation rates largely by placing recipients into readily
available low-wage service-sector jobs.
The federal law's design effectively left states with few options
to address their welfare caseloads. Allowing recipients to engage in
educational activities, namely vocational education, was one method
available under the law for states to meet the work participation
requirement. However, PRWORA restricted participation in this activity
to 12 months and prevented states from using federal funds to support
welfare recipients in this activity beyond that time.
Many responded to the spirit and letter of welfare reform by
emphasizing work above all, in spite of other options permitted by law.
For instance, a study conducted by the Coalition for Independence
through Education (CFITE) revealed that Michigan's state welfare
agencies discouraged education by stating it was ``not a priority, or
was not encouraged or supported by the state.'' CFITE's study noted
that recipients often were not given information about allowable
education activities and, after legislative changes to Michigan's
policy supposedly ensured they would, caseworkers continued to provide
inaccurate information about the state's policy. Another way the state
discouraged education was through the withholding of child-care
assistance to those in school. The survey cited one recipient who was
receiving childcare assistance while in school: ``. . . my caseworker
was switched. Then they cut me off with no notification. I had to call
. . . to get a vague answer, `It was a mistake and you should have
never received any kind of payment for child-care while attending
college'.'' It is evident that TANF recipients viewed the loss of
assistance as too high a price to pay for getting an education. CFITE's
report clearly showed that Michigan, like many other states, felt it
had little incentive to also promote education as a path to self-
sufficiency although the law permitted participation in this activity.
It is evident that the law's stated limits on educational activity
has caused states to adopt the work-first approach implicit in PRWORA.
Although states technically have significant flexibility in how they
design their welfare reform programs, they share a common thread
concerning limits to education and training activities. By its design
and threat of punitive action, i.e., the loss of federal funds, PRWORA
dissuaded states from utilizing any other approach besides work first
or, in many cases, work only.
AACC believes this situation can be corrected by lifting the
disincentives on states that want to use education and training
opportunities as a component of welfare reform. The evidence abounds on
the positive impact education has on future job and income prospects.
Therefore, it should be an option for TANF recipients who want to make
a better life for themselves and their families.
Our association would welcome the opportunity to share these and
other thoughts with you at length at an appropriate time. We appreciate
your engagement on these critical issues.
Thank you for extending us the opportunity to share our comments
with the committee.
Sincerely,
George R. Boggs
President and CEO
Statement of the Center for Women Policy Studies
The Center for Women Policy Studies offers the following comments
to the Subcommittee on Human Resources in preparation for
reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
program, established by the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.
The Center for Women Policy Studies is a multiethnic and
multicultural feminist policy research, analysis and advocacy
organization which brings women's diverse voices to important public
policy debates--on women and AIDS, violence against women and girls,
welfare reform, access to health care, educational equity, employers'
work/family and workplace diversity policies, reproductive rights and
health, and many other critical issues.
The Center for Women Policy Studies urges Congress to pass a
reauthorized TANF that focuses on poverty reduction as its long term
goal. While we agree that employment is the key to achieving economic
independence, we believe that a short-sighted focus on low wage and
insecure ``work'' at all costs cannot ``end welfare as we know it'' or
lift low income families out of poverty. Indeed, as many leavers'
studies demonstrate, TANF recipients who leave the rolls for low-wage,
dead end jobs remain mired in poverty and often return to public
assistance (National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support, 2001). In
contrast, programs for welfare recipients which allow both education
and work activities have generated positive outcomes (Holzer and
Wissoker, 2001; Greenberg, Strawn and Plimpton, 2000). However, it is
essential that these education activities are not limited to on-the-job
training or short stints of vocational education. The Center
particularly urges Congress to follow the lead of several states and
ensure that the reauthorized TANF statute explicitly allows states to
provide access to postsecondary education for women TANF recipients.
The Center has examined the role of postsecondary education in
helping low income women lift themselves out of poverty since 1988. We
look forward to working with the Subcommittee on Human Resources on
TANF reauthorization and will be pleased to share with the Committee
the research and policy analyses that the Center, our colleagues in
other research institutions, and the state legislators with whom we
work nationwide have conducted.
In the United States, education has always been a route to economic
self-sufficiency and social mobility, as demonstrated by the long term
success of the GI Bill, for example. Every president for the last 20
years has stressed the importance of education for everyone in America.
Education cannot stop at high school because, in the 21st century, at
least one year of postsecondary education is essential for all workers.
And yet, TANF does not extend our nation's commitment to educational
opportunity to women who are living in poverty with their children.
However, many women on welfare are ready, willing, and able to benefit
from postsecondary education; indeed, 53 percent of women AFDC
recipients in the years preceding TANF were high school graduates or
had earned GEDs (Center for Women Policy Studies, 1998).
Data from several studies have demonstrated that the additional
earning capacity that a postsecondary education provides can make the
difference between economic self-sufficiency and continued poverty for
many women TANF recipients. Among families headed by African-American
women, the poverty rate declines from 51 percent to 21 percent with at
least one year of postsecondary education. Among families headed by
Latinas, the poverty rate declines from 41 percent to 18.5 percent with
at least one year of postsecondary education. And among families headed
by white women, the poverty rate declines from 22 percent to 13 percent
with at least one year of postsecondary education (Center for Women
Policy Studies, 1998).
Studies in several states have found that postsecondary education
not only increases women's income, it also raises their self esteem,
increases their children's educational ambitions, and has a dramatic
impact on their quality of life. Further, the children of these newly
educated mothers are more likely to take education seriously and aspire
to go to college themselves (Center for Women Policy Studies, 1998).
Now, more than ever, TANF recipients need postsecondary education
to obtain the knowledge and skills required to compete for jobs that
pay a living wage, provide health and other benefits, and enable women
to lift themselves and their children out of poverty in the long term.
Without some postsecondary education, most women who leave welfare for
work will earn wages far below the federal poverty line, even after
five years of working. But allowing TANF recipients to attend college,
even for a short time, will improve their earning potential
significantly. In fact, the average person who attends a community
college--even if she/he does not complete an associate's degree--earns
about 10 percent more than her/his counterparts who do not have any
college education (Center for Women Policy Studies, 1998).
Moreover, women who receive assistance clearly appreciate the
importance of postsecondary education in their struggle to improve
their lives and their children's lives. The Center's recent qualitative
research with women TANF recipients from the Washington, DC
metropolitan area demonstrates their ambition and commitment to hard
work. Study participants were eager to leave TANF as quickly as
possible--but they also wanted to leave poverty and create a stable
lifetime career. They understood that a college education was the most
important strategy to move them from welfare to economic self-
sufficiency. One participant clarified this mission and reflected what
several others said: ``I've got to go to college so I can get this
degree, so I can get off of TANF, so I can provide for my family and
get a decent job to provide for my children.'' (Wolfe and Tucker,
2001).
The Center for Women Policy Studies strongly urges Congress to
respond to the leadership shown by many states by ensuring that the
reauthorized TANF program includes postsecondary education in the list
of allowable work activities. In addition, for TANF recipients enrolled
in a postsecondary education program, both their participation in a
campus work study program and a reasonable amount of study time should
be classified as work activities. Finally, federal law should allow
states to extend TANF recipients' time limits if they are participating
in a postsecondary education program; states should be able to ``stop
the clock'' for TANF recipients to ensure that they do not have their
assistance withdrawn before they can achieve the long-term economic
security that postsecondary education can provide and that welfare
reform should encourage.
Despite the TANF program's overwhelming focus on immediate work
participation and decreasing welfare caseloads as indicators of
success, many states have attempted to support women's efforts to
achieve long-term economic independence through pursuit of a
postsecondary education. Congress must not take away from states the
flexibility to provide the most opportunity to their citizens.
In our recent study of states and postsecondary education, we found
that, of the 32 states whose efforts we reviewed in depth, 29 states
allowed postsecondary education either alone or in combination with
work, to be considered as an allowable TANF work activity. Several
states have amended their state welfare laws to specifically allow
postsecondary education as an allowable work activity under TANF
(California, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, New York, and Ohio, for
example). Other states have created separate state programs using their
Maintenance of Effort (MOE) funds to allow TANF recipients to engage in
postsecondary education without the limitations of the federally
mandated work and time limit requirements (Maine, Texas, and Wyoming,
for example). Others encouraged a combination of postsecondary
education and allowable work activities (including Delaware, New
Jersey, and Wyoming, for instance) or operated under a federal waiver
to allow college to count as an allowable work activity (Ohio, Texas,
and Vermont) (Center for Women Policy Studies, 1999; forthcoming,
2002).
Such state programs as the Maine ``Parents As Scholars'' (PAS)
program have served as models for other states to emulate. Parents As
Scholars allows eligible low-income Maine residents to receive cash
benefits and supportive services if they are enrolled in an
undergraduate two or four-year college degree program. The amount
received from the Parents as Scholars program is equivalent to the
amount the recipient would have received under TANF. Recipients must be
pursuing a postsecondary educational program designed to lead to
employment which will significantly improve their ability to become
self-supporting. Several other states, including Texas, New Hampshire
and Washington, have developed or are seeking to develop programs
modeled on the PAS program.
A recent study conducted on behalf of the Alliance for Family
Success details the positive outcomes of PAS scholars. The study found
that PAS graduates increased their wages by nearly 50%, compared to
TANF recipients who left TANF without obtaining postsecondary
education. In addition, they are more likely to find jobs with good
benefits. PAS participants generally perform very well in college.
Moreover, obtaining a college education improves self esteem and
provides a sense of accomplishment. Finally, the benefits of
participation in the Maine PAS program extended to the families of
participants. Their children raised their aspirations, and attended
college like their mothers. (Smith, Deprez, and Butler, 2002)
The Center for Women Policy Studies applauds the leadership of
these states and strongly urges Congress to include postsecondary
education as an allowable work activity in the reauthorized TANF.
References
Center for Women Policy Studies. 1998. Getting Smart About Welfare:
Postsecondary Education is the Most Effective Strategy for Self-
Sufficiency for Low Income Women. Washington, DC.
Center for Women Policy Studies. 1999. Getting Smart About Welfare:
State Legislators Action Kit. Washington, DC.
Greenberg, M, Strawn, J. & Plimpton, L., 2000 State Opportunities
to Provide Access to Postsecondary Education Under TANF. Washington,
DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.
Holzer, Harry & Wissoker, Douglas. 2001 How Can We Encourage Job
Retention and Advancement for Welfare Recipients? Urban Institute
Series, ``New Federalism: Issues and Options for States.''
National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support. 2001. Leaving
Welfare, Left Behind:
Employment Status, Income, and Well-Being of Former TANF
Recipients. Washington, DC.
Smith, R., Deprez, L. & Butler, S. 2002. Parents As Scholars:
Education
Works, Alliance for Family Success.
Wolfe, L.R. & Tucker, J. 2002, ``Clipping Our Wings'': The Impact
of Welfare Reform on the College Aspirations of Low Income Women.
Washington, DC: Center for Women Policy Studies.
Statement of Sharon M. Dietrich, Community Legal Services, Inc.,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Many Welfare Recipients Could Not Meet TANF Proposals for 40 Hours of
Work
Introduction
TANF Reauthorization proposals put forward by the Bush
Administration and others would require the states to engage a high
percentage of their welfare recipients in work activities for an
average of 40 hours every week for the states to continue to receive
their full TANF block grant.\1\ Based on our experience and those of
other Pennsylvanians familiar with welfare-to-work implementation in
our state, Community Legal Services, Inc. (CLS) believes that the 40
hour requirement is not attainable and is the most problematic feature
of the Administration proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The work participation rate would increase from 50% to 70% by
FY 2007. Meanwhile, the caseload reduction credit would be completely
phased out, except for a very limited credit in which persons leaving
welfare for work would count for three months. The upshot of these
changes would be that 70% of TANF recipients would have to engage in
work activities 40 hours a week by FY 2007. Twenty-four of the 40 hours
would be in ``work"; the other 16 could be in other specified
activities. States would receive pro-rata credit for persons who met
the 24 hour work benchmark but did not the 40 hour goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The notion that TANF recipients are only being asked to match the
number of hours routinely worked by other workers is superficial and
erroneous. Many workers, even those who are considered ``full-time,''
work fewer than 40 hours. Full-time workers typically are credited for
paid time during which they do not work, including breaks, holidays,
vacations, sick days and personal days--accommodations that do not
appear in the 40 hour proposals for welfare recipients. Workers of all
types miss work for a wide variety of reasons, resulting in far fewer
than 40 hours worked. Research shows, and our experiences have been,
that TANF recipients (and other low wage workers) are particularly
likely to miss work, because they face more family and other demands
that conflict with work and have fewer resources to deal with these
demands. In our experience, many TANF recipients who are working to
capacity cannot meet even the current 30 hour goal.
The consequences of requiring TANF recipients to average 40 hours
of work activities every week would be severe and counter-productive.
Even a person averaging 39 hours a week of work activities would count
against the state's compliance with its work participation rates if the
one missed hour was in ``work.'' People doing their best to work would
nevertheless be sanctioned off the caseload by states struggling to
meet the unrealistic goals. The costs to the states of providing 40
hours of work activities would be staggering, especially in providing
child care subsidies. The work participation rate regime would not
focus on good employment outcomes. Even policymakers who are ``pro-
work'' for TANF recipients should not support such a problematic
proposal.
