[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WELFARE REFORM REAUTHORIZATION PROPOSALS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 11, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-87
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-843 WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
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 March 28, 2002, announcing the hearing............... 2
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Hon. Tommy G.
Thompson, Secretary, accompanied by Hon. Wade Horn, Ph.D.,
Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families.. 7
______
Albright, Pat, Every Mother is a Working Mother Network.......... 268
American Fathers Coalition, Stuart A. Miller..................... 157
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Lee
Saunders, as presented by Nanine Meiklejohn.................... 204
American Public Human Services Association, Robin Arnold-Williams 61
Americans for Divorce Reform, John Crouch........................ 137
Antioch Baptist Church, Lonnie Perrin............................ 135
Arc, Paul Marchand............................................... 286
Arnold-Williams, Robin, Utah Department of Human Services, and
American Public Human Services Association..................... 61
Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc.,
Geraldine Jensen............................................... 145
Baltimore, Maryland, Hon. Martin O'Malley, Mayor................. 49
Beckmann, David, Bread for the World............................. 305
Bilchik, Shay, Child Welfare League of America................... 196
Blank, Helen, Children's Defense Fund............................ 178
Bread for the World, David Beckmann.............................. 305
Brown, Vanessa, Philadelphia Unemployment Project, and National
Campaign for Jobs and Income Support........................... 265
Cahill, Sean, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force................ 295
California Budget Project, Jean Ross............................. 249
Call to Renewal, Reverend Nathan Wilson.......................... 231
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Wendell Primus........... 90
Center for Law and Social Policy, Jodie Levin-Epstein............ 169
Center for Self-Sufficiency, Jason A. Turner..................... 106
Chico Police Department, Michael R. Efford....................... 160
Children's Defense Fund, Helen Blank............................. 178
Children's Rights Council, David L. Levy......................... 133
Child Welfare League of America, Shay Bilchik.................... 196
Clark, Sister Mary Elizabeth, NETWORK, National Catholic Social
Justice Lobby.................................................. 228
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, Paul Marchand......... 286
County Welfare Directors Association of California, Will
Lightbourne.................................................... 242
Crouch, John, Americans for Divorce Reform....................... 137
Curran, Kathleen A., United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 216
Davis, Martha F., NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund........... 186
Efford, Michael R., Chico Police Department...................... 160
Every Mother is a Working Mother Network, Pat Albright........... 268
Girton-Mitchell, Brenda, National Council of Churches of Christ
in the U.S.A................................................... 225
Hunger Action Network of New York State, Bich Ha Pham............ 307
Jensen, Geraldine, Association for Children for Enforcement of
Support, Inc................................................... 145
Kahan, Kate, Working for Equality and Economic Liberation........ 277
Kaptur, Hon. Marcy, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio........................................................ 36
Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio.................................................. 23
Kurey, Mary-Louise, Project Reality.............................. 118
Lee, Hon. Barbara, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California..................................................... 57
Levin-Epstein, Jodie, Center for Law and Social Policy........... 169
Levy, David L., Children's Rights Council........................ 133
Lightbourne, Will, Santa Clara Social Services Agency, and County
Welfare Directors Association of California.................... 242
McDonald, Sharon, National Alliance to End Homelessness.......... 300
Marchand, Paul, Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, and
Arc............................................................ 286
Mead, Lawrence M., New York University........................... 69
Meier, Hon. Raymond, Senator, New York Senate, and National
Conference of State Legislatures............................... 40
Meiklejohn, Nanine, American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees, presenting statement of Lee Saunders...... 204
Millan, Maggie, Tampa, FL........................................ 230
Miller, Stuart A., American Fathers Coalition.................... 157
Mink, Hon. Patsy T., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Hawaii...................................................... 18
Munoz, Cecilia, National Council of La Raza, as presented by Eric
Rodriguez...................................................... 258
National Alliance to End Homelessness, Sharon McDonald........... 300
National Association of Child Care Resources and Referral
Agencies, Yasmina S. Vinci..................................... 281
National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support, Vanessa Brown..... 265
National Conference of State Legislatures, Hon. Raymond Meier,
Senator........................................................ 40
National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., Brenda
Girton-Mitchell................................................ 225
National Council of La Raza, Cecilia Munoz, as presented by Eric
Rodriguez...................................................... 258
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Sean Cahill................. 295
Navajo Nation Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program,
Alex Yazza, Jr................................................. 254
NETWORK, National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, Sister Mary
Elizabeth Clark................................................ 228
New York Senate, Hon. Raymond Meier, Senator..................... 40
NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, Martha F. Davis............ 186
O'Malley, Hon. Martin, Mayor, Baltimore, Maryland, and U.S.
Conference of Mayors........................................... 49
Perrin, Lonnie, Antioch Baptist Church........................... 135
Pham, Bich Ha, Hunger Action Network of New York State........... 307
Philadelphia Unemployment Project, Vanessa Brown................. 265
Primus, Wendell, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.......... 90
Project Reality, Mary-Louise Kurey............................... 118
Rector, Robert, Heritage Foundation.............................. 77
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Rabbi David
Saperstein, as presented by Lauren Schumer..................... 211
Reynolds, Hon. Thomas M., a Representatives in Congress from the
State of New York.............................................. 33
Rodriguez, Eric, National Council of La Raza, presenting
statement of Cecilia Munoz..................................... 258
Ross, Jean, California Budget Project............................ 249
Santa Clara Social Services Agency, Will Lightbourne............. 242
Saperstein, Rabbi David, Religious Action Center of Reform
Judaism, as presented by Lauren Schumer........................ 211
Saunders, Lee, American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, as presented by Nanine Meiklejohn................... 204
Sawhill, Isabel V., National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy,
and Brookings Institution...................................... 125
Schumer, Lauren, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism,
presenting statement of Rabbi David Saperstein................. 211
Tierney, Hon. John F., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts......................................... 27
Turner, Jason A., Center for Self-Sufficiency.................... 106
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Kathleen A. Curran. 216
U.S. Conference of Mayors, Hon. Martin O'Malley, Mayor........... 49
Utah Department of Human Services, Robin Arnold-Williams......... 61
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, Valora Washington...... 236
Vinci, Yasmina S., National Association of Child Care Resources
and Referral Agencies.......................................... 281
Washington, Valora, Unitarian Universalist Service Committee..... 236
Wilson, Reverend Nathan, Call to Renewal......................... 231
Working for Equality and Economic Liberation, Kate Kahan......... 277
Yazza, Alex, Jr., Navajo Nation Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families Program............................................... 254
______
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
American Bar Association, Robert D. Evans, statement............. 313
Belonga, Michael, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, St.
Ignace, MI, letter............................................. 385
Boucher, Bernard, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, St.
Ignace, MI, letter............................................. 379
Carraher, Mary, Project Self-Sufficiency of Loveland - Fort
Collins, CO, statement......................................... 378
Collier, Jennifer, Legal Action Center, letter................... 333
Demeo, Marisa, Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund,
and Latino Coalition for Families, joint statement............. 331
Dillworth, John E., Goodwill Industries of Southwestern Michigan,
Kalamazoo, MI, letter.......................................... 327
Drake, Susan, National Immigration Law Center, Boise, ID,
statement...................................................... 374
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, statement................ 315
Evans, Robert D., American Bar Association, statement............ 313
Fair Welfare Reform Coalition of Larimer County, CO, Audrey Olsen
Faulkner, statement............................................ 320
Friedman, Sister Richelle, McAuley Institute, Silver Spring, MD,
statement and attachment....................................... 346
Garfinkel, Irwin, and Ronald B. Mincy, Columbia University, New
York, NY; Elaine Sorensen, Urban Institute; Dwaine R. Simms,
and Preston J. Garrison, National Practitioners Network for
Fathers and Families; Joseph Jones, Center for Fathers,
Families, and Workforce Development, Baltimore, MD; and Jeffrey
Johnson, National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and
Community Leadership, joint statement.......................... 321
Garrison, Preston J., National Practitioners Network for Fathers
and Families, joint statement (see listing under Garfinkel,
Irwin)......................................................... 321
Goodwill Industries of Southwestern Michigan, Kalamazoo, MI, John
E. Dillworth, letter........................................... 327
Green, Richard M., M.D., Los Angeles, CA, statement.............. 328
Jefferson Economic Development Institute, Mt. Shasta, CA, Nancy
T. Swift, letter and attachment................................ 329
Jensen, Cory J., Men's Health Network, statement................. 351
Johnson, Jeffrey, National Center for Strategic Nonprofit
Planning and Community Leadership, joint statement (see listing
under Garfinkel, Irwin)........................................ 321
Jones, Joseph, Center for Fathers, Families, and Workforce
Development, Baltimore, MD, joint statement (see listing under
Garfinkel, Irwin).............................................. 321
Latino Coalition for Families, Jennie Torres-Lewis, National
Puerto Rican Coalition, and Marisa Demeo, Mexican American
Legal Defense & Education Fund, joint statement................ 331
Legal Action Center, Jennifer Collier, letter.................... 333
Loprest, Pamela, and Sheila Zedlewski, Urban Institute, joint
statement...................................................... 338
Marriage Savers, Michael J. McManus, Potomac, MD, statement...... 341
McAuley Institute, Silver Spring, MD, Sister Richelle Friedman,
statement and attachment....................................... 346
McManus, Michael J., Marriage Savers, Potomac MD, statement...... 341
Men's Health Network, Cory J. Jensen, statement.................. 351
Mendell, Felice, Women's Institute for Housing and Economic
Development, Boston, MA, statement and attachments............. 385
Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Marisa Demeo,
joint statement................................................ 331
Michigan League for Human Services, Lansing, MI, statement....... 353
Mincy, Ronald B., Columbia University, New York, NY, joint
statement (see listing under Garfinkel, Irwin)................. 321
Mirabal, Manuel, National Puerto Rican Coalition, statement...... 377
National Governors' Association, Raymond C. Scheppach, statement
and attachment................................................. 356
National Immigration Law Center, Boise, ID, Susan Drake,
statement...................................................... 374
National Puerto Rican Coalition:
Jennie Torres-Lewis, joint statement......................... 331
Manuel Mirabal, statement.................................... 377
Project Self-Sufficiency of Loveland--Fort Collins, CO, Mary
Carraher, statement............................................ 378
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, St. Ignace, MI:
Bernard Boucher, letter...................................... 379
Michael Belonga, letter...................................... 380
Scheppach, Raymond C., National Governors' Association, statement
and attachments................................................ 356
Simms, Dwaine R., National Practitioners Network for Fathers and
Families, joint statement (see listing under Garfinkel, Irwin). 321
Sorensen, Elaine, Urban Institute, joint statement (see listing
under Garfinkel, Irwin)........................................ 321
Swift, Nancy T., Jefferson Economic Development Institute, Mt.
Shasta, letter and attachment.................................. 329
Torres-Lewis, Jennie, National Puerto Rican Coalition, and Latino
Coalition for Families, joint statement........................ 331
Washington's Working Families Campaign: 2002, Seattle, WA,
statement...................................................... 383
Women's Institute for Housing and Economic Development, Boston,
MA, Felice Mendell, statement and attachments.................. 385
Wood, Bill, Charlotte, NC, statement............................. 388
Zedlewski, Sheila, and Pamela Loprest, Urban Institute, joint
statement...................................................... 338
WELFARE REFORM REAUTHORIZATION PROPOSALS
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2002
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Human Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:00 p.m., in
room 1100 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wally Herger
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]
ADVISORY
FROM THE
COMMITTEE
ON WAYS
AND
MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
CONTACT: (202) 225-1025
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 28, 2002
No. HR-14
Herger Announces Hearing on Welfare Reform Reauthorization Proposals
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 welfare reform reauthorization
proposals. The hearing will take place on Thursday, April 11, 2002, in
the main Committee hearing room 1100 Longworth House Office Building,
beginning at 3:00 p.m.
Oral testimony at this hearing will be from both invited and public
witnesses. Invited witnesses will include representatives of the
nation's governors, State legislators, and State welfare directors.
Also, any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral
appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the
Committee or for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing.
BACKGROUND:
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996 (P.L. 104-193), commonly referred to as the 1996 Welfare Reform
Law, made dramatic changes in the federal-State welfare system designed
to aid low-income American families. The law repealed the former Aid to
Families with Dependent Children program, and with it the individual
entitlement to cash welfare benefits. In its place, the 1996
legislation created a new Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) block grant, which 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 healthy two-parent
families.
National figures point to remarkable progress in combating welfare
dependence and poverty since State and federal welfare reforms were
enacted in the mid-1990s. The number of children living in poverty has
dropped by nearly 3 million and the African-American child poverty rate
has fallen to a record low. Welfare case loads have fallen by 60
percent nationwide, as nearly 3 million families and 9 million
recipients have left welfare, and record numbers of current and former
welfare recipients are working.
The TANF program expires on September 30, 2002, requiring Congress
to extend the program this year. In February, President George W. Bush
announced his proposal to reauthorize the TANF program and other key
features of the 1996 law. The President's proposal focuses on
increasing participation in work and related activities by those
receiving cash assistance in order to better prepare individuals for
success after welfare. Recent statistics from the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services reveal that 58 percent of adults on welfare
are neither working nor participating in education and training
activities permitted under the 1996 welfare reform law.
In announcing the hearing, Chairman Herger stated: ``The President
has offered a strong proposal to ensure all families who receive
welfare benefits gain work experience and training to prepare
themselves for life after welfare. This hearing will give us the
opportunity to hear from the Nation's Governors, State legislators,
State welfare administrators, and a host of other community voices
about what has worked, the President's and related proposals, and other
ideas for further reform.''
FOCUS OF THE HEARING:
The focus of the hearing is to review welfare reform
reauthorization proposals.
DETAILS FOR SUBMISSIONS OF REQUESTS TO BE HEARD:
Requests to be heard at the hearing must be made by telephone to
Traci Altman or Bill Covey at (202) 225-1721 no later than the close of
business, Thursday, April 4, 2002. The telephone request should be
followed by a formal written request faxed to Allison Giles, Chief of
Staff, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, 1102
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515, at (202) 225-
2610. The staff of the Subcommittee on Human Resources will notify by
telephone those scheduled to appear as soon as possible after the
filing deadline. Any questions concerning a scheduled appearance should
be directed to the Subcommittee on Human Resources staff at (202) 225-
1025.
In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, the
Subcommittee may not be able to accommodate all requests to be heard.
Those persons and organizations not scheduled for an oral appearance
are encouraged to submit written statements for the record of the
hearing. All persons requesting to be heard, whether they are scheduled
for oral testimony or not, will be notified as soon as possible after
the filing deadline.
Witnesses scheduled to present oral testimony are required to
summarize briefly their written statements in no more than five
minutes. THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE WILL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED. The full
written statement of each witness will be included in the printed
record, in accordance with House Rules.
In order to assure the most productive use of the limited amount of
time available to question witnesses, all witnesses scheduled to appear
before the Committee are required to submit 200 copies, along with an
IBM compatible 3.5-inch diskette in WordPerfect or MS Word format, of
their prepared statement for review by Members prior to the hearing.