The 40-Hour Requirement Is Not Realistic
The justification advanced for the 40-hour requirement for TANF
recipients is that they should be expected to work no less than their
counterparts who do not receive cash assistance. This rationale is
flawed, because many workers considered full-time do not work 40 hours
every week. There are many legitimate reasons why workers of all sorts
work fewer than 40 hours and must miss work.
American Workers Do Not Regularly Work 40 Hours Every Week
``Full-time'' workers may work 35 hours per week. Of course, some
full-time employees do work 40 hours or more in a typical week.
However, many workers considered full-time work fewer than 40 hours.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) considers 35 hours the benchmark
of full-time work.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, e.g., Annual Average Table from the January 2001 Issue of
Employment and Earnings, Tables 19-23, from the Monthly Labor Review
Online, December, 2001, Vol. 124, No. 12, available at ``http://
www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaatab.htm.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These hours include paid time not worked. When measuring hours
worked, BLS includes hours paid for holidays, vacations, sick leave,
and other compensated leave.\3\ From what is known of the
Administration proposal and from TANF implementation to date, there is
no reason to expect that TANF recipients expected to meet the 40 hour
requirement will receive credit comparable to paid leave days when they
miss work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ BLS Handbook of Methods, Chapter 2, available at ``http://
www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homch2--b.htm.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A substantial number of employees work fewer than 35 hours per
week. According to BLS's annual data for 2001, 24.1% of employees work
fewer than 35 hours. 16.5% work fewer than 30 hours.\4\ Among single
women, 37.3% work fewer than 35 hours.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Annual Average Table from the January 2001 Issue of Employment
and Earnings, supra note 2, at Table 19.
\5\ Id. at Table 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hours worked vary between sectors. According to BLS data, average
weekly hours vary depending on the sector of the labor economy. For
instance, in manufacturing, average weekly hours have exceeded 40 hours
every month since January 1992. By contrast, the service sector
typically averages below 33 hours per week, and the retail sector
averages 28-29 hours per week. Former welfare recipients are much more
like to find work in the service and retail sectors than the
manufacturing sector.
Workers Miss Time for Many Reasons, and TANF Recipients Are Especially
Likely To Have Legitimate Reasons to Miss Work
Workers do not perform their jobs in a vacuum. They have family and
personal needs that frequently require them to miss work. TANF
recipients have the same needs to miss work as other workers.
Additionally, their absences from work are exacerbated by their typical
status as single parents, their lack of resources to deal with non-
work-related problems, and demands disproportionate or unique to poor
people (such as dealing with bureaucracies).
Caregiving obligations. In a ground-breaking study based on
interview of more than 7,500 caregivers, Dr. Jody Heymann examined the
obligations of American workers to provide for the health, educational
and other needs of children, parents, and other adults in their
care.\6\ Her national findings were that in the week of the interviews,
30% missed at least one day of work to meet the needs of family
members, 12% missed two or more days, and 5% missed three or more.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Jody Heymann, The Widening Gap: Why America's Working Families
Are in Jeopardy and What Can Be Done About It (Basic Books 2000). Jody
Heymann, M.D., Ph.D, is on the faculty of Harvard University and
Director of Policy for the Harvard University Center for Society and
Health. Among the principal sources of data for her book are the Urban
Working Families Study, a national Daily Diaries Study, the U.S.
Department of Labor's National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, and the
Survey of Midlife in the United States. Combined, the studies involved
interviews of more than 7,500 caregivers across the country and
included multiyear follow-ups. Id. at 7.
\7\ Id. at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Heymann learned that children were not the only family members
for whom caregivers were required to cut back their working hours.
While 42% of absences were to care for children, 15% were for parents,
12% were for spouses or other partners, 7% were for grandchildren, and
24% were for other family members.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id. at 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, Dr. Heymann discovered that the reasons that care is
needed are varied.\9\ They included: Child care problems 22%;Elder care
5%;Children's school needs 3%;Transportation for family members
10%;Cope with a death 3%;Other support 31%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id. at 24. BLS data show that 20.7% of people working fewer
than 35 hours per week, or 6.44 million adults, did so because of child
care or other family or personal obligations. Annual Average Table from
the January 2001 Issue of Employment and Earnings, supra note 2, Table
20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Heymann found that the situation is particularly bleak for low
income workers, because ``they have both the most substantial problems
and the most limited resources.'' \10\ She characterized low income
parents as being in ``multiple jeopardy: single, with limited support,
and without job benefits,'' a profile which fit 38% of low-income
working parents in her national study.\11\ Among the challenges to low
income workers that she identified were greater likelihood of child
care problems;\12\ higher incidence of sickness and chronic health
conditions among low income children;\13\ evening and night work and
irregular schedules;\14\ under-resourced schools;\15\ and lack of money
to pay for substitute care when needed (such as days a child is sick or
school is closed).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id. at 117.
\11\ Id. at 134.
\12\ Dr. Heymann found that 33% of caregivers with income below
125% of poverty had to miss hours from work because of child care,
compared to 21% of middle and upper income persons. Id. at 28.
\13\ Id. at 166.
\14\ Id. at 166.
\15\ Id. at 131.
\16\ Id. at 132.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The demands on low income workers of providing care for disabled
family members are particularly noteworthy. Dr. Heymann found that 41%
of mothers on welfare for more than two years and 32% of mothers on
welfare for two years or fewer had a least one child with a chronic
health condition.\17\ With fewer financial resources for help, the
working poor must provide the care themselves. Among those with a
disabled child, 49% spent more than one working day a month providing
care; 15% spent more than a 40 hour workweek per month. Caregiving
demands for other disabled family members are similar.\18\ Moreover, a
disabled child may have special educational needs as well as caregiving
needs, requiring additional parental time at school and with
homework.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Id. at 124.
\18\ Id. at 124-25.
\19\ Id. at 74-87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sickness or disability of the worker. In addition to providing care
for sick or disabled family members, the adult's own sickness or
disability may require absences from work.\20\ Most higher income
workers receive paid sick days in acknowledgment of this reality. But
under an inflexible 40 hour a week standard, TANF recipients might be
required to make up any missed days, extending their workweek beyond 40
hours in a later period.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ BLS data shows that 759,000 adults working fewer than 35 hours
per week did so because of health or medical limitations. Annual
Average Table from the January 2001 Issue of Employment and Earnings,
supra note 2, Table 20.
\21\ We assume that making up time missed in one week in another
week would be allowed and encouraged, because the Bush proposal (which
is not in the form of a bill at the time of this writing) requires that
families ``average'' 40 hours per week of work activities and 24 hours
per week of work. However, the proposal is not explicit on whether
hours can be made up in another week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ironically, under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
an employer must allow an employee with a disability to work a modified
or part-time schedule as a reasonable accommodation, absent undue
hardship.\22\ If the 40 hour work requirement were to be enacted, that
could create the incongruous situation where an employer would be
legally required to modify its attendance requirements, but the TANF
recipient could be found in non-compliance with the requirements of the
TANF program. Moreover, under Title II of the ADA, the state TANF
agencies have obligations to ensure that their policies do not
discriminate against people with disabilities.\23\ Thus, an inflexible
40 hour rule could also place the states in a legal quandary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Enforcement Guidance
on Reasonable Accommodation (eff. March 1, 1999), Q&A 22, available at
http://www.eeoc.gov/docs/accommodation.html#12 (citing Ralph v. Lucent
Technologies, Inc., 135 F.3d 166, 172 (1st Cir. 1998)).
\23\ See, e.g., Prohibition Against Discrimination on the Basis of
Disability in the Administration of TANF (Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families), Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, January, 2001 (``the OCR ADA guidance''). It can be
found at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/prohibition.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The worksite is closed. A typical reason for closing is a holiday.
At CLS, where we host ``transitional workers'' who are TANF recipients,
our offices are closed for holidays at least once every month from
September through February. Under a strict 40-hour policy, our
transitional workers would not only not get paid for these holidays,
but would have to find a way to add hours (at a time that our office is
not open for business) to make them up, to avoid losing their cash
assistance.
Mandatory court appearances and jury duty. In our experience, low
income clients are particularly likely to have court involvement, such
as child welfare system cases, domestic violence hearings (to obtain
and enforce protection from abuse orders), and support matters
(particularly because child support cooperation is a TANF requirement).
These court appearances will conflict with day-time work schedules.
The Philadelphia Unemployment Project (one of our group clients)
assisted a participant in the Work Opportunities paid work experience
program who was expelled for attending mandatory jury duty to which she
was summoned. This is an example of the consequences of rigid work
attendance policies.
``Poor people's shuffle.'' In addition to court appearances, low
income workers often deal with bureaucracies that demand their
attendance during work hours and often require them to wait for hours,
such as public housing authorities and the welfare office itself. In
her study, Dr. Heymann relates the story of a low wage father who
decided to go with less food for his family rather than missing work to
go to the welfare office to fill out papers for food stamps.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Heymann, supra note 6, at 120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family tragedies. For low income people to experience tragedies--
children being incarcerated, houses burning down, deaths--is not
unusual. The director of Philadelphia's Transitional Work Corporation
reports that a number of participants in his program have had children
who committed suicide. Parents living through these tragedies cannot be
expected to keep up with a relentless 40 hour a week work schedule.
Other typical reasons people miss work. Like other workers, low
income workers are late to work or miss it because of transportation
problems. Because they are more likely to use unreliable cars or public
transportation, low wage workers have less control over these
transportation problems.\25\ Like other workers, low wage workers
occasionally must stay home to await the plumber or a public utility
worker. But the 40 hour requirement would provide no flexibility to
deal with such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Our Philadelphia clients often travel to suburban jobs by
public transportation. These commutes, which may require several
connections, can easily take three hours a day. The commutes add to the
time crunch that our clients experience, even when they work less than
full-time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experiences in Pennsylvania in Hours Worked Among Current and Former
TANF Recipients
Our experience has been that our clients have been unable to meet a
standard of 30 hours per week, much less forty hours. The Pennsylvania
Department of Public Welfare (DPW) has tried to maximize hours worked
by current and former TANF recipients by structuring its programs to
require the hours benchmarks established by the TANF work participation
rates. But in the face of the reality that many workers were unable to
achieve these hours goals on a regular basis, DPW has modified its
policies to build in flexibility.
For instance, in February 1999, DPW established a 25 hour per week
eligibility standard for persons not receiving TANF (many of them
former TANF recipients) to receive subsidized child care. As a result
of repeated incidents of parents not qualifying for the subsidies
because of missed worked that dropped them below 25 hours pers week,
DPW agreed to a policy change that recognized a limited number of
temporary exceptions from the 25 hour requirement, for work missed
because of disability, medical appointments, employer closings or
domestic violence. Nevertheless, many parents continue to have
difficulty meeting the 25 hour goal, leading advocates to press for
reduction of the hours requirement back to the original goal of 20
hours per week.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ A common reason that clients miss the 25 hour goal is that
they are in jobs providing 20 hours per week of work, and they are
unable to have their employer increase the hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another manifestation has been attendance at the Transitional Work
Corporation program (TWC), Philadelphia's highly regarded paid work
experience program for TANF recipients. TWC was designed to require 25
hours per week of paid work experience at work sites in government and
non-profit jobs and 10 hours per week of ``professional development''
(training and career advising) at TWC's offices. TWC has consistently
insisted that its participants, who have been screened as being among
the ``hardest to serve,'' meet these attendance requirements, but many
have been unable to do so on a regular basis. In a recent DPW audit of
the hours of 20 TWC participants, only 80% of work site hours and 50%
of professional development hours were met, despite the high quality of
services offered at TWC.
In conjunction with the DPW audit, TWC examined the reasons why its
participants fell short of the 25/10 hours goals. Among its conclusions
were the following.
Because TWC is a 35 hour program, making up missed
hours is difficult.
Because TWC works with the hardest to serve (persons
with multiple employment barriers), its participants have
difficulty with time and attendance. The program's challenge is
to identify the underlying causes for absenteeism and to work
with its participants to address these causes.
Often when TWC participants are not in attendance,
they are dealing with barriers to employability that require
their attention during the workday, such as child care,
housing, domestic violence, or drug and alcohol addiction. It
is unfair to ask them to address these employment barriers and
then penalize them for not being at the program.
Work sites that are closed for holidays create
problems in reaching the goals. Sickness among participants and
their family members were other common reasons for absences.
During the summer of 2001, DPW announced a program called ``Time
Out,'' pursuant to which TANF recipients who are engaged in work
activities for 30 hours per week would be taken off the TANF 60-month
time clock. Based on the DPW audit, not a one of the 20 participants
whose time records were reviewed would qualify for Time Out if their
actual hours were counted on a weekly basis, even though TWC provides
35 hours per week of work activities. Along with complaints from
advocates that too few persons in 30 hour per week work programs were
qualifying for Time Out, the sharp focus brought to this issue by the
TWC participants led to clarification by DPW that general compliance
with the attendance requirements of a work program of 30 or more hours
would qualify a TANF recipient for a Time Out. The reasoning is that a
person without good cause would be sanctioned; so if a person below the
hours goals remains in the program, they must have good cause for their
absences.
What our experiences in Pennsylvania show are that even the current
30 hour goal is unrealistic for many--possibly the majority--of working
TANF recipients. If the hours goals are to be adjusted from current
law, the adjustment should be downward, not upward. Alternatively, the
work participation rate regime must be flexible. Currently, the
caseload adjustment credit provides states breathing room to not
penalize their working TANF recipients who are doing their best. As in
the case of Pennsylvania, it allows them to recognize ``good cause''
for not meeting the hours goal.
The Consequences of a Requirement that TANF Recipients Work an Average
of 40 Hours Per Week Are Counter-Productive.
If an inflexible 40 hour work activity standard were incorporated
into the TANF work participation rates, a de facto three-tiered system
would be created for dealing with family and personal needs that are in
conflict with work.
Good jobs provide some paid time to deal with
sickness, vacation, and personal needs. They may also permit
job protection, through the form of unpaid leave, under the
Family and Medical and Leave Act.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2601 et seq. (providing for up to 12 weeks of
leave per year for parental leave and leave because of the worker's own
serious health condition or that of a parent, child or spouse).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bad jobs provide no paid time, but may allow a
worker to take unpaid time to deal with these problems.
TANF work requirements would require a welfare
recipient to work 40 hours each and every week, or make up for
missed time. While a low wage worker without paid time loses
pay, a TANF recipient faces total loss of the safety net that
provides income for his or her family.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ This is in contrast to the unemployment insurance (UI)
program. In Pennsylvania, a worker who is fired for attendance reasons
receives UI benefits if there was good cause for the absence.
The irony is that a TANF recipient may have the least capacity to
adhere to a 40 hour per week schedule. As noted above, TANF recipients
are primarily single parents, with few or no resources to deal with
their caregiving and other problems. They may have the most barriers to
employment (particularly those remaining on the caseload five years
after welfare reform), and they need help to address their barriers,
not an inflexible 40 hour requirement.
The broader consequences of a 40 hour standard to the welfare
system include the following.
No flexibility for states to work with TANF recipients facing
barriers. Given the structure of the work participation rate proposal,
a person who does not average 24 hours per week of work would count
against the state's compliance, even if engaged in 40 (or more) hours
of work activities. Additionally, even a person meeting the 24 hours of
work would not count fully for the state if his or her overall average
of work activities were 39 hour or fewer. This rigid and demanding
formula may be the worst possible manifestation of a ``one size fits
all'' approach to welfare reform.
People who are doing their best to work will be sanctioned. To meet
their work participation rates, states will have no choice but to
sanction off people who cannot work 40 hours per week, even if those
persons are working to the best of their ability. If the states were to
keep such people on their caseloads, their work participation rate
compliance would be adversely affected.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Conversely, the proposed formula creates a perverse incentive
for states to keep on the caseload the people who are most able to work
(and perhaps least needing of cash assistance), because they will count
in the states favor. If the TANF time limit provisions do not change,
this will harm working TANF recipients by using up their 60 months of
benefits unnecessarily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No connection to good outcomes. The goal of the work requirements
should be to help TANF recipients to move towards self-sufficiency.
However, the 40 hour requirement is a rigid ``work for work's sake''
requirement that is not connected to this goal.
Providing 40 hours of activities is costly and difficult. Creating
both work and other work activities will be very costly and time
consuming for the states. Many states will need to develop a large
scale work program that does not currently exist. Costly work supports,
such as child care and transportation allowances, also must be
provided. For both work programs and work supports, existing programs
will need to be expanded by 25% capacity (to cover the jump from 30 to
40 hours per week). These financial costs will be hard for states to
meet with flat TANF funding. Moreover, they will divert resources from
other priorities, such as helping former TANF recipients move towards
self-sufficiency.
Availability of work is ignored. There are no provisions for more
lenient goals during period of high unemployment, such as the current
recession, or in areas of high unemployment, such as Southwestern
Pennsylvania.
The TANF Statute Currently Provides Enough Penalties and Incentives to
Maximize Work Activities.
Pennsylvania's number of participants meeting the work
participation rate for Fiscal Year 2000--11.2%--may be cited as
evidence that the state has not been motivated to make its TANF
recipients work. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Pennsylvania dealt with the work participation rates by adopting an
aggressive ``work first'' approach, in which TANF recipients were
encouraged to become employed in unsubsidized employment and leave the
cash assistance rolls as soon as possible. As a result, it has achieved
a large caseload reduction credit. The state's caseload decline
statistics are very revealing in this regard. Of almost 170,000
families on the TANF caseload in February, 1997, when TANF
implementation began, only around 9,000, or 5.3%, were on target to hit
the five year time limit by the summer of 2001.
Moreover, as has been noted, DPW designed several of its programs
to have hours requirements that mirrored the hours required to meet its
work participation rates. These include its work programs and its Time
Out program, both of which require 30 hours a week of work activities.
Finally, in addition to being pushed by DPW to maximize their work,
TANF recipients in Pennsylvania have had positive incentives to
increase work hours. The more time worked, the higher the person's
wages and Earned Income Tax Credit, as well as the likelihood of
participating in the Time Out program. Like other workers, TANF
recipients are likely to want to maximize their income, to the extent
possible.
Conclusion
The work participation rate formula proposed by the Bush
Administration and others is severely flawed. Many TANF recipients
doing their best to work, given their competing non-work obligations,
will not be able to meet the hours benchmarks. The states will face
daunting challenges in both adequately serving their TANF populations
and in complying with the work participation rates. More flexibility,
not less, is needed in the TANF work participation rates.
Statement of Brendan Lynch, Community Legal Services, Inc.,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
TANF Time Limits: TANF Clients Need More Than Five Years Of Assistance
The experience of poor people in Pennsylvania under Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) offers a sobering reminder of the
potential pitfalls of an absolute five-year time limit for federally-
funded welfare. The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW)
implemented TANF on March 3, 1997, so that parents who received TANF
benefits continuously since that time have recently begun exhausting
their eligibility; thousands of parents will reach the five-year limit
within the next twelve months. Pennsylvania's TANF parents have not yet
experienced the after-effects of the lifetime limit under TANF, because
the state has extended the deadline for time-limit terminations until
this summer. The difficulties and setbacks encountered by so many
recipients in their first five years demonstrate, however, that a
strict time limit is an unrealistic expectation for a large portion of
the caseload.
Community Legal Services of Philadelphia, Inc. (CLS) works with
low-income Philadelphia clients on a variety of problems, including
public benefits. We represent and advise many TANF parents, and we work
closely with community organizations that also reach out to low-income
parents. Our experience has shown that parents in many different
categories have serious barriers to self-sufficiency which cannot
reasonably be resolved within five years. These TANF parents fall into
two general groups: people who have long-term barriers to work, and
workers who remain so poor that they receive a partial TANF grant.
Although federal law permits states to exempt 20% of the caseload from
the time limit, our research shows that this exemption is far too
narrow; parents with serious barriers to self-sufficiency constitute a
large portion of the caseload. Moreover, with a strong economy and new
work incentives, people who are able to work have left welfare, and so
the entire caseload at any given time has a higher proportion than
formerly of parents who are unable to work. Long-term TANF recipients
are much more likely to face serious barriers, and to need assistance
beyond five years.
1. Many TANF clients have serious, long-term barriers to work.
a. Disabilities or other personal barriers that prevent clients from
keeping a job.
Many TANF clients in Pennsylvania have disabilities that do not
rise to the level of the Social Security disability standard, so that
the clients do not qualify for Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
payments. These disabilities nevertheless present an imposing obstacle
to economic independence. Some clients have physical ailments; others
suffer from low-level mental illness; many have a combination of
afflictions, often compounded by self-medication through drugs and
alcohol. These clients usually have great difficulty in finding work,
and when they do find a job, they frequently cannot maintain it.
The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW) has contracted
with a number of organizations to perform outreach to clients who have
difficulty complying with the department's requirements. One of these,
Women's Association for Women's Alternatives, Inc. (WAWA), deals with
approximately 140 clients in Philadelphia. All 140 have been found to
be medically exempt from the work requirement by DPW, and WAWA sends
case workers out to their homes to conduct detailed discussions about
clients' problems and obstacles to self-sufficiency.
Many of the exempt clients referred to an outreach program are so
severely disabled that they will eventually qualify for SSI, which will
remove them from the welfare caseload. Others, though, will never be
able to obtain SSI. Patty McGlone, a case manager at WAWA, estimates
that 30% of her organization's clients do not meet the SSI disability
standard, even though DPW has found that they are unable to meet the
TANF work requirement. This group of clients suffers from a range of
disabilities, but either have been turned down for SSI or are unlikely
to qualify for it within the next five years. Some WAWA clients have
been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder; others experience
agoraphobia or panic attacks. Still other clients have back problems or
arthritis, or are HIV-positive and feeling symptoms of full-blown AIDS.
One TANF parent, D.D., is a 42 year old woman with two children who
has been trying to find appropriate work for the past five years. She
has been receiving TANF since March 1997, but the welfare office has
not helped her to find a job that she can keep. She suffers from
phlebitis, which causes severe pain without warning; her leg will
become swelled and force her to rest, and on some days she cannot get
out of bed at all. Extensive standing, walking, or other physical
activity exacerbates the problem. D.D. is very unlikely to qualify for
SSI based solely on phlebitis, but her condition is, nevertheless, a
constant hindrance in her job search. She worked as a clerk for the
Liquor Control Board for six months in 1997, for $6.00/hour, but she
was forced to quit because the job involved cleaning and lifting boxes,
and she was physically unable to perform the job's requirements. Since
then, she has been searching for an entirely sedentary clerical job,
but she is further hindered by her lack of a high school degree.
D.D. describes herself as a ``go-getter,'' but her body limits the
ways in which she can support her children. In 2001, she took the civil
service exam as a clerk/typist, and she passed, but most recently she
was #577 on the waiting list. Should her name come up, she will likely
be further hindered by her lack of a General Equivalency Degree. D.D.
is not considered exempt from the TANF work requirement by DPW, and so
she has had to look for work, and attend job readiness programs, rather
than focus on a program which would enable her to earn her G.E.D. and
improve her chances of finding a clerical job. If she does find an
appropriate job, she will need a sympathetic boss who will grant her
accommodations on days when she is unable to come to work. D.D.
emphasizes that she is ready and willing to work to support her
children, but after five years on TANF, despite her steady efforts to
find work, she still does not have the education, the networking
skills, or the medical support that would enable her to leave the
welfare rolls.
A substantial proportion of our clients also face an array of other
barriers which are virtually impossible to cure or fix within sixty
months, especially while also meeting a work requirement. Some are
illiterate, and thus cannot even fill out a job application, let alone
perform the tasks required in most jobs. Learning to read and write,
when one has been out of school for years, is a very difficult task,
and usually must be accomplished before a parent can then go on to
complete job training or job readiness programs; many TANF parents
cannot do both within five years. The challenge becomes insuperable
when illiterate clients must meet a work requirement, yet literacy
education does not qualify as a work activity.
Many other clients are immigrants or refugees who cannot speak
English, and whose language barrier is compounded by an additional
problem. Some are refugees from war zones, such as Cambodia or
Ethiopia, who exhibit symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder.
Others suffer from clinical depression, and have great difficulty
finding adequate medical and psychological care in their native
language, let alone a class in English for Speakers of Other Languages.
For non-English-speaking TANF recipients who suffer disabilities, the
only available jobs are often housekeeping or other physical tasks
which do not require speaking, but which they cannot perform due to
their physical limitations--if, after years out of school, they cannot
become proficient in English, then almost no appropriate work is open
to them.
b. Serious household problems that prevent clients from
finding work
Many CLS clients have family members with full-time, all-consuming
needs, such as paralyzed or incapacitated children, or elderly parents
with schizophrenia or Alzheimer's. Disabled dependents present single
TANF parents with overwhelming challenges, and it is simply unrealistic
to expect that in less than sixty months, these parents will be
prepared to leave their families at home. Disabled dependents typically
require a caregiver to administer medications, monitor breathing,
perform bathing and feeding, assist with stretching and physical
therapy, stand ready for emergencies, and take them to all
appointments, and full-time nurses are extremely expensive and often
unavailable to low-income clients.
Equally exhausting for many parents is the strain of arranging all
of the necessary services and dealing with inevitable breakdowns in the
support structure. Even parents who have obtained nursing care must try
to track down a replacement on the many occasions when low-paid nurses
fail to show up for their shift, and in the meantime the parent must
stay home and perform all of the nurse's tasks. If the patient's health
insurer denies approval of a medication, the burden falls squarely on
the parent to contact the insurer, find out the reasons for the denial
pressure the prescribing doctor's office to provide the necessary
paperwork, and, in some cases, file a grievance and negotiate directly
with the insurer about whether the medication will be approved. Each of
these tasks frustrates able-bodied people when the occasional injury or
illness temporarily becomes a problem; for parents with seriously
disabled dependents, these tasks crop up almost constantly, with
multiple providers serving the patient at all times.
One CLS client, D.B., has four children with serious disabilities,
and a fifth child for whom she has filed an SSI application. She found
work on her own, at a paratransit company, but she continually had to
leave work for a medical emergency with one of her children, and
ultimately had to quit the job. When D.B. has been able to find child
care providers, they have not lasted long, because they were quickly
overwhelmed by the childrens' needs, especially one daughter's bad
asthma attacks.
c. Clients who cannot access the services they need
Aside from the several groups of TANF recipients who are not able
to achieve independence, there are many others who could find work and,
perhaps, become financially independent if they were able to access
employment support services that are ostensibly available to them. In
our experience, however, the image of a perfect support system for TANF
clients is a fantasy. Breakdowns in the system for needy people are
closer to the norm than the exception. Any welfare law which presumes
that all clients will receive all the necessary preparation for
economic self-sufficiency within some fraction of five years rests upon
a fundamental misconception about the actual lives of welfare
recipients.