Testimony should arrive at the Subcommittee on Human Resources office,
room B-317 Rayburn House Office Building, no later than Tuesday, April
9, 2002, 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. Failure to do so may result in the witness
being denied the opportunity to testify in person.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS IN LIEU OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE:
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, Tuesday, April 23, 2002. Those
filing written statements who wish to have their statements distributed
to the press and interested public at the hearing should deliver their
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. Welcome to our hearing on welfare reform
reauthorization proposals. In this hearing we will hear from
both invited and public witnesses as part of our continuing
conversations about ways to further improve the Nation's
welfare program during the upcoming reauthorization process.
In the past year, we have reviewed welfare successes,
strengthening and promoting healthy families, work requirements
and time limits, teen pregnancy prevention, child support, and
fatherhood as well as marriage issues. On February 6th and
March 12th of this year, the full Committee on Ways and Means
reviewed the President's welfare reform proposal. We were
honored to have testimony from the Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Tommy Thompson,
who joins us again today.
At today's hearing we will receive testimony on the
President's welfare reform proposal, which I introduced earlier
this week along with other Members of the Subcommittee as H.R.
4090, the Personal Responsibility Work and Family Promotion Act
of 2002. We will hear a wide range of views from over 40
witnesses representing the administration, former welfare
recipients, State and local officials, scholars, program
administrators, and advocates for those affected by the welfare
system.
Despite differences on how to further improve the program,
all of those here today recognize we can't rest on the success
of the 1996 welfare reform law, and we shouldn't go back to the
former Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) system
that trapped families and dependents for an average of 13
years. I can't imagine anyone here would want to go back to the
old days of providing checks and expecting little of
recipients.
The law has achieved truly historic results. Since 1996,
nearly 3 million children have been lifted from poverty. Among
mothers most likely to go on welfare, employment rose 40
percent between 1995 and 2000. Welfare case loads fell by 9
million, from 14 million recipients in 1994 to just 5 million
today. What this means is that single mothers and fathers who
used to collect welfare checks every month are now collecting a
paycheck. They deserve to be congratulated.
The welfare reform bill which we introduced based on the
President's proposal is designed to encourage and support even
more parents in work. In addition, we maintain current high
levels of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and
child care funds and expand State flexibility in spending those
funds to help make these improvements work. I look forward to
hearing witnesses' comments on these and other proposals to
reform and improve the welfare system.
Without objection, each Member will have the opportunity to
submit a written statement and have it included in the record
at this point. Mr. Cardin, would you like to make an opening
statement?
[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
Already in the past year we have reviewed welfare success,
strengthening and promoting healthy families, work requirements and
time limits, teen pregnancy prevention, child support and fatherhood,
as well as marriage issues. This hearing is part of our continuing
conversation about ways to further improve the nation's welfare program
during the upcoming reauthorization process.
On February 6th and March 12th of this year, the
Committee on Ways and Means reviewed the President's welfare reform
proposal with the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Tommy Thompson, who joins us again today.
At today's hearing we will receive testimony on the President's
welfare reform proposal, which I introduced earlier this week along
with other Republican Members of the Subcommittee as H.R. 4090, the
``Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2002.'' We
will hear a wide range of views from over 40 witnesses representing the
Administration, former welfare recipients, State and local officials,
scholars, program administrators, and advocates for those affected by
the welfare system.
Despite differences on how to further improve the program, all of
those here today recognize we can't rest on the success of the 1996
welfare reform law, and we shouldn't go back to the former AFDC system
that trapped families in dependence for an average of 13 years. I can't
imagine anyone here would want to go back to the old days of providing
checks and expecting little of recipients.
This law has achieved truly historic results. Since 1996 nearly 3
million children have been lifted from poverty. Among mothers most
likely to go on welfare, employment rose 40 percent between 1995 and
2000. At the same time, welfare case loads fell by 9 million--from 14
million recipients in 1994 to just 5 million today.
What this means is that single mothers and fathers who used to
collect a welfare check every month are now collecting a paycheck. They
deserve to be congratulated.
The welfare reform bill, which we introduced based on the
President's proposal, is designed to encourage and support even more
parents in work. In addition we maintain current high levels of TANF
and child care funds, and expand state flexibility in spending those
funds, to help make these improvements work.
I look forward to hearing witness comments on these and other
proposals to reform and improve the welfare system.
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to first
congratulate you for setting a Committee on Ways and Means
record with having the most witnesses I think we have ever had,
particularly on a day that Congress is supposed to be leaving
town. Let me congratulate you on that.
I certainly welcome Secretary Thompson back to the
Committee. I really do congratulate your efforts in working
with Republicans and Democrats in an effort to try and improve
health and welfare policies in this country. You have taken the
experiences from your State and you have brought it here to
Washington, and we appreciate the manner in which you have
conducted your work.
We now have the administration's bill that has been filed
by Mr. Herger, as he has indicated--as you have indicated in
your opening statement. Mr. Chairman, I have some concerns, as
you know, about the legislation that you filed. The premise in
1996 was that if we give the States sufficient resources and
flexibility, they will get the job done. I will be the first to
acknowledge there is more work that needs to be done, but I am
surprised that there would be so many changes that the
administration would request to that basic fundamental concept
of flexibility resources to the States.
Let me explain what I mean. First, we have heard from our
States, and our States tell us that under these new rules, if
they became effective, we would be encouraging more make work
or unpaid work experience. Let me just quote from the people
from my own State of Maryland where they say, in essence, we
would replace a program geared toward helping leave welfare for
work or leave welfare altogether to one geared toward making
those on welfare participate in worklike activities. I think we
all can agree that we want people to leave welfare for real
jobs, not makeshift jobs.
Secondly, in 1996, we made it clear that it shouldn't be
one size fits all, that Washington knows best. Yet in the
legislation that you have filed, Mr. Chairman, you become very
prescriptive to the States as to how they must act in order to
comply with the proposed new law.
Third, the President said on numerous occasions that
education is the ticket to success in our society. Vocational
education is one of the keys of a person not only getting a job
and succeeding in the workplace, and yet the legislation that
is proposed provides less flexibility rather than more for the
States to tailor their educational programs to the needs of the
people that are on welfare. I think we can do better than that.
Of course, the Republicans have been very strong about the
fact that we shouldn't be putting unfunded mandates on the
States. The Governors have spoken. The States have spoken. They
have said that this legislation in and of itself will cost the
States an additional $15 billion, yet there is no additional
funds made available to the States. That is an unfunded
mandate. That is something we shouldn't be doing. We should at
least be providing the additional resources that the States
will need in carrying out the basic programs in providing the
child care that would be required to meet these new work
requirements.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, let me point out an issue that you
know I feel very strongly about, and that is the matter of
discrimination against legal immigrants. I make no bones about
the fact that in 1996 I think Congress made a mistake when it
passed discrimination against legal immigrants. I believe the
majority of the Members of Congress agree with that statement,
and we have taken measures during the last several years to
correct some of those mistakes. Now it is time for us to act
and remove the remainder of the discrimination against legal
immigrants. The bill that you have filed does not move at all
in that direction, and I would hope as this bill makes it way
through the Congress, we will find ways to allow the States the
ability to cover legal immigrants with the federal TANF funds.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today. I look
forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and you, Mr.
Secretary, so we can craft the bill that we can all be proud of
that will continue the distinguished record we have made over
the past 5 years in moving people off of welfare to work.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Cardin. Before we move on
to our testimony, I want to remind the witnesses to limit their
oral statements to 5 minutes. However, without objection, all
written testimony will be made a part of the permanent record.
On our first panel, we are honored to have with us the
Honorable Tommy Thompson, Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services, who is accompanied by the Honorable Wade Horn,
Ph.D., Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and
Families, Department of Health and Human Services. Gentlemen,
it is a pleasure to see both of you here at our Committee
again. With that, Secretary Thompson.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOMMY G. THOMPSON, SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; ACCOMPANIED BY THE
HON. WADE HORN, PH.D., ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ADMINISTRATION FOR
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you so very much for allowing me to testify and for the
introduction of this proposal. I appreciate your leadership
very much. Congressman Cardin, it is always a pleasure to work
with you on this particular subject. I admire your passion on
it, and I appreciate your comments very much. I'm always
delighted to see my conservative friend, Mr. McDermott, who is
always here. I enjoy him very much. Mr. Lewis, thank you very
much.
Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for your introduction this
week of the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion
Act of 2002. Mr. Chairman, your leadership and that of
Representative Cardin and others on this Subcommittee is
helping us continue the historic work that we began in 1996
both compassionately and effectively. Your legislation, Mr.
Chairman, shares many of the same goals as the administration's
proposal, such as maintaining the basic structure of TANF,
strengthening the work requirements and support for two-parent
families, and directing increased amounts of the child support
collected to families. I thank you for your fine work, and I
want emphasize up front that we in the administration are eager
to work with you as well as Congressman Cardin and all the
other Members of this Subcommittee.
Over the past 5 years, welfare reform has exceeded our most
optimistic expectations. The 1996 law dramatically shifted
national welfare policy by promoting work, encouraging personal
responsibility, discouraging out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and
supporting marriages. Underlying these changes, we restored an
essential principle that has long been lost: that welfare
assistance was designed to be temporary, to help families in
crisis, and that dependence and poverty are not permanent
conditions.
The results have been extraordinary. Nearly 7 million fewer
people are on welfare today than in 1996, and 2.8 million fewer
children are in poverty, and TANF has moved millions of
individuals from welfare to work. Employment among single
mothers has grown to unprecedented levels. Child poverty rates
are at their lowest level since 1979, and overall child poverty
rates declined from 20 percent in 1996 to 16 percent in 2000.
Yet our work, as all of us know, while significant, is
incomplete.
Recognizing this along with you, our proposal seeks $16.5
billion for block grants to the States and tribes, an
additional $319 million each year for supplemental grants for
States that have experienced high population growth and have
historically low funding levels. At the same time, we will
continue the current ``maintenance-of-effort'' (MOE)
requirements to retain State contributions to assistance for
children and families. We will reauthorize and improve the $2
billion contingency fund.
In addition to the requirement for universal engagement, we
will increase the direct work requirement. Our proposal
requires welfare recipients to engage in a 40-hour work week,
only 24 hours of which must be in direct work, including
employment, on-the-job training and/or supervised work
experience. This is an important step since 40 hours is a
normal weekly work period for all Americans. We want the men
and women who are transitioning from welfare to understand what
will be demanded of them in the real world.
A full 16 of these 40 hours can be used for training as
well as education, the very things that will equip former
welfare recipients for success in the future. In addition, we
will allow substance abuse treatment, rehabilitation, or work-
related training for up to 3 months within any 24-month period.
We will also gradually increase minimum participation rate
requirements by 5 percent per year.
The Administration's plan and yours, Mr. Chairman, both
embrace the needs of families by promoting child well-being and
healthy marriages. To this end, we have established improving
the well-being of children as the overarching purpose of TANF.
Child support is an equally critical component to federal and
State efforts to promote family self-sufficiency. For the low-
income families who receive child support, it makes up more
than a quarter of the family budget, and we are increasing the
number of individual cases that we have filed. Last year a
record of nearly $19 billion in child support was collected.
With you we are proposing to do even more. Our proposals are
targeted to increase collections to current and former TANF
families by approximately $1.1 billion over 5 years beginning
in fiscal year 2005.
I can tell you from my experience as Governor of Wisconsin,
access to child care assistance can make a critical difference
in helping low-income families to find and retain jobs. We are
proposing a total of $4.8 billion for the Child Care and
Development Fund. When combined with TANF and other federal
funding sources, about $9 billion is available for child care,
and that funding is available through our child care programs
as well as the TANF transfers.
Mr. Chairman, let me also note that in your proposal you
seek to give States the ability to shift up to 50 percent of
their TANF funding into the child care block grant, up from the
current 30 percent. This is a valuable innovation that will
enhance State flexibility to provide necessary work support and
is an improvement over current law.
Mr. Chairman, my time is up, but I would like to finish up
by telling you that under our plan, States have significant
flexibility to decide how child care funds will be used and
what will be emphasized in achieving the overall goals of
improving access to care and the quality of care. Of course,
the purpose of these programs must continue to be met, and that
is why, Mr. Chairman, I applaud you and applaud this Committee.
The proposals you have presented track closely with the
principles of the President's plan. Congressman Cardin and
other Members of this Subcommittee, we are more than ready to
join with you as we craft legislation that will help those
still relying on welfare to fulfill their American dreams. I
look forward to working with all of you on this Committee to
that worthy end, and I will be happy now to answer your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Thompson follows:]
Statement of the Hon. Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cardin, and members of the subcommittee, thank
you for your invitation to appear today to discuss the next phase of
welfare reform. Because of the work of welfare reform's pioneers like
the members of this subcommittee, America's most vulnerable families
are succeeding and our mission--to build on the platform of success
established by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA)--is made easier.
PRWORA provided the groundwork in assisting millions of families in
moving from dependence on welfare to the dignity of work and
independence. It is supported by a strong commitment to child care and
a strong child support enforcement program. I have met with many of you
to discuss our accomplishments and the challenges that remain. I know
in many respects we have a shared vision for building on the tremendous
results we have achieved under the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) program, the Child Care Development Fund and the Child
Support Enforcement Program.
That shared vision took another momentous step closer to reality
this week when Mr. Herger introduced the Personal Responsibility, Work,
and Family Promotion Act of 2002. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take
this opportunity to recognize the leadership you and Mr. Cardin have
shown on moving quickly and decisively on welfare reform. I am
heartened that legislation supported by members of this subcommittee
shares many of the same broad goals of the Administration's proposal
such as maintaining the basic structure of TANF, strengthening support
for two parent families and work requirements, and directing to
families increased amounts of the child support collected on their
behalf.
As you are aware, President Bush has made a commitment to pursue
four important goals in welfare reform reauthorization so that our
programs can continue to transform the lives of those striving to
become self-sufficient: strengthen work, promote strong families, give
States more flexibility and show compassion to those in need. These
goals formed the guideposts in shaping the Administration's proposals
for TANF, child care and child support and are thoughtfully
incorporated into this subcommittee's newly-introduced bill.
I would like to spend my time today sharing information with you on
the important progress we have made in strengthening families and
highlighting the specific areas the Administration and now this
subcommittee have targeted for improvement. I will begin with TANF, the
cornerstone of our welfare reform efforts.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Since 1996, welfare dependence has plummeted and employment among
single mothers has grown to unprecedented levels. But even with this
notable progress, much remains to be done, and States still face many
challenges. Last year, we held eight listening sessions throughout the
country to discuss the TANF program and understand the new challenges
ahead.
During these listening sessions we received a broad range of
comments and recommendations, but several dominant themes emerged:
Not surprisingly, states want funding for TANF to be
maintained.
L There is broad support for keeping work and the work-first
approach at the core of the program and recipient activity, but
states want flexibility to engage recipients in activities that
will complement work and help them achieve self-sufficiency.
L Despite reservations many had five years ago, there is now
virtually unanimous support for keeping time limits. Both
program administrators and recipients told us how time limits
were important for focusing client and agency efforts on
pursuing self-sufficiency.
L States told us of the difficulties of administering the
various federal welfare and workforce programs, which have
conflicting rules and procedures that seriously inhibit the
states' ability to effectively serve families. They are very
interested in getting some ability to better coordinate these
programs.
L Finally, states told us they felt the purposes of TANF were
generally on target, but that we should aspire to setting an
even higher goal for the program that recognizes how TANF can
truly improve the quality of life for American families. Some
suggested establishing new goals such as improving child well-
being.
These insights helped shaped the Administration's focus in
approaching reauthorization and clearly have been considered in the
shaping of Congressman Herger's legislation. Reauthorization of TANF
must build on what we have learned and our success by:
strengthening the federal-State partnership by
maintaining both the federal financial commitment to the
program and State flexibility in how the funds are used;
asking States to help every family they serve achieve
the greatest degree of self-sufficiency possible through a
creative mix of work and additional constructive activities;
helping States find effective ways to promote healthy
marriages and reduce out-of-wedlock childbearing by targeting
funds to develop innovative approaches to addressing the
formation of strong and stable families;
improving the management and, therefore, the quality
of programs and services made available to families; and
allowing States to integrate the various welfare and
workforce assistance programs operating in their States to
improve the effectiveness of these programs.
We are very grateful that these principles are well-reflected in
Congressman Herger's bill. I would like to highlight just a few of the
key provisions that will go a long way toward improving the
effectiveness of the TANF program in helping our nation's families.
This far-reaching proposal blends perfectly with the
Administration's priority to maximize self-sufficiency through work by
requiring States to engage all TANF families with an adult in self-
sufficiency plans and regularly review case progress. In addition to
the requirement for universal engagement, the bill increases the direct
work requirement. In order for a case to be counted as participating,
the individual must be involved in a full 40 hours per week of
simulated work activities. Cases counted as participating would be
required to average at least 24 hours per week (of their total required
40 hours) in direct work, including employment, on the job training,
and/or supervised work experience. We vigorously support this high
standard so that programs and clients keep focused on self-sufficiency
and making progress toward it.
We note that the bill contains tremendous flexibility for States in
deciding how to apply these participation requirements. When employment
is not possible, States have flexibility to meet the 24 hour work
requirement through work activities designed to prepare clients for
real jobs. States can exercise great creativity in establishing
constructive activities to address the remaining 16 hours, including
structured activities that involve parents with their children, such as
counseling or joint volunteer activities. Given such flexibility,
States should be able to craft activities that accommodate difficulties
families may have in finding child care.
It is extremely encouraging to see that Congressman Herger's bill
also incorporates our focus on promoting child well-being and healthy
marriages. The bill targets $100 million for broad research,
evaluation, demonstration and technical assistance, focused primarily
on healthy marriages and family formation activities. Research shows
that both adults and children are better off in two-parent families. It
is no criticism of single parents to acknowledge the better outcomes
for children of married-couple families. Rather it supports the
underlying principles to redirect our policies to encourage healthy
marriage especially when children are involved. Along those lines, the
bill also establishes a $100 million competitive matching grant program
for States and Tribes to develop innovative approaches to promoting
healthy marriages and reducing out-of-wedlock births.
Finally, I would like to mention the establishment of a new State
program integration waiver authority which will permit States to
further integrate a broad range of public assistance and workforce
development programs in order to improve the effectiveness of these
programs. I have always been a strong advocate of State flexibility,
and I believe this new waiver authority could revolutionize service
delivery by allowing States to design creative new strategies for
assisting families.
I would like to turn now to another program that offers a vital
connection to a family's ability to achieve self-sufficiency: child
support enforcement.
Child Support Enforcement
Child support is a critical component of federal and State efforts
to promote family self-sufficiency. For the low-income families who
receive child support, it makes up a significant portion of the family
budget (26 percent).
PRWORA instituted a number of important child support enforcement
measures. Tools such as increased automation, the National Directory of
New Hires and Federal Case Registry, the passport denial program, the
financial institution data match, and license revocation have made a
tremendous difference in improving State performance and strengthening
child support collection efforts. Equally important, PRWORA streamlined
paternity establishment, particularly voluntary paternity
establishment, to encourage fathers to take the first step toward
providing their children with financial and emotional support.
The impact of these changes has been dramatic. The number of
paternities established or acknowledged has reached almost 1.6 million.
Of these, nearly 700,000 paternities were established through in-
hospital acknowledgment programs. In FY 2001, with a case load of 17.4
million cases, a record of nearly $19 billion in child support was
collected.
Like TANF, the approach taken by both this Administration and your
subcommittee is to build on our success in the child support program
under PRWORA by designing legislation that will:
direct more of the support collected to families;
increase child support collections through enhanced
enforcement tools; and,
establish a user fee for families that have never
used public assistance in cases where the State has been
successful in collecting support on their behalf.
Together, we will move the child support program toward a focus on
families and away from the historic purpose of recoupment of federal
and State outlays. In fact, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge
the leadership of this subcommittee in building a strong child support
enforcement program and beginning the dialog on this next phase of
child support reform.
Finally, I would like to turn to child care, a key support service.
Child Care
Parents need access to affordable and safe child care in order to
succeed in the workplace. As a former governor, I know from direct
experience that there is a fundamental link between child care and
running an effective welfare to work program. The interest in
maintaining a strong child care component as part of welfare reform has
been reinforced by the Congress as well.
The President's budget seeks to continue funding child care at its
current historically high level within the existing flexible framework
of the discretionary Child Care and Development Block Grant and the
mandatory Child Care funding as well as other critical funding sources
such as Head Start. The President's FY 2003 budget includes $2.1
billion for the Child Care and Development Block Grant and $2.7 billion
for the mandatory Child Care funding--a total of $4.8 billion for what
is referred to as the Child Care and Development Fund or CCDF. In fact,
over the last decade, federal funding specifically appropriated for
child care has tripled--from $1.6 billion in 1992 to $4.8 billion this
year.
But these funds are only part of the picture. Funding for child
care also is available through the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families program, the Social Services Block Grant, or SSBG, and other
sources. Looking at recently available historical data on State and
federal dollars associated with CCDF, TANF and SSBG, we estimate that
about $11 billion will be invested in child care through these three
block grants alone.
Funding available through CCDF and TANF transfers will provide
child care assistance to an estimated 2.2 million children in FY 2003.
This is a significant increase over the number served just a few years
ago (in 1998 about 1.5 million children received subsidized care) and
does not take into account additional children that will be served by
SSBG and TANF direct spending. When these funds are considered, it is
estimated that approximately one-half million additional children will
be served in FY 2003.
States contribute significant resources to child care as well. In
fact, State spending accounts for about a quarter of total State and
federal child care expenditures under the CCDF. States spent at least
an additional $774 million in State TANF funds for child care in 2000.
Combined these funds support child care services for a significant
number of our nation's children. In FY2003 funds from CCDF, TANF and
SSBG will provide child care subsidies for an estimated 30 percent of
potentially eligible children. When focusing on children with the
greatest financial need, that is those in families below poverty, the
estimated coverage rate grows to 47 percent. And, if you break the
numbers down by age, among poor children three to five years of age the
percentage served is 72 percent. Of course, these estimates do not take
into account the complexity of the child care choices made by families.
Many families opt to use informal care arrangements, such as relative
care. Still others may adjust their work hours to match the school day,
so that child care is not necessary.
Looking beyond State and federal spending under the block grants,
other resources also support child care in the context of early
childhood strategies--including Head Start, State-funded pre-
kindergarten programs, and 21st Century Community Learning Centers.
Beyond its commitment to maintaining these funding levels for child
care, the Administration also is committed to preserving the key
aspects of the discretionary and entitlement child care programs:
support for work and job training; healthy development and school
readiness for children in care; parental choice; and administrative
flexibility for States and Tribes. The major restructuring of the
federally-funded child care programs under PRWORA provides a statutory
foundation that remains an efficient method for distributing child care
funds to States, and an effective mechanism for making these resources
available to parents.
It is clear from these significant federal and State funding
commitments that we all recognize the importance of child care.
Congressman Herger's bill goes even further by raising from 30% to 50%
the amount of TANF funds States may transfer into their Child Care
Development Fund. This proposal to provide greater State flexibility
should there be increased demand for child care spending is an
innovative approach to addressing any potential future child care
funding needs and one we would like to discuss further.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, we took a major step forward on welfare reform
reauthorization this week with the introduction of your subcommittee's
legislation. We already have made great strides in helping our nation's
families, and as President Bush stated, ``The successes of the past few
years should not make us complacent. They prove what is possible when
we press forward with bipartisan efforts.'' The Administration has
publicly stated its commitment to the next phase of welfare reform and
you have demonstrated yours by holding hearings like today's and
devoting this committee's time and energy to quickly moving on welfare
reform legislation. We stand ready to work with you in moving
legislation that meets our shared goal of increased successes for
America's neediest families.
Chairman HERGER. I thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I understand that you have to leave in a few minutes, so I
would like to ask you a quick question, and that is if you were
Governor today, would you view the President's proposal and the
Chairman's bill as less flexible than current law, and isn't it
true that there are key aspects of the proposal that are more
flexible than current law?
Mr. THOMPSON. No question about it, Mr. Chairman, and I
would like to quickly point them out, and I would applaud you,
if I was Governor of the State of Wisconsin still, for your
leadership on this particular issue.
Even though the proposal increases the work requirement
from 30 hours to 40 hours, 16 hours of activities can be set up
completely the way the States want them. There are no dictates
whatsoever from the Federal Government.
There is a 3-month work exemption in this proposal that is
not in the existing law that allows States to be able to put
individuals into drug rehabilitation, drug treatment, alcoholic
counseling, whatever the case may be. Under current law, the
first time a case is opened, it is counted immediately. Under
your proposal and the President's proposal, the case opening
month is exempted so the State does not have to count that
toward its work participation rate.
There is no separate two-parent requirement, which is very
onerous on States under the existing law. That is no longer the
case in your proposal or in the administration's proposal.
Partial participation credit is given, while there is no
prorated credit that is given in the existing TANF law. It is
given in your proposal as well as the President's.
There is a rainy day fund allowed that designates the TANF
dollars as obligated rainy day funds, which corrects a big
problem. Under current law States made sure to obligate that
money, perhaps not as wisely as they should have, but States
did not want the Federal Government to take that money away
from them.
Limits are lifted on carryover funds, which were limits
under the current TANF law and which are no longer in your
proposal. I applaud you on that.
The superwaiver is the final example of increased State
flexibility, for which I think all Governors, especially if I
was Governor, would come and kiss your ring and say thank you.
It would give me the opportunity to put in a superwaiver that
would allow me to put together even a more exciting program
back in Wisconsin when I was Governor.
Chairman HERGER. I am not going to ask you to kiss my ring,
but I do appreciate your comments, and particularly your
comments as a former Governor. With that, the gentleman from
Maryland, the Ranking Member, Mr. Cardin, to inquire.
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find your answer a
little bit difficult to follow in that the Herger bill imposes
additional requirements on the States, additional hours in the
work requirement, additional percentages in the work
requirement, less availability of vocational education than in
the current law. It states that it is estimated it would cost
an extra $15 billion in order to comply with the requirements.
You mentioned one, for example, the extra 16 hours of
flexibility under current law doesn't even apply to those who
have children under the age of 6, whereas you are applying it
now.
So, I don't think it is quite accurate to say that you are
giving additional flexibility. I think the proof is what the
States believe, and we have gotten surveys, as you know, from a
lot of the different States, and many of the States have
responded--in fact, almost all of the States have responded
saying that they would have to make fundamental changes in
their programs.
If you believe the States are responding adequately, why
should we require--41 States have replied already saying they
would have to make a fundamental change in their program. Many
of those States have said it would require them to have a lot
more work for their programs, and you and I agree that workfare
should be a matter of last resort. We certainly don't want to
encourage workfare over real jobs in the community.
So, I think we should really look at the specifics, and I
do think we need to sit down with the State administrators,
because in the conversations that I have had, they feel very
threatened by many of the provisions, and sometimes they are a
little bit timid in expressing their views. So, I hope we will
have an opportunity to take a look at this and make sure that
we give the flexibility necessary to the States.
I do want to ask you one question, though, and that is you
and I have talked about the well-being of the child and taking
families out of poverty, and I noticed how the structure of the
Herger bill is. As I told you, I support the Administration's
proposal to make the well-being of the child the centerpiece of
our objective, and you have certain tools in order to
accomplish that. I would ask that we work together so that
poverty reduction can be one of those tools to advance the
well-being of the child, and I would hope that Dr. Horn would
be available to work with us on language that is acceptable to
the administration and accomplishes our objective.
Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Cardin. The Chairman asked me
where the differences were in which we allowed for more
flexibility. I listed all 10 of those. There are some areas
that place more requirements on States, and you mentioned
those. There is more flexibility than there are requirements,
and that is what I want to point out.
You mentioned one thing that I would have to correct. You
indicated that Governors were a little bit bashful about
expressing their opinions. I have never found a Governor that
was bashful yet.
Mr. CARDIN. I believe it is State administrators.
Mr. THOMPSON. I haven't found too many of those that are
bashful either. In regard to welfare of the child and poverty,
and I think there is plenty of room for us to reach an
agreement, and I applaud you for your passion on it. I want to
work with you in coming up with a position on this particular
subject so that we can have a bipartisan bill passed through
Congress. There is no question that your passion for getting
children out of poverty is extremely good, and I appreciate you
for it. I feel the same way, and I think we have done a good
job under TANF on reducing poverty among children, and I think
we have to move to the next step, and I am going to work with
you to accomplish that.
Mr. MCCRERY. [Presiding.] Mr. Secretary, thank you. I know
you have to leave, and I would like to test your diplomatic
skills before you go. Those who are leaving right now are
leaving because we have a vote on the Floor. If you would, Mr.
Secretary, since you were so enthusiastic in your endorsement
of the President's proposal and Mr. Herger's bill, which makes
some modification on the President's proposal, and used your
experience as a past Governor to underscore your enthusiasm, we
know that we have received letters, and we have seen accounts
in the newspapers and in the media about the Governors--
National Governors' Association (NGA) and this, that, and the
other saying that this bill is inflexible, it is micromanaging
from Washington. It doesn't give the States enough flexibility.
So, how do you reconcile those sitting Governors' views, at
least as expressed in the media, with your enthusiasm as a past
Governor for the proposal?
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, as a former fellow Governor, I
can understand. States are in very difficult financial shape
right now, and they see this bill passing in Congress this
year, and if they are able to get some more dollars in here,
more flexibility, I would be one of them. When I negotiated the
original TANF bill with the House and the Senate back in 1995
and 1996, when I was Chairman of the National Governors'
Association, I told the Congress at that time that if we can
get level funding at $16.5 billion, we could do an excellent
job. You set the standards, but give us the flexibility on how
to accomplish those standards. We can do that.
That is exactly what this bill does. It is level-funded. It
is a commitment for 5 years. We set some high goals, but we
allow the States complete flexibility under those goals to
reach those goals, and that is what States have always asked
for, and I know they can do it. In the meantime they are going
to be asking for more, and I would be one of them if I was
still a Governor. Right now I can assure you in talking with
them behind closed doors, they will be very satisfied with this
proposal if it passes.
Mr. MCCRERY. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Very well done, and
we look forward to having you back. Mr. McDermott?
Mr. MCDERMOTT. I thought when you were going to test his
diplomatic skills, you were going to ask me to ask a question.
Mr. MCCRERY. Dr. Horn, are you going to stay?
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, is the Secretary not staying to
answer questions about his testimony?
Mr. MCCRERY. Dr. Horn is going to stay.