In the experience of clients at CLS and related organizations,
navigating the welfare system requires a complicated, time-consuming
series of applications, referrals, trips to track down documents,
reapplications, false starts, rejections, unanswered phones, and,
ultimately, attempts to comply with an array of obligations from
employer, training program, and case worker. Due to the nature of large
bureaucracies with extensive client populations, with the huge
potential for human or computer error, a substantial proportion of TANF
clients find that, in welfare offices or training programs, phone calls
are not returned, verification forms are lost, and requests for
extensions or accommodations are improperly rejected.
Of course, most working TANF clients are not frustrated at every
opportunity, but only a small handful of things need go wrong before a
client has been forced to withdraw from a training program, and even if
these clients are eventually able to re-enroll, their TANF `clock' will
not stop ticking, as they move closer to their five-year limit without
having made any progress towards employment. Other clients belong in a
different assistance program, such as SSI, but their difficulty
navigating the system of applications, hearings, and appeals often
results in lengthy TANF stays while waiting to be approved for SSI, and
these clients risk termination of any public assistance without ever
receiving benefits to which they are entitled.
One CLS client, D.G., was on TANF for over four years and applied
for SSI three times, but was turned down each time. She did not realize
that she had the option of filing an appeal--she has extremely limited
reading skills--and in any event, she was in no position to pursue an
appeal by herself. DPW was not able to help D.G. get onto SSI, and she
was beginning to approach her five-year lifetime limit when CLS won her
SSI case. D.G. met the disability standard for SSI eligibility all
along, but she was very nearly cut off of public assistance altogether
due to her cognitive disability--the very reason for which she
qualified for SSI.
Patty McGlone, the WAWA case manager, reports that of the 140
clients in her office, approximately 100 ought to qualify for SSI, and
thus leave the welfare rolls, but even five full years into TANF, none
of them have yet been approved for SSI, for a variety of reasons. Some
WAWA clients, or their family members or advocates, were simply never
alerted to which programs or offices were available to assist them, or
were not informed how appropriate referrals to organizations such as
WAWA should be made. Others seeking help with an SSI application from
DPW were improperly turned away; amazingly, one client was turned down
despite being comatose; his caseworker was told that the man would
first have to apply on his own.
Glitches in welfare administration are not limited to SSI
applications. One client, who asked that she not be identified, was
able to enroll in a four-week class in Philadelphia in July 2001, and
the welfare office agreed to pay her tuition. Shortly after the class
started, however, she had to miss three days when her son became ill
with a severe asthma attack. She understood that she had missed too
much of the class and would not be able to return, but was hoping to
enroll in a later session and complete the class. Instead, DPW
threatened sanctions, prepared to charge her for the class's cost, and
demanded proof of her son's condition. Since she had remained home with
her son, believing it was best that she be with him there, she could
not produce a doctor's bill or hospital chart, although his attack was
typical of what asthmatics frequently suffer. In the end, with our
intervention, she avoided a large overpayment, but while dealing with
DPW, she was unable to re-enroll in the class. Ideally, her word, and
evidence of the boy's ongoing condition and of her genuine desire to
finish the class, would have been accepted, and she would have signed
up for a class session in the late summer or fall; instead, many months
later, in March 2002, she was finally able to enroll in an entirely
different class.
The Pittsburgh City Paper reports that Carlene Poole, a TANF
recipient since March 1997 with a diagnosed learning disability and a
fifth-grade reading level, enrolled in at least six job readiness, job
training, and remedial education programs, but found that the programs
offered training that was too job-specific, and didn't address basic
literacy or learning disabilities. Poole reported ``humiliating
experiences'' in trying to fill out job applications. Finally, DPW
allowed her to seek literacy training, but she only completed one year;
although she found a program that addressed her most basic needs, she
says, she was unable to get further state funding for her classes. Now,
having taking some word processing training, she is seeking clerical
work, but she wonders: ``what if when I get there my spelling and stuff
is not good enough?'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Julie Mickens, Clock Watching: No fare-thee-well yet for
welfare clients at the state's five-year benefits cutoff, but are state
promises too good to be true, Pittsburgh City Paper, Jan. 30, 2002,
available online at http://www.pghcitypaper.com/nz13002.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TANF clients must also deal with routine problems with support
services which are outside the domain of the state welfare bureaucracy,
but which are equally critical to clients' ability to pursue full-time
work in the private economy. D.D., the client discussed above who is
unable to maintain a job due to phlebitis and the lack of a G.E.D., has
had trouble with private employers, health care providers, and the
state welfare agency. She has probably never been treated properly for
her phlebitis, because she has not had a regular relationship with a
primary care doctor. Her medical coverage has been irregular, and in
2001 she was cut off of cash and medical benefits for six months. She
currently goes to a free public health center for checkups and
treatment; and she appreciates their help, but it is difficult to see
them--although she needed an appointment in February 2002, the next
available appointment was in May.
Irregular medical care has limited D.D.'s ability to obtain a
G.E.D. and find clerical work. DPW referred her to a program in which
she could obtain job training while also obtaining her G.E.D., but on
the second day of the program, her phlebitis acted up and she could not
get out of bed, let alone attend the program, due to the extreme pain.
D.D. wants to attend the program and is hoping to go back, but the
program directors are demanding an explanation for her absence on the
second day, and she cannot re-enroll until she provides satisfactory
proof. Naturally, she tried to obtain proof of her problems with
phlebitis, but she cannot see a doctor before May, by which point her
program slot will be moot. Eventually, she may be ready to re-enroll,
but by the time D.D. obtains her G.E.D., her sixty months on TANF will
have long since run out.
The interaction of multiple problems in D.D.'s case is typical of
many we have witnessed at CLS. D.D. did just what the welfare
department asked her to do: she took charge of her job search, found a
job as a clerk, put in lots of other job applications, took the civil
service exam, enrolled in a job training program, and tried to see a
doctor and get medical documentation when requested by the program. It
is possible, though far from certain, that she could have obtained a
full-time job by now, with the potential for raises and promotions, if
she had been placed in a high-quality G.E.D. program at the outset of
her time on TANF, if she had had regular medical coverage and a steady
relationship with a doctor who could provide ongoing treatment for
phlebitis and proof of her illness for employers, and if she had been
placed in a good job training and placement program which helped line
up appropriate clerical positions with sympathetic employers. Instead,
D.D. encountered frustration, denials, and inappropriate job offers.
D.D.'s case illustrates why five years is simply too brief for so
many TANF clients: in the real world, support services aren't always
available, training programs aren't always receptive, the right job_
even during a boom economy_isn't always hiring, and clients who appear
work-ready on paper don't always have the ability, or the credentials,
to move into full-time employment until the right supports and jobs are
available.
Other clients need even greater support than D.D., but receive only
incompetent, uncaring, or simply uninformed responses. Most clients
with drug or alcohol dependencies need inpatient treatment at a high-
quality residential facility, but the managed care organizations that
operate the Medicaid system in the Philadelphia area will only approve
a few hours a week for outpatient visits. A significant proportion of
clients at CLS and WAWA have some form of mental illness, but the
majority of mentally ill clients are not receiving intensive mental
health treatment; some of them can do little better than visiting the
doctor down the street from them, who prescribes medications despite no
specific training in psychiatry, and does not provide a referral to a
specialist. Others are referred to therapists, but discover that the
therapists are either unable or unwilling to provide treatment, despite
a formal diagnosis of mental illness.
A lack of English proficiency is a serious barrier to employment
for many immigrants, refugees, and others, including many Puerto
Ricans. Unfortunately, DPW does not fund classes in English for
Speakers of Other Languages, and the programs that are open to poor
clients are of very low quality. Most ESL classes only offer
instruction for three to five hours per week, which is not very useful,
and is too slow a rate for people who are expected to be ensconced in
middle-class employment in a year or two. We have also found that ESL
classes presume that the student is literate in their native language,
but many immigrants and refugees are illiterate even in their native
languages. Moreover, many ESL classes evaluate their students'
abilities improperly, and then provide only volunteer teachers without
training in adult literacy education.
2. Many TANF clients do work, but do not earn enough to escape sub-
poverty.
In addition to the TANF clients who are unable to work, CLS has
worked with many others who exemplify the ideal TANF client under the
`work first' philosophy embodied in the TANF Act and Pennsylvania's own
welfare reform law: they can, and do, seek work, and they strive to
stay in their jobs once they have found them. The media have relayed
the stories of some such clients who have found jobs, earned promotions
and raises, and achieved financial independence. Less attention has
been paid, however, to the thousands of other recipients who try to
maintain jobs but are unable to, or who stay in jobs and work programs
for long stretches and still make so little that they remain on the
welfare rolls. A close look at the data suggests that those
Pennsylvania welfare recipients who were able to work were leaving the
rolls without encouragement from TANF work rules, and that their less
employable neighbors will need more time than five years to prepare to
follow them into full-time work at a sustainable wage.
Evidence in Pennsylvania suggests that the strong economy, rather
than the work rules, time limits, and incentives of TANF, was the
primary reason for the dramatic decline in the caseload over the past
several years. According to DPW's own figures, the rate of decline in
Pennsylvania's TANF caseload increased only slightly in the year after
implementation of TANF in March 1997, and it has slowed sharply since
then. The caseload declined by 13.4% from March 1996 through March
1997, well before any AFDC client had heard about future welfare
reform. In the following year, through March 1998, the caseload dropped
by 15.4%. If TANF rules were primarily responsible for the drop in the
welfare population, then in subsequent years, as DPW called more people
into the welfare district offices for meetings to discuss the new time
limits and obligations, and older recipients took advantages of
increased incentives, the rate of decline should have increased.
Instead, the statewide caseload only declined by 12.2% between March
1998 and March 1999. The state did not begin to require that nonexempt
recipients work for twenty hours per week--the heart of the TANF
program--until after March 1999, since the work requirement only
applied after the first twenty-four months of benefits, but the number
of people leaving the welfare rolls slowed dramatically after the work
requirement was imposed: the caseload dropped by 8.8% in the twelve
months ending in March 2000; and by just 4.4% between March 2000 and
March 2001. As the five-year time limit approaches for the first cohort
of recipients, the caseload is actually increasing--it rose by two-
tenths of a percent between March 2001 and January 2002. Overall, in
the three years between March 1996 and March 1999, Pennsylvania's TANF
caseload declined by a total of 40%; in the almost three years since
March 1999, when the work requirement was imposed, the caseload has
only declined an additional 13% from the level of March 1996.
The data reflect our experience here at CLS: some clients leave
welfare for work when the economy is strong and they can find work
commensurate with their education and skills, but in an economic
downturn, fewer of them can find such jobs. These clients were already
leaving the welfare rolls in January 1996, and the work requirement
probably had very little effect on them. Many other clients, meanwhile,
do not have the skills, education, physical and mental abilities, or
support structures and resources to find and keep jobs that will keep
them out of sub-poverty. Some of them, with long-term disabilities or
other barriers, have not found jobs in five years, because full-time
work is simply not possible, and no threatened cutoff of cash is a
relevant incentive. Another group of clients has tried to find work,
but have either found such low wages or few hours that they still
qualify for a partial TANF grant, with incomes 33% below the federal
poverty level, or else have not been able to find work at all, despite
their cooperation with work and training programs.
Teresa Battle, a CLS client, has had an all-too-common experience.
She is eager to work, and she has a high school diploma, but she has
been forced to raise three children by herself, including a son with
major depression and attention deficit-hyperactive disorder. She has
sought training, and has completed every activity to which she was
assigned, even seeking work when she could have just gone through the
motions as volunteer program. Nonetheless, she finds herself just a
year away from her lifetime limit and unable to get a job.
Starting in August 1999, Battle completed a full six-month program
of paid work experience in Philadelphia. Unfortunately, though she had
been told that she would receive training as a security guard, the work
consisted of receptionist's tasks, which she was not able to benefit
from, because they involved typing and computer skills in which she had
not been trained. When she completed the program in February 2000, she
began sending out job applications, but she had great difficulty
finding an appropriate job, because with her skills, jobs during the
day were hard to come by, and she could not find anyone willing to
provide child care for her three children during an overnight shift.
She decided to enter the military, so she left TANF and enlisted in the
service in June 2000, but her son's condition worsened, and she was
forced to leave the service in March 2001, with an honorable discharge,
when he was hospitalized, and then was placed in a outpatient program
requiring daily treatment.
Since March 2001, when Battle reapplied for TANF, she has sought
more work experience at the Transitional Work Corporation, but she has
been turned down because DPW imposes a six-month lifetime limit on
participation in paid work experience. As a result, in order to receive
benefits, she has had to perform unpaid community service and pursue an
independent job search; she has continued to file job applications, but
reports that jobs are currently scarce. Battle has taught herself to
type, but she finds that employers want people who are familiar with
Excel, mail merge, and other more advanced computer functions;
ironically, T.W.C. offers training in those functions, but she cannot
get into the program. Thus, despite serving her country, performing
work experience and requesting more, teaching herself to type, and
performing everything asked of her by the welfare department, Battle
cannot find a job that will enable her to earn enough to support a
household of four, while leaving enough time to care for her disabled
son and his two young siblings.