Mr. DOGGETT. Well, I am glad to have Dr. Horn, but we only
have one Secretary, and unless this is just a pep rally for the
President's proposal and not an attempt to really try to
explore what our differences are and how we can get them
resolved for a bipartisan proposal, then this is--if that is
your goal, I think it has been achieved. I came to ask the
Secretary questions about his testimony, and he is apparently
making a speech and walking out. Doesn't get us any further
coming together on this.
Mr. MCCRERY. The Secretary had other obligations that
required him to be here for only a half hour. He has satisfied
his commitment to us.
Mr. DOGGETT. When were the Members of the Minority advised
that the Secretary wouldn't answer any questions about his
testimony?
Mr. MCCRERY. Your side was advised of the Secretary's
constraints, and so if not, then that is somebody's fault on
your side. Dr. Horn is here, and he would be more than happy to
respond to any questions that you have. Obviously, you don't
want to ask Dr. Horn any questions.
Mr. DOGGETT. No. I want to go vote.
Mr. MCCRERY. Maybe you can catch him. Dr. Horn, in fact,
the bill as introduced by Mr. Herger does give the States more
flexibility in terms of the work requirement than the
President's proposal. That has been, I believe, the one item in
the President's proposal that has received the most attention
from the Nation's Governors is the requirement that 70 percent
of the case load be required to work. Under the Chairman's
proposal, he phases that requirement in over a number of years;
isn't that correct?
Dr. HORN. Yes.
Mr. MCCRERY. By doing that, doesn't that allow the States
more flexibility and gives them sufficient time to look towards
satisfying that strengthened work requirement?
Dr. HORN. We think that both the Chairman's bill and the
administration's proposal both provide for phase-in periods
that allow States to adjust their programs to meet the more
challenging work standards. What Secretary Thompson has done is
identify a very important difficulty in the current law, which
is because case loads have dropped so dramatically, the
effective work participation rate is not 50 percent as you
might assume by reading the current law, but nationally is only
5 percent, so that nationally only 5 percent of those on TANF
currently need to be engaged in sufficient work activities to
qualify towards work participation rate.
There are various ways of fixing that problem. The
Administration's proposal fixes it by phasing out the case load
reduction credit over 3 years, but implementing a new
employment credit. The Chairman's bill does the same thing by
recalibrating the case load reduction credit over time. That
also would fix the fundamental difficulty in the current law,
which is that given the base year for the calculation of the
case load reduction credit is 1995, effectively the case load
reduction credit, if that is the base year, eviscerates any
meaningful work participation requirement by the States.
So, I think both bills address that issue. Both bills have
a phase-in period so States have time to adjust their programs,
2 years essentially in both cases, to meet the more challenging
work standards.
Mr. MCCRERY. Well, I thank you for addressing that because
I don't think that is very well known, and particularly if all
one knows is what he reads in the newspapers sometimes, he
doesn't realize that even though there is a 50-percent work
requirement--after all, when we came up with the idea for
welfare reform and the framework of welfare reform, one of the
underlying principles was that people ought to work for--in
exchange for their benefits. If they were able to work, then we
ought to encourage them to work and give them the tools to work
and help them get to work. So, we put that 50-percent case load
requirement in there.
The practical effect of giving the Governors--and Secretary
Thompson at the time was one of those Governors trying to get
as much as they could--we gave them the most favorable base
year in terms of their case load upon which the case load
reduction credit would be based, and the practical effect of
giving them that most favorable base year where they had the
highest case load and then letting them count against that the
reduction in the case load to reduce their work requirement,
the practical effect is that a very low percentage of their
current case load around the country is required to work. The
President's proposal and the Chairman's proposal attempts to
correct that and to go back to the underlying principle that we
ought to get people to work, we ought to teach them how to have
a job, and ultimately to be independent from government
assistance and care for themselves and their families.
So, I am pleased that the President proposed that
correction. I also think that the Chairman's modification of
that is probably positive for the States and the Governors and
will allow them to correct their program over time. With that,
thank you, Dr. Horn, and I am going to turn it back over to
Chairman Herger so I can go vote.
Chairman HERGER. [Presiding.] I thank Mr. McCrery for
filling in while we were voting.
Dr. Horn, if you could tell me, I suspect you are aware
that back in 1996 when the welfare reform was first debated,
estimates were floating around by the bill's opponents that the
TANF program was drastically underfunded to meet the work
requirements. Yet according to recent reports from the Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities, there is still some $7.4
billion in federal TANF funds sitting in the federal Treasury
after 5 years of operating welfare reform. Nonetheless, we are
still seeing some projections about the shortfalls in funding
today. How do you respond to those who say we need billions and
billions more in federal spending to meet the work targets in
these proposals?
Dr. HORN. All totaled there will be about $167 billion
available for States over the next 5 years. The block grant, as
you know, both in your bill and the President's proposal
includes the same amount of money today as in 1996, and yet
case loads have been reduced by 56 percent. To give real
numbers to that, 8.6 million children were on the case loads
back in 1996, and today that number has been dropped to less
than 4 million. Yet both your bill and our proposal suggests
that States ought to have the same amount of money plus be able
to use whatever carryover balances they still have, as you
point out $7.4 billion, not just for cash assistance, but with
the flexibility provided under your bill and the President's
proposal to be able to use $7.4 billion for things other than
just direct cash assistance. So, we think with less than half
the case load left, with the same amount of money, with $167
billion available over the next 5 years, States ought to be
able to have sufficient funds to be able to reorient their
systems in such a way that meets the more challenging work
standard.
Now, it is very important to keep in mind, why is it that
we want to set a more challenging work standard? It is not that
we are mean people. It is because what we would like to do is
make sure the State is working with every case, everybody who
is still on the case load, focusing them on the only sure route
out of poverty, which is work. So, the more challenging work
standard combined with the flexibility to have up to 2 days of
education and training combined with the core of work is an
attempt by us and by you, Mr. Chairman, to move as many people
as effectively toward self-sufficiency as possible.
Now, back in 1996, we heard a lot of people saying States
couldn't do it with the money that was available. Clearly that
is wrong. We are hearing some of the same people say the same
thing about this proposal. It seems to me that the burden of
proof ought to be on them to demonstrate that it is an
impossible task, a task that they suggested was impossible back
in 1996, yet not only was a possible task. We have seen an
extraordinary movement away from the welfare rolls and toward
self-sufficiency, as was pointed out by the Secretary--the most
dramatic drop in child poverty in a 5-year period in the
history of the United States, where African American child
poverty is now the lowest rate ever recorded, and where
Hispanic child poverty has dropped more dramatically than in
any 4-year period that we have seen in our history as a nation.
So, it seems to me that we do have a program that works
because it is oriented toward work, and what we would like to
do, as the Secretary says and as your bill suggests, is set a
high, challenging work standard and work in partnership with
States to be able to move as many people toward self-
sufficiency as effectively as possible.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Dr. Horn. Isn't it correct that
even though there are some three times more people working
today under the TANF program than there were prior to the 1996
laws, that there are still approximately 58 percent of those on
welfare who are not doing anything?
Dr. HORN. That is what our latest figures tell us. Only
about 34 percent nationwide satisfy the current work
participation standard, and 58 percent, according to our
information, are not involved in any work activities at all.
So, it seems to me we have a long way to go, but it is
precisely why we want to set a more challenging work standard,
allowing States the flexibility to combine work with other
kinds of activities, and in sifting through the universal
engagement strategy, that every case be attended to. We ought
not to leave any welfare recipient behind when it comes to
welfare reform. We want to move as many as possible toward
self-sufficiency, and I believe that is what your bill will do,
and we certainly believe that is what the President's proposal
will do.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much for your testimony. We
certainly appreciate the Secretary being here. With that, why
don't we move to our second panel. Our Members of Congress,
please, the Honorable Patsy T. Mink from Hawaii, who will be
first to testify; then the Honorable Marcy Kaptur, who just ran
over to vote; the Honorable Dennis J. Kucinich; the Honorable
Barbara Lee; the Honorable John F. Tierney; and the Honorable
Thomas M. Reynolds. I know that several of our Members are out
voting. Mrs. Mink, would you like to testify?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PATSY T. MINK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII
Mrs. MINK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the opportunity that you have given a number of people to come
to express their views. The Administration has presented theirs
today, and it is really geared to performance standards and
such additional requirements.
I come today to appear to this Subcommittee to look at the
legislation that I have introduced, H.R. 3113, which currently
has 90 cosponsors and has been endorsed by over 80
organizations. This is really a grassroots effort to try to put
together a meaningful reauthorization concept which is
generated primarily by those who either left welfare and went
to work or who are currently recipients, and it is an
expression of the things that they would like to see changed in
order to emphasize not just getting a job, but giving the
recipients and their families a chance for true economic
security.
So, I think the number one item which I would like to
emphasize is a proposal in my bill to recognize the importance
of education. To minimize that is to degrade the whole concept
we have worked for since 1996, and that is work counts. It pays
for people to go to work and uplift their families. If all you
are doing is getting them off welfare with a minimum-wage job,
with no opportunity of upward mobility, then I think you are
sacrificing the ultimate goal, which should be to allow this
family to improve itself, and the best way, I think everyone
agrees, is through education and job training.
So, it seems to me that this is one improvement that ought
to be incorporated in our legislation to permit education, job
training as work activity so that the individuals that want to
go to community college or to college or whatever to improve
their employment opportunities will have that option. Currently
that is not available under the current law, and it is not
being promoted in the administration's proposal.
The point also is that many of the individuals in welfare
are under huge family difficulties. They have employment
barriers. There are severe illnesses in the family. Some of the
individuals may be mentally and physically disabled. Some of
them may be suffering under drug addiction and require
treatment. There are a wide variety of disabilities that we
urgently ask the Committee to consider so that these
individuals are not pushed out to work when they have these
very, very difficult situations.
Child care, as the Secretary testified in our Subcommittee
the other day, is a very important ingredient. Without child
care, work cannot be made a possible alternative, and therefore
we urge this Committee to take a careful look at the child care
responsibilities that the States and the Federal Government
have, not just the funding, but to make sure that child care is
quality child care so that the parents feel when they have
their children in a child care facility, that the child is
getting the best possible care that one would be able to
provide a child in that community.
This goes back to the President's emphasis when we were
debating H.R. 1 when he said, leave no child behind. I believe
that same philosophy ought to adhere in terms of welfare
reauthorization. The child ought to be the primary concern of
this Committee and of the Committee on Education and Workforce;
what is in the best interest of the child. In this sense, the
requirement of going to work for 40 hours is not in the best
interest. It seems to me that child care, after-school care
when the children are older are primary responsibilities before
we make work 40 hours the ultimate requirement of a successful
program.
The Administration--everyone that has looked at this bill
has said what a wonderful outcome that we have been able to cut
the rolls. It has been successful in that sense. It has been
successful because we have a work requirement. If they don't
work, they don't remain on the rolls. So, I think what we have
to look at now is how can we make the lives of the children and
their families better. Certainly we haven't taken them out of
poverty, and that should be a very, very serious concern of
this Committee and of my Committee.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity
and ask unanimous consent that my entire statement be placed in
the record.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Mink follows:]
Statement of the Hon. Patsy T. Mink, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Hawaii
Chairman Herger, Ranking Member Cardin, and Members of the
Subcommittee on Human Resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on proposals to
reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
What we finally decide will have a tremendous impact on the poorest of
our nation's children and on their parents who are struggling to
improve their family's condition.
In October 2001, I introduced H.R. 3113, the TANF Reauthorization
Act of 2001. I am delighted to report that the bill currently has 89
sponsors and has been endorsed by 80 organizations, including Business
and Professional Women/USA, Center for Women Policy Studies, National
Association of Commissions for Women, National Coalition Against
Domestic Violence, National League of Women Voters of the U.S., and
YWCA of the USA, to name just a few. I attach a list of HR 3113's co-
sponsors and the list of organizations that support HR 3113. I urge the
Subcommittee to seriously consider the provisions of HR 3113 as you
begin marking up a TANF Reauthorization bill.
This is an issue very close to my heart. In 1995, I offered the
Democratic substitute to HR 4, an early version of the welfare-to-work
legislation, which was vetoed by President Clinton. In preparing for
the reauthorization of TANF in the 107th Congress, I
incorporated many of the provisions contained in my 1995 substitute to
HR 4 as well as recommendations from grassroots organizations
representing the people most affected by welfare reform in 1996. These
organizations held extensive hearings to identify the barriers that
TANF families encounter in making the transition from welfare to
economic security.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity and Reconciliation
Act (PRWORA), which became law in 1996, has been hailed by many as a
success because of the dramatic decline in the number of persons on
welfare rolls in many states. Many equate the declines in numbers of
families receiving benefits with a corresponding decline in the need
for assistance. But we have evidence that many families have been
pushed from the welfare rolls before they were able to adequately
provide for their families. Is this our goal--simply to reduce the
number of persons receiving benefits? Or are we trying to help these
families find their way to economic security?
Some 50 percent of former recipients are still living in poverty
and 30 percent have been unable to find jobs. Study after study shows
high rates of hardship, ranging from having to forego needed medical
care to skipping meals, to being unable to pay the rent.
I believe our goal in creating a social welfare safety net for
families must be, first and foremost, to ensure the well-being of the
children affected. Reducing dependency is a valid goal, but only if it
means that families can move onto true self-sufficiency. I believe that
the best way to achieve these goal is to enable women receiving TANF to
pursue the training and education they need to get good jobs so that
they can leave public assistance permanently, provide economic security
for their families, and set an example of achievement and ambition that
their children can emulate. Are we well-served by pushing a young
single mother to accept a low-wage dead-end job where she will receive
minimum wage, inadequate or no benefits, and little hope for a better
future for herself and her children? Or would we be better off giving
that woman an opportunity to earn a college degree, become certified as
a nurse or computer technician, or receive advanced vocational training
so that she and her children can become economically secure?
TANF's work requirement stresses getting a job, any job, regardless
of what it pays, what benefits it provides, and whether the combination
of earnings and benefits are sufficient for a family to survive on.
HR 3113 seeks to:
1. Expand the definition of ``work activity'' to include
a. Leducation and job training at all levels
(elementary and secondary education, literacy training,
ESL, GED, high education, and work-study programs)
b. Las well as a parent's caregiving for a child under
the age of six or over the age of six if ill or
disabled or if after school care is not provided;
2. Stop the 5-year clock from running if the recipient is
engaged in an allowable work activity, including education and
job training;
3. Prohibit full family sanctions that punish whole families
when the adult recipient doesn't meet a TANF rule. The bill
will prohibit full family sanctions, permitting only an
incremental reduction in the family benefit tied to the benefit
of the parent found in violation of the rule. This will protect
children by assuring them their safety net even if a mother
loses her benefit.
4. Make paternity establishment and child support enforcement
voluntary, while encouraging cooperation by directing all child
support collections to the family. This provision will restore
the constitutional privacy rights of poor mothers by making the
paternity establishment and child support cooperation
provisions voluntary for mothers. Current policy requires
mothers to disclose the identity of biological fathers to
welfare agencies even if they do not want them involved with
their children. To enforce these rules against mothers, TANF
requires them to answer intrusive questions that strike at the
very heart of privacy guarantees. Child support enforcement
should be available to all mothers who want fathers to help
financially with children. But mothers should not be compelled
to secure child support against their own best judgement.
5. Count treatment for domestic and sexual violence, mental
health problems, and substance abuse as ``work activities'' and
stop the clock while TANF recipients are undergoing prescribed
treament. Approximately 60% of women on welfare report having
been victims of intimate violence at some point in their adult
lives and 30% report abuse within the last year. HR 3113
promotes the safety interests of families enrolled in TANF by
making various requirements more flexible for families dealing
with domestic violence. The bill builds on the current family
violence option, making it a requirement for states.
6. Prohibit states from establishing family ``caps'' that
withhold benefits from a child born to a mother on welfare; 19
states currently have family caps.
7. Replace the ``illegitimacy bonus'' with a poverty reduction
bonus for states that lower poverty rates the most;
8. Restore the child care entitlement for TANF families when
the parent enters the labor market or in a work activity
leading to participation in the labor market. Although current
law includes sanction protection for recipients who cannot find
quality child care, the reality is that recipients are being
forced to leave their children in unsafe, undesirable child
care situations. HR 3113 would ensure that the care needs of
children will be met as their mothers move into the labor
market. It stops the 5-year clock when recipients are unable to
work due to lack of suitable child care.
9. Guarantee equal access to TANF regardless of marital or
citizen status--full access to TANF benefits would be restored
to legal permanent residents.
10. Enforce anti-discrimination and labor laws, as well as due
process guarantees. This will assure enforcement of the minimum
wage, for example. It also will explicitly require TANF
agencies to abide by Title VII and Title IX prohibitions on sex
discrimination, neither of which are signaled in the current
TANF statute.
11. Stop the clock for all TANF families during recession and
temporarily restore TANF eligibility for families who have
exceeded their time limit but who are otherwise eligible
(recession equals 5.5% unemployment rate or higher);
12. Provide incentives to states to provide programs to reduce
barriers to employment, to offer job training, and to encourage
education; and
13. Stipulate that the statutory purpose and goal of TANF is to
reduce child and family poverty.
These changes will put TANF to work helping mothers parent in
dignity and helping children grow up with economic security.
The failure of TANF to count post-secondary education as a work
activity is its biggest hypocrisy and one of the key problems my bill
seeks to correct. Research has long established that women with
education beyond high school, especially a college education, are more
likely to earn living wages. Gaining education must be credited as work
and must stop the clock.
It is also hypocritical for us to lavishly praise the middle-class
or upper-class mother who chooses to forgo work outside the home so
that she can stay home and take care of her young children and treat
poor mothers as though they are lazy if they too want to care for their
young children. Young TANF mothers are forced to leave their children
in inadequate child care while they participate in make-work programs
or low-paying jobs. It is extremely difficult for a poor single mother
to balance the demands of work and family. The logistics (and expense)
of getting more than one child to babysitters and school and picking
them up can be overwhelming, especially when one doesn't have reliable
transportation. Unreliable childcare and what to do when one's child is
sick and cannot go to school are also major crises for poor working
mothers. And now the President wants to require TANF recipients--even
those with preschool-age children--to work a full 40-hour week! Many of
these women lack job skills and must accept irregular shift or part-
time work or must balance two or more part-time jobs while caring for
their children.
Perhaps the greatest failing of the current program and the
Administration's proposal is a lack of appreciation of the barriers
that some recipients face in making the transition from welfare to
work. We must allow prescribed treatment to count as work activity for
those who are afflicted with a drug or alcohol dependency, severe
depression, or other mental illnesses and for women who have been
victims of domestic violence. My bill stops the clock while these TANF
mothers are undergoing treatment. The Administration's proposal to
allow only 3 consecutive months of treatment for substance abuse (in a
24-month period) to count as a work activity is clearly inadequate.
Child care is another nagging problem under TANF. Without
dependable and appropriate child care there is little hope for a parent
to be able to stay employed. Under the Family Support Act of 1988,
child care was an entitlement. TANF repealed the entitlement for
individuals, making it even harder for poor mothers to assure care and
supervision to their children while they are away from home meeting
their work requirement. To enforce work, there must be quality child
care. The State set aside to improve quality of child care must be
increased from 4 percent to 8 percent.
One of the powerful ideas in the 1996 welfare debate was the strong
view that one of the ways to help children in welfare families is to
find their fathers and make them provide child support. But TANF
requires women seeking welfare to disclose the identities of biological
fathers and to help government locate them. It enforces these
requirements with new sanctions reducing family benefits when mothers
don't comply. These harsh provisions totally disregard a mother's own
best judgment about what's best--and safest--for herself and her
children. What's more, TANF provides that child support money collected
by the government stay with the government as reimbursement for
welfare.
What Congress needs to do is to undo punitive regulation of mothers
on welfare. We need to encourage states to make job training and
educational opportunities available to recipients so that leaving
welfare for the labor market means leaving poverty. We need to make it
possible for mothers to seek job training and education, as well as to
keep jobs that pay living wages. We need to treat women on welfare the
same way that we want all women to be treated--with the respect,
dignity, and the rights we all cherish for ourselves.
TANF needs to take into account the many different reasons that
people are forced to turn to welfare. Many poor mothers lack the skills
needed to land better-paying jobs. They need access to training and
education. Many cannot afford to be employed, because they lack child
care or can't find affordable transportation or aren't assured crucial
benefits such as health care. They need to be protected by all labor
laws, be guaranteed child care, and receive Medicaid benefits for as
long as they are income-eligible. Some mothers suffer from substance
abuse or mental health problems or debilitating illness or domestic
violence. These mothers need access to treatment, recovery, legal
remedies, and skills-building services before entering the labor
market. All children desperately need loving care in the home. Their
mothers need the resources and the flexibility to decide when their
children need a mother's care.
H.R. 3113 retains the basic structure of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, including an
emphasis on work and a five-year lifetime limit. The bill has been
drafted with careful attention to the challenges that have prevented
welfare recipients from escaping poverty during the last five years
under TANF. The bill directs work efforts to permanent, sustainable,
high wage employment opportunities through education, training and
targeting high wage jobs. The bill also focuses on providing work
supports like child care and addressing barriers to economic self-
sufficiency such as domestic violence, mental or physical disability
and substance abuse. Finally, the bill restores full access to
qualified immigrants.
I urge my colleague to support the changes to TANF embodied in H.R.
3113.
__________
Groups That Have Endorsed HR 3113, The TANF Reauthorization Act
(as of 4/5/2002)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Acercamiento Hispano/Hispanic 41. National Association of
Outreach Commissions for Women
2. African American Women's Clergy 42. National Center on Poverty
Assn. Law
3. American Civil Liberties Union 43. National Coalition Against
Domestic Violence
4. Americans for Democratic Action 44. National Coalition of 100
Black Women, Metropolitan
Atlanta Chapter
5. American Friends Service Committee 45. National Council of La Raza
6. Arizona Coalition Against Domestic 46. National Employment Law
Violence Project
7. Ayuda Inc. 47. National League of Women
Voters of the U.S.
8. Business and Professional Women/USA 48. National Organization for
Women
9. California Food Policy Advocates 49. National Urban League
10. California Welfare Justice 50. National Welfare Rights
Coalition Union
11. Campaign for America's Future 51. NETWORK, A National
Catholic Social Justice Lobby
12. Center for Battered Women's Legal 52. New Directions Center
Services at Sanctuary for Familes
13. Center for Community Change 53. New Mexico Center on Law &
Poverty
14. Center for Third World Organizing 54. Nontraditional Employment
for Women
15. Center for Women Policy Studies 55. NOW Legal Defense and
Education Fund
16. The Center for Women and Families 56. North Carolina Coalition
Against Domestic Violence
17. Center on Fathers, Families and 57. Ohio Domestic Violence
Public Policy Network
18. Central Conference of American 58. Oregon Law Center
Rabbis
19. Chicago Women in Trades 59. Public Justice Center
20. Child Care Action Campaign 60. Research Institute for
Independent Living
21. Child Care Law Center 61. RESULTS
22. Choice USA 62. Rural Law Center of NY,
Inc.
23. Church Women United 63. Safe Horizon
24. College Opportunity to Prepare for 64. Southeast Asia Resource
Employment (COPE) Action Center
25. Communication Workers of America 65. The Miles Foundation
26. Covenant House Washington 66. The Union of American
Hebrew Congregations
27. Family Violence Prevention Fund 67. Unitarian Universalist
Association of Congregations
28. Florida CHAIN (Communications 68. United States Student
Health Information Action Network) Association
29. Friends Committee on National 69. Welfare Made A Difference
Legislation (Quaker) Campaign
30. (GROWL) Grass Roots Organizing for 70. Welfare Rights Organizing
Welfare Leadership Coalition
31. Harbor Communities Overcoming 71. Welfare-to-work Advocacy
Violence (HarborCOV) Project
32. Harlem Fight Back 72. Wider Opportunities for
Women
33. HELP USA 73. Wisconsin Council on
Children and Families
34. Human Services Coalition of Dade 74. Women and Poverty Public
County, Inc Education Initiative
35. Hunger Action Network of NYS 75. Women's Committee of 100
36. Jewish Family Services 76. Women Employed
37. Jewish Women International 77. Women Empowered Against
Violence, Inc. (WEAVE)
38. Los Angeles Coalition to End Hunger 78. Women's Housing and
& Homelessness Economic Development
Corporation (WHEDCO)
39. Mothers on the Move Committee of 79. Workforce Alliance
the Philadelphia Unemployment Project
40. National Association of Service and 80. YWCA of the USA
Conservation Corps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman HERGER. Without objection, and I thank the
gentlelady from Hawaii. Now the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
Kucinich, please.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the Chair. We agree that we should
help vulnerable families become economically self-sufficient,
but differ as to how to help them find and maintain a stable
living wage job. Many of us also agree that education and other
services are essential for moving from welfare to work, but we
need to make good on the rhetoric about obtaining skills and
pulling oneself up by bootstraps out of poverty instead of
restricting the opportunity to gain skills and education.
The work programs that have been proposed would decrease
State work participation rates to 70 percent and increase the
number of hours of work per week to 40 hours. It would increase
the number of activities that count as work for the first 24
hours, eliminating many programs that help recipients get ready
to work, like education, training, and rehabilitation. It would
encourage the workfare programs. Finally, these proposals
drastically reduce current opportunities under the law to
pursue education, and limit education and other activities to a
mere 3 months out of 2 years.
The Administration's proposals as well as H.R. 4090 and
H.R. 4092 will not help recipients. I think it will be
difficult if not impossible for States to implement and could
be largely counterproductive. First, States, service providers
and recipients themselves have opposed the provisions that
encourage workfare programs. H.R. 4090 limits activities that
count as work to 5 activities from 12 in the current law. It
eliminates activities that help ensure people are able to work
and maintain a job. No longer would someone be allowed to
participate in a program to help him or her overcome physical,
mental, or learning disability or participate in a training
program that would help him or her to find a stable, living
wage job.
States have responded that they need more flexibility. In
responding to the National Governors' Association survey, Ohio
cites activities such as English as a second language, domestic
violence counseling and support, and substance abuse programs
as necessary to help move families off TANF support
permanently.
Bills which allow 3 months out of 24 for non-work
activities are wholly inadequate. In my State, Ohio, we would
have difficulty providing non-work activities in a narrow 3-
month timeframe. There are waiting lists for individuals
needing vocational education, mental health counseling, or
substance abuse treatment. Most vocational educational programs
need more than 3 months to complete, and the 3-month limit is a
large restriction on good programs. Fewer individuals would be
able to enroll in programs that would lead to stable
employment.
Instead of limiting opportunities for advancement in self-
sufficiency, as H.R. 4090 and H.R. 4092 would, TANF should
expand these opportunities. Research shows with these
opportunities, families can stay off public assistance
permanently. Single female heads of households with a high
school diploma are 60 percent more likely to have jobs and are
95 percent more likely to be employed with an associate's
degree. An associate's degree is a mere 2 years, and that would
be a ticket to a good job with more adequate benefits. Of the
top 30 fastest growing occupations, only 5 can be achieved with
short-term training, and these are the least well compensated.
Almost every other job requires an associate's degree or
bachelor's degree.
Through TANF reauthorization, we should allow recipients to
pursue education for at least 2 years. We should also lift the
State cap on those pursuing education. Additionally the hard-
to-serve should be given the opportunity to enroll in
rehabilitation programs as a work activity to prepare for a
stable job.
The harsh limitations imposed by the Majority's bill for
the pursuit of non-work activities, 16 hours per week and 3
months per 24 months, are a token effort, and they do not have
the support of the States. Many States have experienced
workfare programs, and the experience is not good.
I want to conclude and submit my whole statement for the
record, Mr. Chairman, that through the use of a superwaiver,
the bills under discussion appear to allow the Secretaries to
waive legal requirements, including minimum wage requirements,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards
and civil rights regulations. There is no language in the bill
that would clearly prohibit waivers of these requirements.
Unfortunately, this would be consistent with the way some
States have implemented past programs. This has the unfortunate
effect of making workfare participants undermine other low-
income working people who are not workfare participants. Thus
TANF workfare provisions, unless they are reformed, create a
substandardly compensated workforce that displaces existing
low-wage workers.
I want to thank the Chair for the opportunity. It is my
hope that the problems will be addressed during
reauthorization. The TANF recipients deserve real opportunities
beyond 16 hours and 3 month restrictions on skill-building
activities to find stable jobs, and I hope the reauthorization
will make good on these promises.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kucinich follows:]
Statement of the Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Ohio
Since work seems to be at the center of this debate, I am going to
limit my testimony to the proposed work programs. We agree that we
should help vulnerable families become economically self sufficient,
but differ as to how to help them find and maintain a stable, living
wage job. Many of us also agree that education and other services are
essential for moving from welfare to work, but we need to make good on
the rhetoric about obtaining skills and pulling oneself up by their
bootstraps out of poverty, instead of restricting the opportunity to
gain skills and education.
The work programs that have been proposed would increase state work
participation rates to 70 percent and increase the number of hours of
work per week to 40 hours. It would decrease the number of activities
that count as work for the first 24 hours, eliminating many programs
that help get recipients ready to work, like education, training, and
rehabilitation. It would encourage workfare programs. Finally, these
proposals drastically reduce current opportunities under the law to
pursue education, and limit education and other activities to a mere 3
months out of two years.
I have grave doubts about the possible success of the type of
program that has been proposed by the Administration, by Mr. Herger in
HR 4090, and by Mr. McKeon in HR 4092. Not only do I think that these
proposals will not help recipients, but I think they will be difficult
if not impossible for states to implement and could be largely
counterproductive.
First, states, service providers and recipients themselves have
opposed the provisions that encourage workfare programs. HR 4090 limits
activities that count as work to 5 activities, from 12 in the current
law. It eliminates activities that help ensure people are able to work
and maintain a job. No longer would someone be allowed to participate
in a program to help him or her overcome a physical, mental or learning
disability, or participate in a training program that would help him or
her to find a stable, living wage job. States have responded that,
contrary to the limitations placed on the definition of work in HR 4090
and HR 4092, they need more flexibility. In responding to the National
Governors Association Survey, Ohio cites activities such as English-as-
a-second language, domestic violence counseling and support, and
substance abuse programs as necessary to help families move off TANF
support permanently.