Another woman, who contacted Congreso de Latinos Unidos and asked
that her story be used to publicize the darker side of welfare reform,
found work at a dress store. She stayed with the job, despite several
children to care for, and she worked her way up to assistant manager,
but her wages were still so low that her family still qualified for a
partial TANF grant. Her experience has been all too common in
Pennsylvania. The Maternity Care Coalition (MCC), a Philadelphia
organization that provides health education, nutrition, and other
family support to low-income mothers, most of whom receive TANF, has
found that many ``low-income families who are trying to transition from
welfare to work . . . lack the requisite skills and work experience for
employment at a family-sustaining wage.'' The MCC concludes that ``TANF
should allow for low wages plus cash benefits to ``not be counted''
against the 5-year time limit.''
3. A high proportion of the caseload has serious barriers to self-
sufficiency.
DPW's research on the TANF population in Pennsylvania demonstrates
that two general groups, sub-poverty workers and people with long-term
barriers to work, add up to well more than 20% of the caseload. As more
work-ready people leave the rolls, this percentage is likely to
increase, since barriers are disproportionately concentrated among
people who stay on TANF long term and approach their lifetime limit. In
the future, as people who cannot get off of TANF are joined by people
who left briefly but could not remain off, this group of long-term
recipients will constitute a higher and higher proportion of total
caseload.
Last year, DPW compiled a detailed demographic chart of the adults
on the TANF rolls as of March 3, 2001. At that point, 60,027 total
parents receiving TANF. (As of December 2001, there were 59,893
parents, and the caseload was rising, so these figures are likely a
very accurate summary of the current TANF population.) DPW's March 3,
2001 demographic chart shows that parents with barriers to self-
sufficiency are a very large segment of the total caseload, and well
over one-fifth from any perspective. It also demonstrates that these
barriers are heavily concentrated among the long-term clients in the
``June 2002 cohort''--the group of parents who were on schedule to be
the first to use up their five-year lifetime TANF eligibility, between
March 3, 2002 and June 30, 2002. There were 12,112 total parents in the
June 2002 cohort.
For example, disabilities and other recognized barriers to work
were prevalent among far more than one-fifth of the caseload. DPW
granted exceptions to the work requirements for disabilities, caring
for infants, unavailability of child care, or other good cause to a
total of 19,645 parents, or 33% or caseload. In the June 2002 cohort,
the proportion of recipients whom DPW determined were unable to work
was even higher: 40%, or 4801 adults.
DPW's demographic chart also shows that, as of March 3, 2001, a
substantial number of recipients were working, just as they were
expected to, yet were not off the TANF rolls, because their income was
so low that they still qualified for a partial grant. Specifically,
4,911 adults, or 8.2% of caseload, were working 25 hours per week or
more. Of the June 2002 cohort, 12% (or 1,456 parents) were working 25
hours/week or more and still on TANF. Faced with the loss of their
benefits in just a year, these parents worked more than DPW required,
yet they still could not achieve an income that would allow them to
support their families independently. An additional 15% (9,066 adults)
of the total caseload worked up to 25 hours/week, for total of 23% of
the overall caseload who were working 20 hours/week or more. Of the
June 2002 cohort, an additional 21% worked up to 25 hours/week, for a
total of 33% of the June 2002 cohort who were working and yet still
mired in sub-poverty.
DPW's chart shows that 18,983 adults, or 32% of entire caseload,
had large families with three or more kids. Of those in the June 2002
cohort, however, 48% had such large families. Thus, these larger
families have had a harder time getting off of TANF, and another DPW
study shows that when they do leave TANF, they remain closer in danger
of falling back onto it. ``Welfare Reform After Three Years,'' which
surveyed parents who left TANF through 1999, shows that such families
typically stayed below poverty, even when they found work, and even
before the recession began. Only 24% of TANF leavers had households
with four or more people--far less than the proportion of large
households among those that remained on TANF, and half the percentage
in the June 2002 cohort. In 2001, the federal poverty level was $17,652
for a family of four, yet three full years after leaving TANF, the
average earnings of all former recipients was only about $14,000,
keeping the typical former TANF family with three children well below
the poverty line.
DPW's TANF Caseload and Activities (C&A) Report for October 2001
confirms the high percentage of clients facing obstacles to self-
sufficiency. Out of 58,660 parents on TANF, 18,697, or 32%, were
currently exempt from the work requirement, due to disability, lack of
child care, or other good cause (excluding domestic violence). Of
those, 11,759 alone, or 20% of the caseload, had a disability that
prevented them from working. Another 12,312 parents, or 21%, were
employed, yet were still so far below the poverty level that they
qualified for a partial TANF grant. In all, 53% of active TANF parents
in October 2001 were either certified unable to work, or else were
working but receiving a partial grant.
For an additional 17,452 parents in October 2001, the CAO was
investigating or sanctioning them, or pursuing compliance, or pursuing
conciliation or an appeal. It is extremely likely that these parents,
who were failing to meet the department's requirements, were
experiencing a high incidence of hidden barriers, such as undiagnosed
learning disabilities, mental illness, or illiteracy.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Using Census Bureau data from 1999, the General Accounting
Office reported last fall that 44% of TANF recipients--three times the
rate of non-TANF families--reported physical or mental impairments.
This figure did not even include addiction or domestic violence. GAO,
Welfare Reform: More Coordinated Federal Effort could help States and
Localities Move TANF Recipients with Impairments Toward Employment at 3
and n.3 (October 2001) (GAO-02-37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Conclusion
DPW acknowledges that many recipients must have assistance beyond
five years, and it will establish an Extended TANF program, wherein all
clients who are beyond five years can receive continued benefits so
long as they comply with one of two programs. People who can work will
be assigned to work activities through Work Plus, while non-work-ready
parents will be connected with therapy and other services to help them
overcome their barriers in the Maximizing Participation Project. DPW
also recognizes that a high number of parents fall into one of those
two groups: all parents who need it, rather than just 20% of the
caseload, will be eligible for Extended TANF. At present, however, the
state is faced with the need to fund Extended TANF with state dollars.
As Congress reauthorizes TANF, we hope it will encourage the efforts of
Pennsylvania and other states to continue working with parents who need
more help to become self-sufficient. Congress should allow states the
flexibility to remove the time limit for all recipients who have
barriers to self-sufficiency.
Friends of Welfare Rights of Washtenaw County
Ypsilanti, Michigan
March 14, 2002
Dear Representatives of the House Human Resources Subcommittee:
I'm writing to urge you to consider the following important points
during your hearing on states' implementation of welfare work
requirements and time limits in Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.
TANF reauthorization should have the stated goal to
move recipients out of poverty. And, it must include strategies
that would help individuals to work towards that goal.
Certainly work is practical training as well as being
productive, but for the individual to move into jobs which pay
more than poverty wages work requirements should be combined
with education or training. The value of education has been a
tradition of this nation, and should be emphasized in this case
also.
Work requirements should take into consideration the
special needs of clients. Research shows most TANF clients
today have multiple barriers to employment. These needs should
be considered, and state workers should be able to address
those needs without penalty. Education, counseling, and
addressing other needs should count for some of the work time
requirements.
Time limits must be reconsidered. Clients who are
working part time, or are engaged in activities which are in
preparation for work such as school or training or counseling
to overcome barriers to work should be exempted from Federal
time limits. They shouldn't lose their TANF cash benefits. Nor
should clients with family members who are disabled. They must
be exempted also from time limits.
Please don't overlook these important points.
Thank you.
Respectfully yours,
Lee A. Booth
Secretary
Statement of the National Network to End Domestic Violence
1. Introduction
Battered women often use welfare as a step to gain the economic
stability needed to leave a violent relationship.\1\ Batterers are very
calculating. They often control every aspect of a woman's life--social,
emotional and financial. This financial control in particular makes it
difficult for a woman to leave a violent relationship. Beyond keeping a
tight grip on the family finances, batterers will frequesntly prevent
women from working or getting an education.\2\ If the women are already
employed, their abusive partners have often used a variety of tactics
to prevent them from going to work or to get them fired.\3\ An employed
woman is threatening to an abuser--she has a certain degree of
independence and control over her own life that provides her with means
and an opportunity to escape. Consequently, batterers resort to threats
and harassment at work, inflicting black eyes or other physical
evidence of violence to shame a woman from going to work, stealing the
keys and other delaying tactics to make her late--anything to get her
fired and maintain control over her life.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Eleanor Lyon, ``Poverty, Welfare and Battered Women: What does
the research tell us?'' 1, MINCAVA 1998. ``In nearly all of the studies
which have addressed the issue, well over half of the women receiving
AFDC reported that they had experienced physical abuse . . . by an
intimate male partner at some point during their adult lives . . . When
women were asked about more recent violence from their male partners,
the rate remained high--from 19.5% to 32%.''
\2\ ``39.7% of the currently abused women . . . reported that their
partner tries to prevent them from obtaining education and training.''
Id. at 4.
\3\ Eleanor Lyon, ``Welfare, Poverty and Abused Women: New Research
and its Implications,'' National Resource Center on Domestic Violence
October 2000 at ``46% of the women in the program reported their
partners were jealous about the possibility of their meeting someone
new at work, 21% were threatened or harassed while they were at work,
and 32% were told that they would never be able to succeed at work or
school.''
\4\ ``This study of women who experienced current or past abuse
found that 43.2% reported that they don't feel safe from their abusive
partner at work, 29.8% reported they have been fired or lost a job
because of domestic violence, and 34.7% said their education and
training efforts have been hampered by abuse. More specifically, 84.5%
said their abusive partner had kept them from sleeping, 58.7% said his
threats had made them afraid to go to work or school. 47.1% said he
refused to provide promised child care at the last minute, 41.5% said
he had called them repeatedly at work, 34% had been refused promised
transportation at the last minute, and 33.9% had been beaten so badly
they could not work.'' Id. at 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This places battered women in a particularly unique and dangerous
predicament. If they cannot get their needs met by the TANF system as
it exists today, they may find themselves in a situation where their
options are to return to an abusive relationship or to live on the
streets with their children.\5\ It is imperative that TANF is
strengthened to address the barriers that keep battered women from
gaining independence and self-sufficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``A 1990 Ford foundation study found that 50% of homeless women
and children were fleeing abusive homes.'' Joan Zorza, ``Woman
Battering: A Major Cause of Homelessness,'' Clearinghouse Review, vol.
25, no. 4 (1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In preparing these comments, The National Network to End Domestic
Violence (NNEDV) reviewed the research on the impact of welfare reform
on battered women and consulted with state domestic violence coalitions
and local programs. These comments will cover some of the key reforms
that are needed to help battered women and their children achieve
independence, stability and, most important, security. While these
comments focus specifically on the impact of welfare reform on victims
of domestic violence, NNEDV believes that the reduction of poverty for
all families should be the focus of the TANF program. NNEDV advocates
for an end to family violence in the framework of the larger struggle
against violence, poverty, homelessness and other social ills in an
effort to contribute the ultimate goal of a more just society.
2. Achieving Long Term Self-Sufficiency Should Be the Goal of TANF
Assistance
The goal of TANF assistance should be to help people achieve self-
sufficiency through employment that pays a living wage. The goal of
simply moving women off welfare into jobs without giving them the
skills to maintain sustainable employment will not help create long-
term economic independence. To count the numbers of women who are
working without assessing whether or not those jobs pay enough to
support both the women and their children creates artificially high
success rates.
The focus on immediate job placement subverts the original purpose
of welfare reform, which was helping women to transition from welfare
to work in a manner that would keep them from repeatedly returning to
public assistance. It also discourages TANF workers from strategizing
with women on a case-by-case basis to create individualized plans that
will address their specific needs.
This individual approach is critical to battered women in
particular. Although there may be some similarities among battered
women, each woman's case is unique.
[E]ach battered woman faces different risks and therefore has
different needs for safety and self-sufficiency. Because each
battered woman's risks are different, determining what battered
women need must be done on a case-by-case basis. There is no
formula for safety or self-sufficiency. Options that may work
for one woman will increase danger for another.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Jill Davies, ``Building Opportunities for Battered Women's
Safety and Self-Sufficiency,'' at 5, Violence Against Women Online
Resources, MINCAVA 1998.
Each woman's situation must be assessed individually to accurately
and effectively create a plan that will help her and her children move
safely from assistance to independence. In order to do this,
caseworkers must not have their decision making restricted by arbitrary
caps. This means removing restrictions on the length of time that women
can be involved in educational training as a legitimate ``work
activity'' under TANF guidelines and eliminating the cap on the number
of women whose educational training can count towards a state's work
participation rate. This also means expanding the definition of ``work
activity'' to include full time care of a disabled child or a child
under 6, vocational or educational training at any level, and
participation in activities addressing domestic or sexual violence,
mental health, substance abuse and/or disability.
3. States, in Consultation with State Domestic Violence Coalitions,
Must Be Required to Address Domestic Violence as Part of their
Implementation of TANF.