While Republican bills allow 3 months out of 24 for non-work
activities, this is wholly inadequate. In my state, Joel Potts, the
head of the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services, stated that
Ohio would have difficulty providing ``non-work'' activities in the
narrow 3-month time frame. There are often waiting lists for
individuals needing vocational education, mental health counseling or
substance abuse treatment. Also, most vocational education programs
need more than 3 months to complete, and the 3-month limit is a large
restriction on good programs. Potts says that it would actually be
counterproductive because it would mean fewer individuals would be able
to enroll in programs that would lead to stable employment.
Instead of limiting opportunities for advancement and self-
sufficiency as in the Herger/McKeon bills, TANF should expand these
opportunities. Research data shows that with these opportunities,
families can stay off public assistance permanently. Single female
heads of households with a high school diploma are 60 percent more
likely to have jobs, and are 95 percent more likely to be employed with
an associate's degree. An associate's degree is a mere two years, and
that could be a ticket to a good job with more than adequate benefits.
The job market is also growing in areas that demand more skills, not
surprisingly. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics found that people in
jobs requiring the least education will experience the lowest
professional growth, while jobs requiring at least an associate's
degree will experience a job growth rate of 31 percent over the next 10
years. Of the top 30 fastest growing occupations, only 5 can be
achieved with short-term training, and these are the least well
compensated. Almost every other job requires an associate's degree or
bachelor's degree.
During TANF reauthorization, we should allow recipients to pursue
education for at least 2 years. We should also lift the state cap on
those pursuing education. Additionally, the hard-to-serve should also
be given the opportunity to enroll in rehabilitation programs as a work
activity to prepare for a stable job. The harsh limitations imposed by
the Republican bills for the pursuit of non-work activities--16 hours
per week, and 3 months per 24 months--are a token effort. Few
activities even exist within these timeframes. These limitations do not
have the support of extensive research and data, and they do not have
the support of states.
Second, many states have experience with workfare programs, and the
experience is not good. States have tried a variety of programs, but
programs have been unsuccessful. Of 43 states that recently responded
to a National Governors association survey, 40 reported that they
currently operate a community service or work experience program (CS/
WEP), or both. Some states reported that CS/WEP programs are simply
ineffective for preparing recipients for work in the private sector.
Most programs are operated on a small-scale basis because they are
expensive, it is difficult to hire supervisors and difficult to develop
an appropriate work site. The expense is so great, that if states were
forced to implement proposed work provisions, it would divert resources
from other initiatives, and cut off other recipients from desperately
needed services, like training and child well being. The move towards
workfare would be counterproductive.
Third, there is the question of ensuring that recipients receive
the same wage and workforce protections as other workers. The
Administration's plan specifically states: ``TANF payments to families
participating in supervised work experience or supervised community
service are not considered compensation for work performed. Thus, these
payments do not entitle an individual to a salary or to benefits
provided under any other provision of law.''
Through the use of a ``super waiver,'' the Herger and McKeon bills
appear to allow the Secretaries to waive legal requirements, including
minimum wage requirements, OSHA standards, and civil rights
regulations. There is no language in the bill that would clearly
prohibit waivers of these requirements. Unfortunately, this would be
consistent with the ways some states have implemented past programs.
This has the unfortunate effect of making workfare participants
undermine other low-income, working people who are not workfare
participants. Thus, TANF workfare provisions, unless they are reformed,
create a substandardly compensated workforce that displaces existing,
low wage workers.
In the largest WEP program in New York, 30,000 municipal jobs were
displaced with workfare jobs. At least 86 percent of WEP workers that
were surveyed reported doing the same work as municipal employees.\1\
While workfare participants were doing the exact same work as previous
municipal employees, who received benefits, workfare participants were
not considered workers, and did not receive the minimum wage and other
work protections. This should never happen again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ WEP Work Experience Program: New York City's Public Sector
Sweat Shop Economy, Community Voices Heard (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is unacceptable! The solution is this: Workfare participants
are workers, and they must be guaranteed the higher of the federal
minimum wage compensation, or their state and local minimum wage.
Participants must also be guaranteed all protections laid out in the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the
Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Age
Discrimination Act and any other federal, state or local worker
protection laws. In previous court cases, it has been decided that
volunteers receive such protection, and they should not be lifted for
workfare participants.
Moreover, when New York City WEP workers were sexually harassed,
the Department of Justice, specifically the US Attorney in NY, sued the
city of New York in May 2001 on their behalf. In bringing that
litigation, the DOJ has taken the position in court that Title VII, one
of the main federal employment laws, covers these women. Additionally,
three different agencies--the Department of Labor, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, and the Department of Health and Human
Services--have issued guidance stating, in part, that the full range of
employment laws and their relevant legal standards should be applied to
workfare participants just as they would be applied to other workers.
New TANF proposals should not roll back current laws.
Assuming my position has the backing of the previous four federal
agencies, states would face a Catch-22. By paying recipients minimum
wage, recipients in some states working the mandated 24 hours would
suddenly be ineligible for TANF. Their earnings would disqualify them.
So, the Herger bill creates an impossible situation. By mandating a 24-
hour workweek, in a workfare program, people who are eligible for TANF
would be made INELIGIBLE if they work the 24 hours. Compliance with
program requirements would actually DISQUALIFY recipients! These
provisions make it impossible for many states to implement this bill.
It is my hope that these serious problems are addressed during
reauthorization. TANF recipients deserve real opportunities beyond 16-
hour and 3-month restrictions on skill building activities to find
stable jobs, and I hope that reauthorization will make good on these
promises.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Kucinich. Now the gentleman
from Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN F. TIERNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cardin, and other
members. I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss what I think is one of the
more critical but more overlooked issues that we face in the
TANF reauthorization, and that is the issue of allowing States
flexibility through a continuation of existing State waiver
authority.
As you know, one of the cornerstones of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act was to
increase the flexibility given to States in providing benefits
through TANF's block grant. This flexibility has produced
successes beyond what many of us thought could be envisioned,
and the prospect of future successes appear to be very good. I
think we have to recognize that what allowed for the success
and what will continue to allow for success is for States to
continue to have the option to be innovative and creative in
the administration of their welfare programs. After all, it was
States like Massachusetts that implemented welfare reform under
a 1995 waiver that led the way for other States and served as a
model for some of the federal statutes in the 1996 law. Indeed,
if we look at the national data of moving people off of
welfare, many of the States that received waiver authority have
been more successful using their programs to help Americans
achieve independence and self-sufficiency.
Massachusetts has a waiver that is not scheduled to expire
until 2005. Using that flexibility in its waiver, Massachusetts
has focused mandatory work activities on families without major
identified barriers to work and has succeeded in moving most of
them into employment. The current case load is barely half of
what it was before the State welfare program began. However,
three-quarters of the people that remain are families with
serious barriers to employment, including their own personal
disability, the need to care for a disabled family member, and
the lack of a parent in the home. The waiver gives
Massachusetts the flexibility to design education, training,
and other services to help these families achieve economic
stability.
We have accomplished a great deal, and yet a great deal
remains to be done. In Massachusetts we have a plan to
accomplish our goals, and we need the flexibility of our waiver
to see that plan through. There are eight other States in a
position like Massachusetts', and it seems to be a matter of
fairness that the Federal Government live up to its commitment
to allow these waivers to continue until their agreed
expiration date. Moreover, Mr. Chairman and members, I would
argue that any reauthorization language might include a
provision that includes States' ability to renew these waivers
if the States' programs have shown impressive results.
The Administration's proposal to eliminate all of these
existing State waivers was disturbing when I read it. However,
I was more than a little pleased when the Secretary of The U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Secretary Tommy
Thompson, appeared in front of the Committee on Education and
Workforce to testify and asked about this provision by me, and
he told me and the Committee that he was supportive of State
waivers. In fact, Secretary Thompson mentioned that as Governor
of Wisconsin he had used waiver authority to create one of the
most heralded programs in the country. I think he mentioned he
thought he used it better and more often than anybody else. He
indicated a willingness to work with us and other members
concerning this issue. Effectively, my interpretation of what
the Secretary said was that the State waiver authority
elimination was not central to the President's plan, and that
it was indeed negotiable, and that both he and the President
support State flexibility.
This is a promising start, and I would like the ability to
submit to this Committee the exact language of my colloquy with
the Secretary that is yet to be produced, but should be
forthcoming in another day or so.
Chairman HERGER. Without objection.
[Excerpts from the Committee on Education and the Workforce
print number 107-54 follows:]
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for
being with us today. The Secretary of Massachusetts, as you know, like
Wisconsin, was one of the states that actually implemented welfare
reform before the 1996 draft. They did it under a federal waiver as did
your state.
Using the flexibility of the waiver, Massachusetts has focused
mandatory work activities on families without major barriers, and if I
can follow up on that, they have succeeded to move most of those
families on to employment.
In current case loads only half are people that really have serious
barriers that would include disability, taking care of a family member,
lack of parent in the house. The waiver gives Massachusetts the
flexibility to design education or training and other services that
help the families choose economic stability. We have shown some pretty
clear successes in Massachusetts. The prospect of future successes was
very encouraging.
Tell me why the administration would in this proposal propose
eliminating that flexibility of TANF?
Secretary Thompson. Now you are talking about the elimination of
the existing waivers in the states? We discussed it and we debated it
back and forth. The only reason was I think Massachusetts, and I'm not
sure about this, I don't think Massachusetts has much more than a year
left out of this waiver.
Mr. Tierney. No, it's got till 2005. It's a 10-year waiver.
Secretary Thompson. Okay. Most of the states, Congressman, most of
the states that still have waivers outstanding were going to be
finished up a by the year after the program and that is the reason
being. There are very few states like Massachusetts that have longer
than that.
Mr. Tierney. I know your friend Governor Dukakis speaks very highly
of you.
Secretary Thompson. I think he's a wonderful guy.
Mr. Tierney. Okay, so you must like his state and so I know you
wouldn't want to penalize it.
Secretary Thompson. I like Governor Dukakis. I love your state. I
love all states.
Mr. Tierney. It seems incredibly unfair for a state that went
through the whole process to achieve the waiver that was 10 years and
anticipated being able to reap that waiver. To now have that ripped out
from underneath them. Can we work on that? Can you do something?
Secretary Thompson. Congressman, it is not the main thing to me. If
you want to work on that, we would love to have you work on it.
Mr. Tierney. Because I think about nine states it would be very
important for.
Secretary Thompson. I think you are right.
Mr. Tierney. It seems to me that justice . . .
Secretary Thompson. Just keep the tenth somewhere.
Mr. Tierney. I would appreciate that. I think it is extremely
important to Massachusetts. I think you will find a lot of support for
much of what has been proposed here and I think that since it has been
so successful, it may make an incredible difference on that.
That is really the only point I wanted to raise with you and I'm
very pleased with your answer on that.
Secretary Thompson. For somebody who loves waivers and worked with
the waiver system more than any of . . .
Mr. Tierney. Secretary, I don't want to bring that up because I
didn't want to sound like a wise guy, but you did work the waiver
system.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tierney. And I still recognize it in Massachusetts.
Secretary Thompson. Thank you.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The reauthorization
legislation that you, along with several of your Committee
colleagues, recently introduced contains the provisions of
eliminating the State waiver authority for existing waivers.
Mr. Chairman, I think in light of Secretary Thompson's comments
on the issue, and the fact that I suspect that you were trying
to trail the President's bill and be consistent with that, and
hopefully don't have your own bias against the waivers, that we
could be able to reconsider that provision and work together
with the Secretary, the President, and this Committee. On
Tuesday you received a letter, Mr. Chairman, from me and 24
other House Members asking that you do just that, consider
maintaining the State waiver authority. A copy of the letter I
have here, and I ask that it be submitted also for the record.
Chairman HERGER. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
April 9, 2002
House Committee on Ways and Means
The Honorable Wally Herger, Chairman
Subcommittee on Human Resources
B-317 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6353
Dear Chairman Herger:
We are writing to express our strong support for including in
legislation to reauthorize the TANF program a provision that would
allow states with pre-existing waivers to continue and renew them at
state option. The waivers recognize the special role played in welfare
reform by those states that acted prior to the Federal Government. We
note with gratitude the statement in a March 12, 2002 Boston Globe
article that you have indicated that you are open to ``examining how
well waivers had worked and [that you] might allow some states to
continue operating under them.''
As you know, the 1996 welfare reform law allowed states that had
previously obtained welfare reform waivers to continue implementing
their own programs pursuant to those waivers. In many states,
innovative programs operated under these waivers have been successful
in educating, training and assisting welfare recipients in their
transition to independence. Particularly given that the purpose of
moving to TANF block grants was to ``increase the flexibility of
States'' in operating benefits programs for needy families, we should
not stifle this innovation and success by eliminating these waivers.
These waivers have been used in a variety of ways. For instance, in
Massachusetts, where case loads have declined by more than 50% since
implementation of welfare reform, the waiver has allowed the state to
provide exceptions from work requirements and time limits for the
disabled and caretakers of disabled family members, while affording
them equal access to employment preparation programs. In other states,
the waiver has allowed participation in substance abuse treatment
programs to count toward work participation requirements, thereby
removing barriers to employment and enabling recipients to move more
successfully into the world of work. There are many other examples that
demonstrate the innovative manner in which the states have been able to
successfully reform their own welfare systems. In fact, this issue is
so critical to the states that the National Governors' Association
(NGA) recently adopted a policy position recommending that current
waivers be continued and renewed. As the NGA stated, ``Restricting this
flexibility could greatly curtail the progress made in some states'
welfare reform initiatives.''
We agree with the NGA and feel that it is imperative that any
reauthorizing legislation allows for the continuation and renewal of
pre-existing waivers. It is our sincere hope that you will consider the
clear benefits that can be directly attributed to state flexibility in
welfare reform. We look forward to working with you on this important
issue.
Sincerely,
John F. Tierney
Ed Bryant
Edward J. Markey
Zach Wamp
Michael Capuano
James P. Moran
Martin T. Meehan
Dennis J. Kucinich
Earl Blumenauer
Bob Clement
James P. McGovern
Robert C. Scott
William Delahunt
Tom Sawyer
Barney Frank
Stephanie Tubbs Jones
Stephen F. Lynch
John M. Spratt
Richard E. Neal
Bart Gordon
Neil Abercrombie
Sherrod Brown
John W. Olver
James E. Clyburn
Rick Boucher
Mr. TIERNEY. You will see that it is a bipartisan letter,
and it is from many of the people from States that are affected
by that. It is my hope as the Subcommittee moves forward, that
we will be look to look at this provision and put in the same
language that Senator Rockefeller has in his Senate version of
S. 2052 and that allows States to not only continue through the
end of their waiver period, but to continue that through the
end of this authorization if their programs are being
successful.
Congresswoman Roukema and I have today filed a bill that
expands on educational opportunities, expands an increase in
the TANF authorization by the rate of inflation, and provides
for these waivers. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we can count on
you to work with us and other members of this Committee and
members of those nine total affected States, the Secretary, and
the President to put the waiver flexibility back in as a matter
of fairness and a matter of seeing that this program moves
forward with the best possible results.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tierney follows:]
Statement of the Hon. John F. Tierney, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Massachusetts
Chairman Herger, Ranking Member Cardin and other Members of the
Committee,
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
one of the most critical and most overlooked issues facing us as we
discuss TANF reauthorization. This is the issue of allowing state
flexibility through continuation of state waiver authority.
As you know, one of the cornerstones of the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act was to increase the flexibility
given to states in providing benefits through the TANF block grant.
This flexibility has produced successes beyond what most of us
envisioned, and the prospects for future successes remain bright.
However, we need to recognize that what allowed for this success, and
what will continue to allow for success, is for states to continue to
have the options to be innovative and creative in the administering of
their welfare program. After all, it was states like Massachusetts who
implemented welfare reform under a 1995 waiver that led the way for
other states and served as a model for some of the federal statutes in
the 1996 law. Indeed, if we look at the national data on moving people
off of welfare, many of the states that received waiver authority have
been more successful using their programs to help Americans achieve
independence and self-sufficiency.
Massachusetts has a waiver that is not scheduled to expire until
2005. Using the flexibility of its waiver, Massachusetts has focused
mandatory work activities on families without major identified barriers
to work and has succeeded in moving most of these families into
employment. The current case load is barely half of what it was before
state welfare reform began. However, three-quarters of those remaining
are families with serious barriers to employment, including:
Disability
the need to care for a disabled family member
and the lack of a parent in the home.
The waiver gives Massachusetts the flexibility to design education,
training and other services to help these families achieve economic
stability.
We have accomplished a great deal, yet much remains to be done. We
have a plan in place to accomplish our goals, and we need the
flexibility of our waiver to see this plan through. There are 8 other
states in a position like Massachusetts', and it seems to be a matter
of fairness that the Federal Government live up to its commitment and
allow these waivers to continue until their agreed upon expiration.
Moreover, I would argue that any reauthorization language should
include a provision that allows states to renew their waivers if the
states' programs have shown impressive results.
The Administration's proposal to eliminate all existing state
waivers was clearly disturbing. However, I was very pleased that when I
questioned Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson about
this provision at this week's Education and the Workforce Committee
hearing, he told the Committee that he was very supportive of state
waivers.
In fact, Secretary Thompson mentioned that as Governor of
Wisconsin, he had used waiver authority to create one of the most
heralded programs in the country. He indicated a willingness to work
with me and other members concerned about this issue. Effectively, the
Secretary said that the state waiver authority elimination was not an
important aspect of the President's plan, and that it was indeed
negotiable, as both he and the President support state flexibility.
This is a promising start.
Mr. Chairman, the reauthorization legislation that you, along with
several of your Committee colleagues, recently introduced contains the
provision of eliminating state waiver authority for existing waivers.
In light of Secretary Thompson's comments on this issue, and the
President's support of state flexibility, I am hopeful that we can work
together and reconsider this provision. On Tuesday, Mr. Chairman, you
received a letter from me and 24 other House Members asking that you
consider maintaining the state waiver authority, a copy of which I have
here and ask that it be submitted for the record. It is my hope that
this Subcommittee will consider removing this provision while also
considering permitting states to renew their waiver authority upon
expiration. Such legislative language can be found in Senator
Rockefeller's reauthorization bill, S. 2052, and it is my hope that
this is the language that will be used in any House bill that comes to
the Floor.
Throughout this debate, there will undoubtedly be disagreements
about work requirements, time limits and funding levels. But on this
issue of state waiver authority, there appears to be little if any
difference of opinion that state flexibility is advantageous to serving
our ultimate goal, which is to move people from dependence to self-
sufficiency. Massachusetts has been operating its program since 1995
and has been successful at reaching this goal. I respectfully request
that this Committee allow this program, and others like it, to
continue, and I stand ready to work with members to preserve the state
waiver authority.
Chairman HERGER. I look forward to working with you, Mr.
Tierney, and the Secretary on this issue. We have been made
aware of this dilemma. With that, the time has expired. We move
to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Reynolds.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. REYNOLDS. Good afternoon. I would like to begin by
thanking my colleague, Chairman Wally Herger, and Members of
the Subcommittee for allowing me to participate in today's
hearing. I appreciate the graciousness in allowing me to
testify on my bill, H.R. 844, at this hearing. The task before
this panel of reforming our welfare system is a challenging
one, and I have complete confidence that this important work is
in good hands.
I also would like to take a moment to welcome State Senator
Ray Meier, who is from my home State of New York, who will be
testifying shortly. Senator Meier is currently the Chairman of
the Committee on Social Services in the Senate and has had
great success in job creation and getting people to work first
in his years of public service. He recognizes the freedom and
independence that jobs provide and has seen the satisfaction in
people who learn to support themselves and their families.
As a former county executive, Senator Meier is also in the
unique position of having administered welfare programs at the
local level. He gained statewide recognition for his welfare
reform initiatives to save millions, and I repeat, in New York,
millions in taxpayer dollars and that were later used as a
blueprint for statewide reform. I am delighted that he has been
asked to appear here today and offer his expertise on the
issue.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I appear before you to discuss a
related issue to this discussion. H.R. 844, which would create
a Supplemental Security Income (SSI) exclusion for those blind
veterans receiving additional annuity from their State. H.R.
844 will amend Title XVI of the Social Security Act to provide
that annuities paid by States to blind veterans shall be
disregarded in determining Supplemental Security Income
benefits.
After World War I, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and
Massachusetts wanted to do something to provide extra
assistance to their States' blind veterans. Since then the
legislatures of those States have provided a yearly annuity to
those veterans who sustained a loss of sight resulting from
their service in any of our theaters of war. Blind veterans in
New York receive $1,000, New Jersey $750, Pennsylvania $1,800,
and Massachusetts $1,500. Recently New York and New Jersey
extended the benefit to eligible surviving spouses.
These State payments to blind veterans are currently
counted as a form of unearned income, and since current law
allows those receiving SSI only $530 of income per month, these
annuities actually result in an unfair penalty of our blind
veterans. Worse, since the only people being denied the full
benefit of this annuity are those on SSI, we are, in fact,
penalizing the poorest blind veterans in those States. Latest
statistics show there are a total of only 5,179 blind veterans
living in these four States.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the cost of
this bill at less than $500,000 per year. Additionally, they
estimate the number of veterans who do not currently qualify
for SSI because of State annuities but who would qualify under
this bill would also be very small.
I need to point out, however, that this estimated fiscal
impact is misleading since no blind veteran will receive a
penny more in SSI benefits than they are already entitled. The
dollar determined by CBO is merely what the Federal Government
has saved because of the States' annuity. Had these States not
offered these contributions to these veterans we already would
have been spending an amount equal to the CBO estimate.
This bill only asks for fairness to the blind veterans
living in these four States by disregarding the State annuity
as unearned income and having the Federal Government pay for
the full SSI benefit for which they would normally be entitled.
Additionally, I would like to point out that with the
exception of Pennsylvania, there has only been one increase to
the State annuity since World War I, and Pennsylvania has had
two increases. It is difficult for the States to continually
increase supplying veteran annuity for obvious budgetary
reasons. Therefore, there should not be a concern that this
exclusion will give States any additional incentive to
repeatedly increase the amount they give blind veterans.
Mr. Chairman, there have been 46 exclusions made to SSI
since 1972. I am here today to request one more. I recently
contacted Social Security Administration (SSA) to seek
technical comment on H.R. 844. The only change SSA suggested
was clarification that eligibility for the exclusion be based
on the State's determination of blindness rather than SSA's. I
have no problem making that change and welcome any other
comment from the administration or this Committee.
These annuities are both well-meaning and well-deserved,
benefiting those who gave up their sight in service to their
country. At this time in America's history it is especially
fitting that we work to improve the lives of those who answer
our Nation's call.
In closing, I believe we need to do everything we can to
help this small group of needy veterans. I am asking the
Committee's help in achieving that purpose.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reynolds follows:]
Statement of the Hon. Thomas M. Reynolds, a Representatives in Congress
from the State of New York
Good afternoon. I would like to begin by thanking my colleague,
Chairman Wally Herger for allowing me to participate in today's
hearing. I appreciate his graciousness in letting me testify on my
bill, H.R. 844, at this hearing. The task before this panel of
reforming our welfare system is a challenging one, and I have complete
confidence that this important work is in good hands.
With that Mr. Chairman, I appear before you today to discuss a
related issue--H.R. 844, which would create a Supplemental Security
Income exclusion for those blind veterans receiving an additional
annuity from their state. H.R. 844 will amend Title XVI of the Social
Security Act to provide that annuities paid by States to blind veterans
shall be disregarded in determining SSI benefits.
After World War I, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and
Massachusetts wanted to do something to provide extra assistance to
their state's blind veterans. Since then, the legislatures of those
states have provided a yearly annuity to those veterans who sustained a
loss of sight resulting from their service in any of our theatres of
war. Blind veterans in New York receive $1000, New Jersey $750,
Pennsylvania $1800, and Massachusetts $1500. Recently, New York and New
Jersey extended that benefit to eligible surviving spouses.
These state payments to blind veterans are currently counted as a
form of unearned income; and, since current law allows those receiving
SSI only $530 in income per month, these annuities actually result in
an unfair penalty on our blind veterans.
Worse, since the only people being denied the full benefit of this
annuity are those on SSI, we are, in fact, penalizing the poorest blind
veterans in those states.
Latest statistics show that there are a total of only 5,179 blind
veterans living in these four states. The Congressional Budget Office
estimates the cost of this bill at less than $500,000 per year.
Additionally, they estimate the number of veterans who do not currently
qualify for SSI because of the state annuities, but who would qualify
under this bill, to also be very small.
I need to point out, however, that this estimated fiscal impact is
misleading, since no blind veteran would receive a penny more in SSI
benefits than they are already entitled. The dollar amount determined
by CBO is merely what the Federal Government has saved because of the
states annuity. Had these states not offered this generous contribution
to these veterans, we already would have been spending an amount equal
to the CBO estimate.
This bill only asks for fairness for the blind veterans living in
these four states, by disregarding the state annuity as unearned
income, and having the Federal Government pay them the full SSI benefit
for which they would normally be entitled.
Additionally, I would like to point out that with the exception of
Pennsylvania, there has been only one increase to the state annuities
since World War I. Pennsylvania has had two increases. It is difficult
for the states to continually increase the blind veteran annuity for
obvious budgetary reasons. Therefore, there should not be concern that
this exclusion will give the states any additional incentive to
repeatedly increase the amount they give blind veterans.
Mr. Chairman, there have been 46 exclusions made to SSI since 1972
and I am here today to request one more. I recently contacted the
Social Security Administration to seek technical comment on H.R. 844.
The only change SSA suggested was a clarification that eligibility for
the exclusion be based on the state's determination of blindness,
rather than the SSA's. I have no problem making this change and welcome
any other comment from the Administration, or the committee.
These annuities are both well-meaning and well-deserved, benefiting
those who gave up their sight in service to their country. At this time
in America's history, it is especially fitting that we work to improve
the lives of those who answered our nation's call.
In closing, I believe that we need to do everything we can to help
this small group of needy veterans, and I am asking for this
committee's help in achieving this purpose. I look forward to your
comments and the committee's commitment to seeing this important
legislation passed as soon as possible.
Again, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to appear before
you today and I would be happy to answer any questions my colleagues
may have.
Chairman HERGER. I thank you very much for your testimony,
Mr. Reynolds. With that, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Levin, to inquire.
Mr. LEVIN. I just want to say a few words. I wasn't here
for Mr. Thompson, the Secretary's statement, because I was at a
meeting with the China Commission. I was hopeful of getting
here to be able to ask him a few questions and as I understand
it, he was not able to stay. I want to say something about the
path of welfare reform in this Subcommittee and in the
Committee.
We worked very hard in 1995 and 1996 to shape welfare
reform, a lot of time, a lot of effort, a lot of disagreements,
and then eventually some fairly widespread agreement on a bill
that was sound and I think has basically worked, but leaving a
lot of challenges ahead. We should be building on that
legislation and we should be building on it on a bipartisan
basis. We should be building on it on testimony from all of you
that doesn't occur at 3 o'clock or later than that on a
Thursday after we have adjourned this House of Representatives.
The result will be that my colleagues, that most of us will be
leaving for constituent obligations and will be left to read
your testimony later on.
There has been no real effort on a bipartisan basis in this
Subcommittee to try to put together the differences of opinion
and the similarities. There has been no real such effort, and I
deeply regret it, and I think that it is a serious mistake.
I just want to finish by reiterating, welfare reform has
had enough successes as well as leaving enough challenges that
we should be working together to build on that. Instead, what
is going to happen is this testimony will be given to
essentially an empty House and then we will mark up a bill next
week without any effort to try to work out differences between
Democrats and Republicans. That has been the decision of the
majority. It is a mistake. It sells short welfare reform, it
sells short the need to build on the successes and to meet the
challenges ahead. I deeply regret it.
Chairman HERGER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I
might mention that Secretary Thompson has been here twice
before. He did mention that he did need to leave. Also, this
hearing has been down for the last 2 weeks. We have had a busy
schedule.
With that, I would like to notify all our members that
there are expected to be two votes on the Floor. We will go and
vote and return as soon as possible. In the meantime the
hearing stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman HERGER. The Subcommittee on Human Resources will
come to order. If we could have everyone take their seats,
please, and with that we will have the gentlelady from Ohio,
the Honorable Marcy Kaptur, testify, please.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARCY KAPTUR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you, Chairman Herger, very much for this
courtesy, Ranking Member Cardin, Congressman English, and all
the Members of the Subcommittee. Let me just acknowledge in the
audience, citizens of our country who have been so helpful to
my district. Gerry Jensen of Association for Children for
Enforcement of Support, Inc, (ACES), who will be testifying
later; Sister Rochelle Friedman from the Mercy Sisters and
McCauley Institute, and Lisa Hamler Madelski from Second
Harvest Food Banks in Ohio.
I know the time is limited, Mr. Chairman, and I very
quickly will go through a few important issues. First of all,
as you reauthorize TANF, thank you for allowing members to
testify. We can bring our experience to bear from our
respective regions of the country. There are three principles I
would strongly urge the Committee to consider as it
reauthorizes TANF this year. First of all, in terms of goals,
that family self-sufficiency, not merely case load reduction,
should be a goal of the TANF program. Second, that a strong
emphasis should be on careers and the development of careers,
not job placement alone. Thirdly, that the issue of
supplantation must be addressed during the reauthorization of
the TANF program. The TANF dollars should not be diverted by
State governments for other purposes.
Very quickly, I am going to go through each issue in a
little more detail, if I might, and offer my strong support for
H.R. 3625 and H.R. 3113, introduced by Representatives Cardin
and Mink respectively. Both reauthorization bills deal with one
of the issues I want to talk about, and that is reporting
requirements. We will be submitting for the record the best
figures I can provide for the State of Ohio detailing federal
funds appropriated for the TANF program. Frankly, next week I
am going to be asking the U.S. General Accounting Office to do
an audit of the federal TANF dollars that have been
appropriated to the State of Ohio. As the Representative from
the 9th District of Ohio, I cannot ascertain how dollars have
been spent by our State, particularly in our region.