By enacting the Family Violence Option \7\ (FVO), Congress
recognized that the combined experience of poverty and violence raises
particularly difficult issues for battered women. However, a state's
response to domestic violence needs to be broader than the range of
protections offered by the FVO. The purpose of requiring states to
respond to domestic violence in their administration of TANF funds is
to address the root causes of poverty among battered women and provide
the kinds of services that will assist battered women in removing
barriers to self-sufficiency and permanently transition from public
assistance to independence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 602(a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exemptions from program requirements are a critical tool in
assisting battered women, but in order to help battered women
transition effectively and permanently from welfare to self-
sufficiency, a more holistic approach is necessary. Other important
responses include providing ongoing support services, mandatory
domestic violence training for TANF workers, and resources to create
and sustain an ongoing collaboration between domestic violence
advocates and TANF workers. Participation in such programs should be
voluntary and not used to sanction or impose burdensome requirements on
a battered woman.
A. Frequent Screening for Domestic Violence
TANF caseworkers should begin screening for domestic violence at
the initial intake interview and continue to do so at various points in
the process. This screening should be voluntary and non-coercive. In
the beginning, the caseworker is a stranger to the woman, and as such,
it may take time for a woman to feel comfortable enough to disclose to
a caseworker that she is being battered. That's why it is imperative
that a woman be allowed to disclose at any point in the process without
fear of sanction.
In the event of a disclosure, the caseworker should follow up with
immediate referrals, either to a domestic violence advocate already
present in the office or to a domestic violence program that the TANF
office has a relationship with. Again, services should never be imposed
on a woman. No one is better qualified than the woman herself to assess
the danger of her situation and choose the options that best protect
her and her children.
B. Exemptions from Program Requirements
Battered women face many pressures in their attempt to extricate
themselves from abusive situations. Some women will require waivers
from specific program requirements while they are in the process of
rebuilding their lives. The clock should stop ticking while victim's
taking time to address these barriers. It is imperative that time
limits on assistance do not add extra pressure to women who are already
dealing with the stress of leaving an abusive relationship and
reestablishing themselves. States need the flexibility to create a
range of services and responses to domestic violence. However, the
state's plan to address domestic violence must include exemptions from
program requirements and time limits when domestic violence interferes
with a woman's ability to complete the required tasks.
C. Provision of Support Services
Some battered women may want to participate and can meet the
requirements of the program when provided with the necessary support
services. They have less of a need for waivers than for a range of
support services that will facilitate compliance with program
requirements. Often times the barriers that battered women face to
gainful employment are not only safety concerns, but also more basic
considerations such as transportation, childcare, basic job skills and
referrals to domestic violence program when requested. These concerns
are not exclusive to battered women; they are common to many TANF
recipients. Citing a survey done in Florida, Eleanor Lyon found that
''51% of all the sampled women in Florida's WAGES (TANF) program cited
transportation as an obstacle, 44% said childcare, and 31% said lack of
job skills.'' \8\ In addition, many battered women also encounter a
crisis in the availability of affordable housing, which often has
waiting lists years long. Without access to affordable housing, a
battered woman finds herself left with two unbearable alternatives--
returning to an abuser or enduring homelessness. Assistance in
overcoming these obstacles to self-sufficiency should be offered as an
integral part of a state's plan to address domestic violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Welfare, Poverty and Abused Women,'' at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Screening Required Prior to Enforcement of Any Available Sanction
It is imperative that TANF workers not immediately enforce
sanctions on battered women without assessing the individual's
situation and referring the woman for voluntary participation in
counseling or support services to help her overcome the obstacles she
faces in meeting program requirements. This extra step between non-
compliance and sanction allows victims of domestic violence to address
the challenges that may be unique to violent situations and should
never be used to coerce a woman into services in order to avoid
sanction. As noted in the report to the Department of Health and Humans
Services about the experience of seven counties administering TANF to
battered women,
[t]he programs that did best at identifying domestic violence
issues were those set up to identify all major barriers to
self-sufficiency--that is, those with a strong orientation to
use `carrots'. Programs focused more on immediate employment
rather than on longer-term self-sufficiency were not well set
up to identify any type of barrier, and the same was true for
domestic violence issues.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Martha R. Burt, Janine M. Zweig and Kathryn Schlichter,
``Strategies for Addressing the Needs of Domestic Violence Victims
Within the TANF Program: The Experience of Seven Counties,'' Chapter 8
at 5, Urban Institute report to Department of Health and Human
Services, June 30, 2000.
Assessing the barriers a woman faces and offering necessary
services before mechanically applying sanctions has proven to be a more
effective way to facilitate the transition from welfare to work.
E. Training
To help battered women navigate the TANF system, it is imperative
that both TANF workers and domestic violence advocates are trained.
TANF workers need to be trained to recognize the signs of domestic
violence and to understand the unique barriers that battered women
face. Domestic violence advocates need to be trained in the structure
of the TANF system so they can assist their clients in obtaining all of
the benefits to which they are entitled.
Domestic violence is a complex phenomenon that can manifest itself
in many different ways, and without a background in the issue, it can
be very difficult for a TANF caseworker to properly assist a battered
woman. In order to be able to help a woman create an individual plan to
transition out of a violent relationship and into self-sufficiency,
TANF workers need to be aware of all of the challenges that battered
women face, including issues of safety, affordable housing,
transportation, childcare and legal assistance. Mandatory domestic
violence training for TANF caseworkers should be a fundamental
component of a state's domestic violence plan. ``Training gives workers
the understanding to interpret clues and indicators, to probe carefully
and understand correctly. And to remain non-judgmental but
supportive.'' \10\ If an individual's caseworker is not sensitive to
these issues, the worker may push a woman to take actions that are
either unworkable or unsafe. This kind of response may make a woman
feel that her only available option is to return to her abuser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Burt, Chapter 8 at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is critical that this training be federally mandated and done
consistently by experienced domestic violence advocates. The training
must be scheduled with regularity to ensure that even if an agency has
a high turnover rate among caseworkers, all caseworkers will undergo
some form of domestic violence training in their orientation process.
This training should be conducted by and in coordination with a local
organization whose primary purpose is to provide services to victims of
domestic violence or a state domestic violence coalition who will train
caseworkers in the empowerment model of working with victims of
domestic violence. Finally, resources should be allocated to pay for
training provided by domestic violence advocates whose time and
resources are already stretched thin.
The TANF system itself is also complicated and difficult to
navigate for those not well versed in its intricacies. Domestic
violence advocates are not usually trained in the details of what
assistance is available to women, making it difficult to know what aid
is available to a particular client under TANF. Considering the complex
web of rules and exemptions governing what assistance is available to
battered women--everything from what aid is available to undocumented
immigrants to what options battered women have to stop the clock under
the Family Violence Option or similar state legislation--navigating the
system can be very difficult. Grants should be made available to states
to conduct voluntary training for domestic violence advocates so that
advocates will be better equipped to help their client access services
and meet program requirements. Also, training between the two agencies
can also increase contact and communication between the two agencies.
This interaction can ease what in the past has been characterized as a
difficult relationship between domestic violence programs and TANF
agencies.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``Cross-training and developing mutual understandings of each
agency's mission, constraints, and resources have also been important
in assuring that clients get the services and supports they need. Often
this has meant overcoming histories of non-communication or, worse,
distrust and suspicion.'' Burt, Chapter 8 at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Confidentiality and Autonomy
The cornerstone of state plans for assisting battered women in the
TANF system must include strong protections for the woman's
confidentiality and autonomy. Whether a disclosure is made to a
caseworker, a child support advocate, or a domestic violence advocate,
the information that a battered woman discloses must be held in the
strictest confidence. This is a critical component in working with
battered women. No information should be shared with other workers or
agencies unless consent is obtained from the woman herself.
There are very good reasons for privileging the information
disclosed by a woman facing a domestic violence situation and
giving her control over the amount of information she wants
generally known by the agency. Such protection of
confidentiality need not compromise the ability of either the
on-site advocate or any TANF caseworker to develop an
appropriate self-sufficiency plan. However, the lines of
communications and privacy need to be drawn clearly and
carefully, understood by all, supported the administration, and
communicated directly to staff.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Burt, Chapter 8 at 12.
If this policy is not strictly enforced, it will deter women from
divulging abusive situations. Without this information, managing a
battered woman's case will be exceedingly difficult. In addition, the
fear in some states that child protective services will find out about
the abuse will also keep some women from coming forward.\13\ If women
are not certain that the information they share with their caseworker
will be held in the strictest confidence, not only will they be
reluctant to come forward, they may elect to stay in the abusive
relationship just to ensure that they keep custody of their
children.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ ``Women are afraid that their children will be taken away from
them. Some women have had their children taken away from them due to
endangerment. Batterers use this as a way to threaten women.'' Id
Chapter 2 at 10.
\14\ ``DCF has taken an aggressive stance on children residing in
homes with domestic violence. Children are now removed with little
investigations from homes in which domestic violence occurs. Women who
lose their children are being forced to address the domestic violence
issue before they are allowed custody of their children. Although this
policy is not directly related to the activities of the One Stop Career
Centers, it may effect women's willingness to disclose domestic
violence as a barrier to work.'' Burt. Chapter 5 at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, victims of domestic violence who come forward and
disclose the abuse to their case workers should not be forced into
services or into dealing with the criminal justice system in order to
get the assistance is that is due to them under TANF. Battered women
often know more about the intimate details of their own situations than
any caseworker could independently assess.
A battered woman will face one set of batterer-generated
risks if she stays in the relationship and a different set if
she leaves. Leaving a relationship does not guarantee the
reduction or elimination of violence, threats or other risks.
For some battered women, leaving may create new risks or
increase existing ones. Battered women continually analyze the
risks they face.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Davies at 3.
These women know whether or not going to the police would help or
hurt their situation, what services they need, and whether it is
prudent to seek child support. For example, there are many reasons that
a protective order may not increase the safety and security of battered
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
women and their children.
Some of the reasons a protective order may not work are: the
batterer will not obey court order; the batterer will increase
his violence when he is ``served'' with the order; the
protection order may not include protection of the children;
the batterer will lose his job as a result of the order and
this will reduce the likelihood of child support; she will lose
her job if she misses work because she must go to court to get
an order; the protection order will ``kick him out'' of the
home and she can't afford the rent on her own; or the batterer
will find the woman in hiding because the legal process for
obtaining an order may give him information about where she is
and the opportunity to have contact with her in court.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Davies at 12.
All of the factors that figure into a TANF case where domestic
violence is present calls for an independent assessment of how program
requirements may affect the safety of that particular woman.
Caseworkers should not be allowed to force a woman into support groups
or other services in order to access TANF funds.
5. Marriage Promotion
Any efforts to promote marriage should recognize the direct and
imminent danger that women and children face when living in a violent
home. There are many reasons why a woman may not be able to leave an
abusive home. The answers were complicated and varied, with economic
dependence being a significant cause. The danger inherent in marriage
promotion activities is that women may feel additional shame and stigma
if they attempt to flee a violent home and end an abusive marriage.
They also may become even more economically dependent on the
perpetrator if the TANF system provides more resources to women who
stay married to the father of their children. Women should not have to
stay in an abusive home in order to receive a larger TANF check. Nor
should the stigma of divorce become so great that a battered woman
chooses to remain in a dangerous situation to avoid the societal stigma
and shame of a failed marriage. These are the real, unintended
consequences of a policy that emphasizes marriage at the expense of
safety.
Additionally, programs that promote marriage may take a naive
approach to the causes and impact of domestic violence. Programs that
promote couples counseling, parenting education, or other basic
services may not have the expertise to deal with the complicated nature
of battering. Batterer intervention must be long term and focused on
changing the belief system that the batterer holds about his right to
use violence to control his wife and children. Traditional
psychotherapy, conflict resolution and anger management have not proved
to be efficacious in addressing abusive behavior. It is critical that
marriage promotion programs not utilize such techniques in its bid to
build healthy families. Such activities are dangerous for victims and
their children and should not be promoted as solutions for battering.
Instead, resources should be directed towards programs that address
both victim safety and offender accountability and have the expertise
to deal with the potential lethality of domestic violence situations.
6. Conclusion
When provided with the necessary training and support, battered
women can successfully make the transition from public assistance to
total independence. However, this journey must be aided by
individualized planning and protected by strict confidentiality. The
system must be designed to address the root causes of the woman's
poverty and respond to her individual needs, always keeping safety at
the forefront. Implementing the strategies outlined in these comments
will allow battered women to leave abusive relationships and establish
independent, violence free lives for themselves and their children.
Statement of Sister Mary Elizabeth Clark, NETWORK, A National Catholic
Social Justice Lobby
NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, is a membership
organization made up of more than 11,000 groups and individuals, many
of them faith-based social service providers. Our mission is to
educate, lobby and organize to influence the formation of federal
legislation to promote economic and social justice.
In 1996, soon after its signing, NETWORK initiated a multi-year,
nationwide study to examine the effects of The Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Responsibility Act on people living in poverty.
Almost 4,000 patrons of soup kitchens, health clinics and other
private, primarily faith-based social service facilities were
interviewed during three separate surveys. Results of the first two
surveys, conducted in 1997 and 1998, were published in the 1999 report,
Poverty Amid Plenty: The Unfinished Business of Welfare Reform. Results
of the third survey, conducted from November 2000 through January 2001,
appeared in Welfare Reform: How Do We Define Success?, a report that
was released at a Capitol briefing in July 2001.
The study has shown that a significant number of current and former
welfare recipients with incomes both below and above the poverty line
are unable to meet their most basic needs. As a result, many turn to
emergency facilities to provide for themselves and their families.
During the most recent survey, we found that almost half of those
we interviewed in emergency facilities had household yearly incomes
under $8,500, while 30 percent lived on less than $6,000. Sadly,
roughly two-thirds of these desperately poor families included
children. Despite their extreme poverty, only 28 percent of these
families received government cash assistance.
We also found welfare reform ``successes''--people with jobs who
had moved above the poverty line--in our soup kitchens and other
emergency facilities. Fully one-third of those we surveyed came from
households with incomes that exceed the federal poverty income level,
and three-quarters of this group had at one time been on welfare. Why
are they relying on emergency services? Mostly because of lost benefits
and inadequate wages. Also, a shortage of affordable housing means that
housing costs consume a high percentage of their earnings.
NETWORK believes that the ultimate test of the success of welfare
reform is whether welfare-to-work families are able to achieve
independence and a secure future. This requires job training,
childcare, education and other supports such as transportation, stable
housing, addiction treatment, domestic violence protection and
counseling.
We are concerned that the Administration's TANF proposal makes it
difficult for states to do much more than provide inexpensive, short-
term services to people who need much more. By mandating that more
people be engaged in some kind of ``work activity'' while not boosting
funding to provide the support they need, the proposal forces states to
do more with less.
We also worry that the current proposal is more restrictive
concerning the types of education and job training that are allowed.
For example, the limiting of training activities to three months within
a 24 month period rules out post-secondary education. To make matters
worse, the President is also calling for cuts in federal funding of job
training programs for low-income adults.
One of the most difficult aspects of the 1996 legislation was the
instituting of time limits. Like many groups, NETWORK found these new
restrictions arbitrary and inherently unfair. Recognizing the low
political likelihood that time limits will be abolished this year,
NETWORK supports a number of measures to lessen the suffering they
cause. These include:
1. Redefining work. This means stopping the time clock for people
who play by the rules, people, for example, who are:
actively looking for a job
enrolled in job training classes
attending school
caring for children under the age of six
unable to find quality, affordable child care for
their children
employed but not earning a living wage.
2. Increasing the percentage of families who receive extended time
limits, currently limited to 20 percent of a state's average caseload.
NETWORK supports increasing it to at least 20 percent of the state's
caseload when welfare reform was enacted in 1996, a larger number.
More generally, welfare-to-work families need all the tools
necessary to achieve long-term self-sufficiency--a living wage, health
care, affordable housing, transportation, daycare, training, and
education. States need appropriate levels of funding and flexible
requirements to provide for these families.
The welfare reform reauthorization process provides Congress with
an important opportunity to take concrete steps to lift millions of
people out of poverty by providing the tools they need to become
independent. The people of the U.S., acting out of compassion, hastened
to provide assistance to the victims of September 11. We have cared for
the victims of the terrorist attacks. It is now time for Congress to
extend that caring to people who struggle in poverty each day.
Statement of Gloria Guard, Executive Director, People's Emergency
Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
I appreciate the opportunity to submit written testimony as the
Executive Director of People's Emergency Center (PEC), Pennsylvania's
oldest service agency for homeless families founded in 1972. PEC offers
a comprehensive ``continuum of care'' to address the housing,
employment and social service needs of homeless families in
Philadelphia. PEC has served over 6,000 homeless women and children and
been remarkably successful in helping these families achieve permanent
self-sufficiency. PEC understands and addresses the needs of low-income
families and communities more broadly. PEC created the People's
Emergency Center Community Development Corporation in 1992, to serve as
its community revitalization agent. Since its inception, PECCDC has
leveraged $14 million of investment into West Philadelphia and
converted 70 vacant and blighted properties into 94 units of affordable
transitional and permanent housing, 3 social service facilities, a
community playground, and green space. PECCDC has an additional $8
million of important facilities and housing projects in various stages
of the development pipeline.
Directly related to welfare, PEC, through its Job Opportunities and
Basic Skills Program (JOBS), has provided specialized employment
services to homeless women transitioning from welfare to work. JOBS
conducts outreach at 11 of the City's homeless family shelters and
enrolls an average of 125 women per year. Nearly 50% of those placed in
jobs are still working after a year, which is positive compared to
industry standards. In addition, PEC has almost completed the
construction of Families First, a one-stop welfare to work center that
will house under one roof child care and afterschool for 120 children,
a JOBS program assisting 100-120 women annually and a preventive
healthcare center. Finally, PEC has increasingly been recognized as an
organization that can speak confidently on welfare reform policy
issues, particularly from the perspective of an experienced provider
serving women with multiple barriers to employment. In the past year,
PEC was instrumental in calling attention to the expiration of the
federal Department of Labor's welfare-to-work funding and for
soliciting other public sector resources to maintain essential
components of Philadelphia's welfare to work program. PEC was selected
from among the United Way of Southeastern Pennsylvania's member
agencies to provide the provider perspective on welfare reform at
United Way's welfare reform forum in November. PEC recently took the
lead in organizing a planning group and establishing the Philadelphia
Welfare Coalition to address critical welfare issues over the next six
months. The Coalition hosted a forum in January aimed at developing a
cohesive and broad-based response to the Pennsylvania Department of
Public Welfare's (DPW) proposed regulations related to the five-year
time limits. The Coalition is now beginning to focus its attention on
the federal reauthorization of TANF.
TANF Work Requirements:
Since the purpose of the testimony is ultimately to inform the TANF
reauthorization discussions, I want to comment specifically on the
Administration's proposed increase in the work requirement to 40 hours
per week.
The 40-hour per week work requirement is nearly impossible to meet
consistently:
The 40-hour per week work requirement is onerous, particularly for
single moms with children. A large part of the difficulty of meeting
the 40-hour per week work requirement is the need to meet it
consistently every week for as long as the person needs welfare
benefits. The 40 hours is strictly implemented and does not allow for
office holidays, vacation days, sick days or personal days. Welfare
recipients are not currently entitled to these critical options the
rest of the working population uses to help them balance work and
family needs and sustain employment.
On March 12th, President Bush came to PEC in Philadelphia to
announce the USA Freedom Corps. I had the opportunity to speak with him
directly about welfare reform. I told the President with what I refer
to as ``the Christmas Story'' to illustrate how difficult it is to meet
the work requirement. Each year our JOBS Program has clients placed in
paid work experiences with other nonprofits or public sector agencies
throughout the City. Many of these employers close down their offices
for the holidays between Christmas and New Years. Unfortunately, our
clients still need to meet their hours-per-week requirement and so we
scramble to accommodate with hours at our agency or with other agencies
that might be open. It is always a major challenge to find enough
supervised positions in Philadelphia during the holidays to accommodate
all of those who must meet their work requirement.
Another important point that I did not make to the President but
would have made given more time is that between Labor Day and the end
of January, with national holidays, there is not a single month when
offices are actually open 40 hours per week consistently. Each month,
there is at least one observed holiday, which means that one week of
every month between September and January welfare recipients are
scrambling to make up 8 hours in that same week of the holiday.
The President responded that clearly no body intended
implementation of the work requirement to be so rigid that it created
these consequences. He promised to look into the issue and to think
about potential solutions.
I would like to offer a few points to guide the Administration and
Congress' welfare policy related to work requirements.
The increase in the work requirement from 30 hours
to 40 hours per week significantly exacerbates the problem of
meeting the work requirement every week.
The Administration might be tempted to argue that
this is not a real issue because only 24 of the proposed 40
hours of work are strictly defined. However, in practice, it is
a real problem. Take the person who is in paid work experience
24-hours per week on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays and who
has a GED program on Tuesdays and Fridays. When Thanksgiving
falls on a Thursday and her office is closed, this woman cannot
just make up those hours another day that week. The nonprofit
doesn't have her supervisor staying late that Monday and
Wednesday so that she can squeeze in 8 additional hours. If she
tries to make up the work on Tuesday or Friday she meets the
24-hour component of the work requirement but misses her GED
program and fails to meet her 40 hours of weekly participation.
It is almost impossible for her to remain consistently
compliant, and thus, for the state to count her toward their
work participation rate.
A good starting point for a solution would be to
allow welfare recipients the same leave policies that other
employees in this country get, including vacation, sick days,
personal days and official holidays. This leave policy would
give welfare recipients hourly credits toward their work
requirement. We all need these options and, in fact, poor
people need them more. For example, PEC's homeless clients on
welfare have to interact with several bureaucracies--the County
Assistance Office, the Section 8 office, family court, and
others--in their effort to stabilize their lives. All of these
agencies require that clients come to the office in person
during regular business hours. Each time they are required to
go to one of these offices, they need to make up those hours in
that same week or fail to meet their work requirement.
I focused my discussion with the President around this one major
implication of the 40-hour work requirement. However, there are others.
It is the ``all or nothing'' nature of the 40-hours per week
requirement that is most problematic. A respected colleague articulated
the issue well when she said, ``I have never before encountered a test
when the only passing grade was 100%.''
We know from experience the past few years that it was extremely
difficult for welfare recipients to meet the 30-hours per week
requirement. Obviously, very few welfare recipients will be able to
achieve 40-hours per week of activity.
We also know from experience that states are driven to hit their
work participation rate targets and are unlikely to offer programs that
are not structured to maximize the number of people meeting work
participation rates.
In the Administration's proposal, states are only allowed to count
families that meet both the 24-hour work requirement and the 40-hour
full participation requirement toward their work participation rate.
(States will apparently be able to obtain pro-rata credit for families
engaged in activities less than full-time as long as they meet their
24-hour work requirement, but it is not clear what that means). What is
clear is that under the Administration's proposal, the following would
not be considered successful outcomes:
A person with a disability working 25 hours per week
but unable to commit to other activities above and beyond that.
A single Mom working 30 hours per week and caring
for her disabled child the hours her child is not in school.
The homeless client who works 24 hours per week and
spends 12 hours per week pursuing permanent housing she and her
family so desperately need.
The single mom with school age children who works
only 32 hours per week so that she can still be there to see
her children off to school in the morning, meet them at the bus
stop in the afternoon and supervise them throughout the rest of
the day.
The person who attends substance abuse treatment for
three months but requires a more gradual reintroduction to the
workforce over the following months.
The person working for UPS at $12.00 per hour who
does not work the same number of hours or the same schedule
every week but who can count on the fact that they are earning
more for their family than if they worked a more consistent
minimum wage job 24 hours per week.
It is also clear that with work requirements so strictly defined,
states will end up sanctioning many families--the most vulnerable
families--off the caseload.
Finally, under the Administration's plan, the stated overarching
purpose of TANF would be to improve the well-being of children. I think
that is a critically important goal of TANF. I want to point out that
the 40-hour per week work requirement is not in the best interest of
children. First, it is likely that many families will be sanctioned off
of welfare rolls for not meeting the work requirement. It is definitely
not in the best interest of children for their family to have no
income. It is not in the best interest of children for their parents to
be penalized for working part-time so they can care for and supervise
them. We know from the research on the first wave of welfare reform
that Teens were more likely to be negatively affected with studies
suggesting decreases in school achievement and increases in risky
behavior. (Source: Welfare Reform & Beyond, Brief #1). The increase
from 30 hours to 40 hours is likely to increase the negative impacts on
teens, particularly since the Administration's proposal does not
allocate additional funds for the afterschool programs that will be
necessary for children whose parents are working these additional
hours.
We all want welfare reform to be a success. I am concerned that the
Administration's proposed work requirements set the clients, providers,
states and the welfare program up for failure.
I would also like to take this opportunity to present PEC's
position on TANF Reauthorization more broadly.
PEC makes the following recommendations in the hope that, when
reauthorized this year, the TANF block grant will become an even more
powerful asset in helping us to carry out our mission.
First and foremost, the reauthorization discussions should reflect
that (1) the welfare population of today differs from the caseload of
five years ago, with a substantially higher percentage of recipients
facing multiple barriers to employment; and (2) the economy, though on
the mend, is not booming at the rate it was over the past five years.
Nevertheless, we can and must maintain the goal of personal
responsibility and high expectations that people still on the rolls can
move from welfare to work. To make these expectations a reality, states
continue to need maximum flexibility to support programs that respond
to their unique caseload and labor market realities. They also need
sufficient resources--Congress simply must increase the block grant
level at least to account for inflation. A more substantial increase is
required if we wish welfare reform to evolve to the next phase of
reaching even the most troubled families and further reducing poverty.
Additionally, to sustain the momentum of welfare reform, we urge the
Administration and Congress to:
(1) Make the rules of the game for families transitioning
from welfare to work the same as they are for the rest of us.
We expect welfare recipient to work 40 hours per week like the
rest of us. But most people do not work 40 hours per week every
week. Think of Christmas and Thanksgiving. Welfare recipients
are penalized if they work less than 40 hours in any week,
regardless even of national holidays. This is unfair. They
deserve a reasonable leave policy to enable them to balance
work and family needs and retain employment, just like other
employees. Also, people transitioning from welfare to work
should not be required to work for less than the minimum wage.
Nor should they have to work off checks and food stamps at
artificially low wage rates. Finally, to the greatest extent
possible, welfare recipients should be paid wages that allow
them to benefit from the Earned Income Tax Credit and build an
employment history for unemployment compensation and social
security purposes. We at PEC find that welfare recipients want
to give an honest day's work; we owe them an honest day's pay--
coupled with time for their family and a chance to build for
that family's future.
(2) Give providers on the front lines, like PEC, the
flexibility we need to provide appropriate services to assist
families with multiple barriers to move toward employment and
self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, the combination of the
proposed 40-hour per week requirement, 70% work participation
rate and the elimination of the caseload reduction credit
incentivizes states to offer a ``one-size fits all'' program.
We urge the Administration to examine options, including
retention of the caseload reduction credit, for allowing states
to support the full range of programs they will need.
(3) Recognize that affordable housing is essential to the
successful transition from welfare to work. The first purpose
of TANF is to ``provide assistance to needy families so that
children may be cared for in their homes or in the homes of
relatives,'' yet the TANF program fails adequately to recognize
the critical importance of this work support. Research shows
that people leaving welfare that receive housing assistance
have significantly higher employment rates and earnings, while
housing problems threaten families' ties to work. Accordingly,
the reauthorized legislation should clearly define housing
subsidies as a work support, similar to childcare or
transportation, instead of as assistance. States should also be
required to address housing in their TANF plans. This is just
common sense--it is hard for TANF recipients to meet our
heightened expectations when, even after going to work, these
vulnerable families lack a stable home due to overwhelming
housing cost burdens.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Project IRENE
Springfield, Illinois 62704
March 18, 2002
To: House Human Resources Subcommittee
Re: New Vision for Reauthorization of TANF
From: Rose Mary Meyer, BVM; Project Director, Project IRENE
The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action Adopted at the World
Conference on Human Rights, June 25, 1993 reads:
. . . Recognizing and affirming that all human beings derive
from the dignity and worth inherent in the human person, and
that the human person is the central subject of human rights
and fundamental freedoms, and consequently should be the
principal beneficiary and should participate actively in the
realization of these rights and freedoms. . . . (italics in
original)
In order to assure these rights and freedoms for TANF recipients,
we need a new vision for reauthorization. Opportunities include:
reconsideration of time limits
The well-being of the family ought to be primary in the new
vision. If parents have sick children or infirm relatives, the
current time limits ought to be suspended. The effects of
domestic violence also have to be factored into the equation.
Families engaged in part-time work or school ought not to be
terminated because of time limits.
restoration of benefits to lawfully present
immigrants
A study by the National Immigration Law Center found that 1.3
million children who are U.S. citizens lost benefits because
their parents were dropped from welfare roles. The 1996 law
made most lawfully present immigrants ineligible for Federal
public benefit programs such as food stamps, Medicaid, SSI,
TANF. Nutrition assistance and health care benefits need to be
restored to lawfully present immigrants.
expansion of educational opportunities
A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study, which
followed TANF recipients for one year, indicates that only 5.9%
received job training or education. The 1996 law limits states
in their ability to include education and job training in their
TANF programs. However, job training and education are
essential for economically poor women in order to access jobs
that pay wages that allow these women to support a family.
Adequate housing, food and health care are human rights, not
privileges.
In the new vision of the reauthorization bill, educational
opportunities need to be expanded. The limits on education and job
training need to be eliminated.
reconsideration of work requirements
Work requirements have to be flexible in order for the
necessary education or job training to occur. Research
indicates that most of the current TANF recipients have
multiple barriers to employment. Therefore, assessment of needs
and provisions of services ought to be considered as facets of
the work requirements.
reduction of poverty
Reduction of poverty is life-giving. Reduction of case loads
does not guarantee reduction of poverty. Securing jobs which
pay higher wages than the minimum wage and also offer benefits
such as health insurance are essential to reduce poverty.
All of us benefit from poverty reduction--government, business,
neighbors, families, friends. A new vision for TANF reauthorization
will strengthen families and reduce poverty.
Conclusion
I am confident that you will foster a new vision of TANF that
will guarantee the rights and freedoms of TANF recipients.
Thank you.
Project IRENE (Illinois Religious Enabling Nonviolent Endeavors) is
a project of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, Region 8.
This not-for-profit corporation engages in analysis, education and
advocacy which impact women and children.
Protestants for the Common Good
Chicago, Illinois 60601
March 7, 2002
Hearing Clerk
House Human Resources Subcommittee
Washington DC
To the Subcommittee:
I wish to offer several concerns about work requirements and time
limits related to TANF reauthorization on behalf of Protestants for the
Common Good, a faith-based education and advocacy organization with a
thousand members in the Chicago Metropolitan Area of Illinois.
Protestants for the Common Good has been involved in studying and
analyzing TANF at the federal and state levels, and advocating for
realistic policies that will help move welfare recipients not only into
the workforce but also out of poverty. Based on our knowledge of the
welfare caseload in Illinois, and also a knowledge of the history of
implementation in this state, we offer these comments pertinent to the
issues before your committee:
Work requirements: (With special attention to the proposal that has
been put forward by the President)
Research shows, and our own state Department of
Human Services concurs, that most of the remaining caseload in
Illinois (30,000 now available to work, compared with about
175,000 in 1997), has multiple barriers to work: illiteracy,
lack of work history, mental illness, physical impairments,
substance abuse, homelessness, caring for a disabled child or
family member, living in an area where there are no jobs
available or no transportation to get to employment. Research
also shows that TANF recipients can generally overcome one or
perhaps two barriers, but finding and keeping a job with
multiple barriers is very difficult if not impossible.
Given the makeup of the caseload, it makes no sense
to limit full-time services that could address only one of
these barriers to three months out of 24 as is proposed by the
President. It will more likely take various full-time services
for all 24 months to ready most of these welfare participants
for employment, where employment is in fact an option.
Similarly, it makes no sense to require these
multiple-barriered people to work 40 hours when most have not
been able to successfully find and keep 30 hours of work. Some
of the 30,000 available to work in Illinois are in fact
working, about 36%, but have not been able to find enough hours
or earn enough to work their way off the welfare rolls, but
they are clearly trying. And they should not be penalized, nor
should the state. Their continuance on the rolls is not for
lack of insistence by the Department of Human Services that
they must find a job or be engaged in work activities. The
Department has in fact been severe in its treatment of those
who have not for whatever reason been able to follow the rules.
Requiring 40 hours of work a week does not change the nature of
the caseload or alleviate the multiple barriers they face.
Those who wrote the President's proposal may think
they are doing people with multiple barriers a favor by
requiring only 24 hours of the 40, or three days a week, to be
``real'' work, and the other two can be education or training
or substance abuse treatment etc. That plan might fit a few
people who are lucky enough to find a three-day-a week job,
where the three days will exactly fit the two days where they
could find education and training programs or open substance
abuse slots. This is highly unrealistic and extremely
inflexible. There are not enough substance abuse slots now, and
education and training programs that can be combined with work
have not been developed in Illinois.
Many companies have a 35-hour or 37.5 hour work
week.
Where are the additional funds that will pay for the
services that theoretically could be supplied during the two
days a week of the 40 hours not required to be at work,
provided such new programs could be set up with new funding?
Without an inflationary increase in bloc grant funding,
providing extra services would be impossible, especially when
this state is already cutting its human services budget to meet
a budget crisis.
It makes no sense to require of the state that 70 %
of that 30,000 is to be working, again a very inflexible and
unrealistic requirement. The present 50% requirement is not
only not being met, it is not currently a requirement, because
there is now a credit for caseload reduction, which has
disappeared in the president's proposal. To get more people
working does not require a stiffer requirement, it requires
more services.
Time limits
The big need of the states is for flexibility. The
President's party is supposed to be the party that allows
states to experiment, to innovate, to be leaders, to be a
laboratory for developing good public policy. What happened to
that? There should be great flexibility given to states to stop
their time limits clock from running. States should be able to
do this by defining work and work activities, and by allowing
welfare participants to engage in full time education and
training so that they can truly work their way out of poverty.
Conclusion
Protestants for the Common Good recommends that the work
requirements be maintained as in the 1996 Act, preserving flexibility
for the states, with two exceptions that add more flexibility: (1) more
services that address multiple barriers should be allowed to count as
``work'' and (2) more flexibility should be allowed for education and
training programs of all kinds and at all levels, both full-time and in
combination with work.
Sincerely yours,
Nancy Brandt
Co-Chair, Board of Directors
Welfare and Poverty Issue Manager
Women and Poverty Public Education Initiative
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53206
March 19, 2002
To: Members of TANF Subcommittee
From: Jean Verber, Director of Women and Poverty Public Education
Initiative
I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in before the March 21
deadline with comments on work requirements and time limits as they are
being considered in the reauthorization process.
I have worked with poor women in central city Milwaukee since 1995,
the end of AFDC through the transition to the present when many women
are dealing with time limits and economic hardship.
Over the past 6 years, we have interviewed hundreds of welfare
mothers, one-on-one as a way to document and track their progress and
measure of well-being in the W-2 program. It is from this history and
vantage point that I offer these comments and recommendations.
Several key barriers clearly stand in the way of owmen moving
toward some measure of self-sufficiency:
low wage jobs, temp work, only part time employment
options
lack of education and training for better paying
jobs
To truly get out of poverty, policies need to support
1. a combination of work and training to be eligible for family
supporting jobs.
2. professional assessment and referrals for those with personal
barriers to work. Services offered need sufficient time and count as
`work' to assure readiness, not only for successful employment but also
to remain employed.
3. With a soft labor market, factories closing, downsizing, hours
reduced, and more part time than full time positions open, women should
NOT be tied to time limits. In Milwaukee's central city, the Oct., 2001
survey of business openings showed a 10 to l job gap (ten active job
seekers for every full time opening). There is no way that arbitrary
time limits will force or keep participation in this kind of labor
market.
Furthermore, those in training, therapy, victims of domestic
violence (more than we ever realized!), these cases need to be dealt
with according to need and not locked in to an arbitrary lime limit.
Many, in our opinion, should be exempt due to insurmountable problems
like caring for disabled children, those in rehab working with
addiction, the mentally ill, physically ill, those struggling with
abuse.
Somehow, the reauthorization policy language needs to be crafted to
assure understanding of the above mentioned and humane treatment as
primary and accountability facets as secondary to be truly effective
and productive for families, as well as the community where they
reside.
I urge you to engage with real families living in these situations
so the reality comes from real experience. We are challenged to create
policies that we would want for our own mothers, sisters, and
daughters. The present policy program is a disgrace, punitive, and
demeaning. Our women and children deserve more. Let's give hope back to
them. Thank you for giving these comments your careful consideration.
Jean Verber
Director
Statement of Jenny Wittner, Senior Policy Associate, Women Employed,
Chicago, Illinois
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on welfare work
requirements and time limits to the House Human Resources Subcommittee.
Women Employed is a membership organization that works for the economic
advancement of women. Besides engaging in education and advocacy
activities, Women Employed provides job-training services to low-income
women who are struggling to enter the workforce. Based on our
experience as service providers and advocates, and on behalf of the
members of Women Employed, we submit the following recommendations.
The newest research from the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work
Strategies joins other research in consistently demonstrating that the
most effective welfare-to-work programs maintain a strong focus on
employment and provide opportunities for some participants to engage in
job search and others in education and training-not exclusively one or
the other. Additionally, in Illinois and elsewhere, the fastest-growing
occupations require skills that most TANF recipients do not have. Those
jobs that do require only minimal or basic skill levels pay poverty-
level wages and offer few prospects for advancement. Indeed, research
shows that by itself, gaining work experience does not increase low-
skilled workers' earnings. Depending on an individual recipient's
current skills, TANF recipients can gain between $5,000 and $10,000 of
annual income by increasing their skill levels through education and
training. Additionally, those with higher levels of education are more
likely to remain off welfare once they have left it. Research conducted
for the Illinois Department of Human Services shows that those without
a high school degree are more than twice as likely to return to welfare
than those who have a high school degree or a GED.
New TANF legislation should encourage states to make education and
training a part of the menu of services that are offered to those on
TANF and those who have recently left the TANF rolls. As Congress
considers welfare reauthorization this year, Women Employed recommends
changes in the federal welfare law to enable states to enroll greater
numbers of welfare recipients in education and training that leads to
employment. We recommend that Congress legislate a welfare program that
will:
Allow increased flexibility for states to count
education and training as a work activity. New TANF legislation
should expand the definition of ``work activity'' to include
vocational training without the current 12-month limit as well
as literacy, ESL and GED instruction and higher education.
Include the types of activities that help remediate
barriers such as substance abuse, mental illness and learning
disability in the definition of a work activity so that state
agencies are able to address the needs of low-income clients
without penalty. The care of a disabled spouse or child should
also count as a work activity for those for whom such care
prevents other employment.
Provide funding for supportive services to working
families as they undertake work activities until they reach
economic self-sufficiency. Working families, on and off TANF,
depend on crucial supports such as child care subsidies to
ensure that they can meet basic needs. These subsidies should
be available to those attending education and training part-and
full-time, to those attending other types of activities such as
drug rehabilitation and mental health programs, and to those in
low-wage employment.
Eliminate time limits for people still on welfare
who are trying to overcome barriers to employment. Families who
are making good faith efforts to overcome barriers such as
disability, mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence
and lack of literacy or job skills need continued support.
Families that face barriers to employment or job loss due to a
contracting economy also need continued access to TANF.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to submit comments.