For example, aside from TANF, looking at Welfare-to-Work,
years ago our State should have received $86 million, which it
forfeited to the Federal Government, costing my region $9
million that could have been spent in important efforts to work
with those attempting to move from welfare to work. We have a
backlog in Ohio of over $722 million in unexpended TANF funds,
and in terms of the Workforce Investment Act, which is
administered through the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), I can
tell you that Ohio has failed to comply with numerous
provisions of the program. It is very difficult to represent a
region that has people coming off the welfare rolls, and has a
high unemployment rate, and not be able to use the dollars that
I vote for. Frankly, our State cannot tell me where the dollars
are.
So, my first request would be for very strong reporting
requirements and that if a State, Mr. Chairman, does not spend
its money, give our region, give our municipalities or our
counties the right to spend the money because the money I vote
for does not come back to my home county and, frankly, I am
angry. I am outraged about it because we have had lots of
shake-outs in the steel industry and the auto industry. What is
happening is absolutely wrong.
On the education front let me make a strong plea to you to
find ways to permit people to access additional job training.
Some of the requirements that limit job training to a year, and
allow only 30 percent of the case load in any given State to
access education really doesn't work for us in Ohio.
For example, there is a woman in my district who has been
working on her bachelor's degree for the past 4 years, and due
to family circumstances she applied for cash assistance last
year. She has one semester left before she will receive her
bachelor's degree, but she has reached the 1-year time limit
that she can participate in educational activities. The time
limits that are in the current bill don't make sense in terms
of what is actually happening on the ground. So, I would make a
plea on the education front.
Finally, let me just say that in terms of supplantation of
a State, and this is where I think the audit is important in a
State like Ohio, even though the welfare rolls are going down,
what we are finding is a corresponding increase in our food
banks and our feeding kitchens. For example, in one of our food
banks last year we averaged 50 families per week. This year we
are averaging 250 families per week. In fact, I had to be
involved in a special food drive in my district over Christmas
and the New Year's trying to collect food because we just have
too many people falling between the cracks.
So, I would just urge you to take a look at this issue
where States might be using the dollars for other purposes. In
fact, there was one story that said in one of our counties that
somebody bought an ambulance or police car with TANF dollars.
We should not allow States to divert TANF dollars for other
purposes.
So, that is essentially the recommendations that I can
offer in 5 minutes. If you have any questions, I would be more
than happy to answer them, and I commend Congressman Cardin for
his great leadership on this Committee along with the Chairman
in trying to do what is right in all regions of this country.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kaptur follows:]
Statement of the Hon. Marcy Kaptur, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio
Introduction
Chairman Herger, thank you for the opportunity to speak before the
Subcommittee this afternoon. Reauthorization of the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program is one of the most
important pieces of legislation that will come before Congress this
session.
In 1996 the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) significantly changed federal welfare
policy. During the past five years we have heard success stories about
the program and there has been evidence to substantiate needed change
in various aspects of the program. During reauthorization of TANF I
hope that the program will be strengthened.
As Representative of Ohio's 9th District, I wish to share with the
Subcommittee my concerns regarding two important issues. First, the
need for adequate reporting requirements for states. Second, the
importance of access to education and training programs for welfare
recipients and individuals attempting to leave the welfare rolls.
Reporting Requirements
Currently, states are required under law to report information
about their programs in biennial TANF state plans and annual reports to
document accurately information regarding individuals and families
receiving assistance. However, comprehensive information on state
program rules is not required, nor is information on individuals after
they leave the welfare rolls.
For the past few months I have attempted to review comprehensive
information to document how TANF dollars that I have voted for
constituents in my district to receive are being spent in the state of
Ohio. However, I have been told that reports of this nature do not
exist. I have also questioned how citizens in my state are faring after
they leave the welfare rolls. However, I have been told that reports of
this nature do not exist. I am aware of the statistics that report
families on assistance in Ohio fell 59 percent from 1994 through mid
2001, more than the national average of 53 percent. However, this data
does not tell me how TANF dollars are being spent in the state of Ohio
and how constituents in my district are faring after they leave the
welfare rolls. Are welfare recipients getting good jobs? Are they
escaping poverty? Unfortunately, we do not know the answers to these
questions. The 1996 welfare law concentrated on case load reduction. In
turn, the case loads have successfully dropped across the country.
Unfortunately, we have neglected to question how people leaving the
welfare rolls are faring.
I support the state reporting requirements that are proposed in
Congressman Benjamin Cardin and Congresswoman Patsy Mink's bills to
reauthorize the TANF program. The lack of detailed reporting
requirements over the past five years has been a major barrier.
Adequate state reporting requirements will allow states to serve
citizens better and allow Congress to implement consistent public
policy.
In 1996 the emphasis of federal welfare policy was shifted to a
``work first approach,'' making it difficult for welfare recipients to
pursue a post-secondary education. Currently, TANF provides limited
access to postsecondary education opportunities. TANF law allows
welfare recipients to participate in up to 12 months of vocational
training and many post-secondary programs directly related to
employment to count toward the work requirement. However, only 30% of a
state's welfare case load can be engaged in education and training
programs at any given time.
Education and Training
Education and training programs are essential to lifting welfare
recipients out of poverty and into livable wage jobs. Expanded
education opportunities could enable TANF recipients to prepare for and
find better paying and more stable jobs. Unemployment is at its highest
rate in seven years and mass layoffs affected more than 2.5 million
persons in 2001. In my home state of Ohio almost 26,000 jobs have been
lost since January 2001. Skills training and continuing education are
crucial links to good jobs that lead to self-sufficiency. Census data
consistently show that people with higher educational attainment have
higher median earnings, and several studies show that individuals with
higher skills earn more and work more overtime.
According to a 2001 survey by the US Chamber of Commerce's Center
for Workforce Preparation, two-thirds of employers report severe
conditions when trying to hire qualified workers and one third say
applicants are poorly skilled or have the wrong skills for available
jobs. Ninety-four percent of Americans support expanding job training
programs, according to a joint survey on poverty in America released in
April 2001 by National Public Radio, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and
the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
Congress should increase access to post-secondary education. The
limit on the number of months an individual may participate in post-
secondary education should be expanded, and a range of education and
training activities, including post secondary education, should count
as work activities so recipients who need training are not restricted
from receiving it. I support the language that addresses the need to
expand access of post-secondary education to welfare recipients in
Congressman Cardin and Congresswoman Mink's TANF reauthorization bills.
Mr. Chairman. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before
the Subcommittee. I am hopeful that during the next few months members
will actively participate in a open dialogue on important issues that
must be raised during reauthorization of the TANF program, and produce
a final bill that will strengthen our nation's welfare policy.
Chairman HERGER. I thank the gentlelady for her testimony.
With that I will turn to the Ranking Member, Mr. Cardin.
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Marcy, thank you for
your comments. I think you are right on target. First, we need
to have more information than we have today, and you are right
on target there.
I appreciate your underscoring the importance of training
and good jobs for people so they can move up the career ladder,
reducing poverty, and supplanting of funds. That is one of the
issues that we haven't talked much about in this Committee, and
I think you are absolutely right. It has been rough for the
States, but it has been particularly rough for poverty programs
as we have seen a lot of the federal funds being supplanted and
the local funds being supplanted.
So, I congratulate you on the issues that you have raised,
but we would be well-served if we respond to each of those
points. I think the administration's proposal to each one of
these areas could use improvement, and I very much appreciate
your leadership and your testimony.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Cardin. Let me just mention that the supplantation issue in a
State like Ohio, some dollars were diverted to Head Start, but
then TANF rules were imposed on Head Start and certain program
characteristics were altered in Head Start, and then if that
TANF money is withdrawn because TANF is a temporary program,
Head Start a permanent program, we run into some problems
there. So, I think you have to really look at how this TANF
program is affecting other aspects of federal programs that are
assisting our States.
I did forget to mention one point, and that is in the
housing arena. As you look at TANF, I would strongly recommend
as a Member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Urban
Development Appropriation that you look at treating housing
provided with TANF and State maintenance of effort funds in the
same manner as other work supports are provided, such as child
care. I am very worried and I am sure other members have
testified about our worry about child care dollars and what is
happening at the State levels, and the maintenance of child
care assistance even to people who have moved into the
workforce in these $6 an hour jobs, without the child care they
can't stay in the workforce.
I would hope that and I know this Committee is capable of
calling the States to a very high effort so we are not having
more and more people coming into our food banks but they are
actually able to be in the workforce and in our colleges and
universities gaining career skills that will last a lifetime.
Chairman HERGER. I thank the gentlelady from Ohio, Ms.
Kaptur.
Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you so much.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much for your very good
testimony and all the members that have testified. With that we
will call our next panel, panel 3, the Honorable Raymond Meier,
New York State Senator, on behalf of the National Conference of
State Legislatures (NCSL), and to introduce our next panelist,
I turn to my colleague from Maryland, Mr. Cardin.
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a real pleasure
to welcome my Mayor to the Committee on Ways and Means, Martin
O'Malley. Martin, the dynamic Mayor of Baltimore City, has done
a superb job in a rather short period of time in restoring a
lot of confidence in city government.
Mr. Chairman, let me just tell you about one of his
programs in CitiStat. I have had a chance to watch it where he
brings agency heads in and goes over on a very regular basis
how public funds are being spent and whether we were achieving
the objectives that are set out. I can tell you that in
Baltimore City's case every dollar of federal funds that are
received are being carefully watched and carefully used, and
that is why it is always a pleasure to support my Mayor's
request for additional federal funds. It is nice to have you
here, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. O'MALLEY. Thank you very much, Congressman, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you. With that, we ask Senator Meier
to testify, please.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAYMOND MEIER, SENATOR, AND CHAIR,
COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SERVICES, NEW YORK SENATE, ALBANY, NEW
YORK; AND CHAIR, HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE, AND CO-CHAIR, TASK
FORCE ON WELFARE REFORM REAUTHORIZATION, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF
STATE LEGISLATURES
Mr. MEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, for giving me the
opportunity to testify.
The 1996 Welfare Reform Act was clearly one of the most
significant pieces of legislation in the last 50 years. It
dramatically changed the lives of people on welfare. The
difference quite clearly was the emphasis on work and moving
people to independence. One of the keys to this was we worked
as your partners in the States, and we are here today to ask to
continue that partnership on the same cooperative basis.
We find much of this very encouraging, Mr. Chairman, in
your proposal, full funding, continuance of supplemental
grants, observance of State flexibility, no mandates, no
earmarks. We are particularly heartened that you have
approached differently the two-parent work rule.
Having said all of that, let me address some concerns that
we have, and we do have some concerns with the work
participation changes. Let me hasten to add that we understand
work is the foundation of the success of welfare reform and we
want to continue that, but let me give you some specifics.
First, we believe the 58-percent figure, 58 percent on
public assistance not performing any work at all, is an
incorrect figure. The federal statistics undercount those who
are engaged in meaningful and real activity. English as a
second language classes, basic literacy classes, job search--
none of those things count. In New York if you pull out the
people who are legally exempt because of hardship, count the
folks who are in real activity such as the one I mentioned or
in work or in some combination, we are at 70 percent.
Secondly, current law and the proposed law does not give us
credit for the people we divert, for the people we keep off the
welfare rolls. I can tell you about a lady I met 10 years ago,
when I was a county executive, who said to me--a public
assistance recipient--``You know, I came to you people and all
I needed was a car that ran and decent child care for my
daughter and instead you put me on welfare.'' The current TANF
legislation permits us to address those concerns without making
her a part of the case load to make sure she is never on it.
The more stringent work requirements, the 70 percent, the
40 hours broken down into 24 and 16 coupled with a restrictive
definition of work I believe causes some concern that we need
to think about. I believe it could drain TANF dollars away from
programs that are designed to move and keep people in work, in
private sector unsubsidized employment, real jobs.
In New York we use TANF to fund an Invest Program, we call
it. It is an on-the-job training kind of program. We use the
earned income tax credit (EITC) on a State level to reward
work. We use child support and transportation to make work
possible. If the new rules, which are somewhat inflexible in
terms of how work is defined, come into place, we could have a
diversion of this money away from subsidizing folks who are
working, making work profitable and desirable for them, and we
could particularly have a diversion away from the child support
necessary to support that kind of work.
Now, ironically one of the things I have done as Chairman
of the Senate Committee on Social Services is to oppose schemes
that would drain hundreds of millions of TANF dollars to create
subsidized public employment or, as I prefer to call it, Son of
Comprehensive Employment Training Program, and I don't think
any of us, Mr. Chairman and members, want to go back to those
thrilling days of yesteryear.
One of the other things I would point out, one of the
problems with the split before 24 and 16, you have got to get
the 24 hours of strictly defined work before you can get credit
for anything. We have some people who need basic English
facility, who need some things before they can do anything at
all.
Mr. Chairman, in your very excellent article in the
Washington Times, you mentioned the case of a heroic young
woman named Pang, who worked part-time as a seamstress. If
part-time was 20 hours, that 20 hours wouldn't have counted
because she couldn't hit 24, and therefore the time that she
spent as a Laotian doing the very difficult work of learning
English wouldn't have counted either.
We are not saying that people should not be required to
perform something when they are receiving benefits. What we are
saying is this. We have been your partners, trust us. The way
this system works, it is block granted, the money is limited
and the time is limited. It is not to our advantage to pad
these rolls. If the rolls grow, if the economy goes down, we
will take the hit. We want to work with you as your partners.
All we ask for is some flexibility to decide on a case-by-case
basis what should be moved up front to enable people to receive
sustained employment, the kinds of employment where they can
move on to economic productivity. I would be happy when the
Chair is ready to receive questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Meier follows:]
Statement of the Hon. Raymond Meier, Chair, Committee on Social
Services, New York State Senate; Chair, Human Services Committee, and
Co-Chair, Task Force on Welfare Reform Reauthorization, National
Conference of State Legislatures
Chairman Herger, Ranking Member Cardin and Members of the Human
Resources Subcommittee, I am Senator Ray Meier of New York. I chair the
Committee on Social Services in the New York State Senate. I am
testifying here today on behalf of the National Conference of State
Legislatures (NCSL), where I serve as the Chair of the Human Services
Committee as well as co-chair NCSL's Task Force on Welfare Reform
Reauthorization. NCSL is the bipartisan organization that serves the
legislators and staff of the states, commonwealths and territories.
Mr. Chairman, as key stakeholders in welfare reform, state
legislators are reviewing your efforts to reauthorize the historic 1996
welfare reform law very closely. NCSL supported the law in 1996.
Enacting and implementing welfare reform was accomplished in
partnership with state government; our hope is that reauthorization
will continue this partnership built on flexibility, not mandates.
State legislators are responsible for writing, financing and
implementing laws governing the TANF program in their states, for
overseeing the programs in their states, and for appropriating TANF and
Maintenance of Effort (MOE) funds. Our choices and successes offer the
Federal Government a chance to learn what really works to help
struggling families, just as the Federal Government drew on state
efforts to reform welfare in crafting the 1996 law.
Last year, NCSL created a task force on welfare reauthorization
that I co-chair with Assemblywoman Dion Aroner of California. This
bipartisan group of 36 legislators and staff developed NCSL's positions
that were adopted by NCSL's Executive Committee at its February
meeting. We have learned a great deal about the successes and remaining
challenges of welfare reform and the creativity and enthusiasm of
government, for-profit, not-for profit and faith-based and community
organizations in serving these families. Federal law should help foster
this creativity and not stifle this enthusiasm.
As states have transformed the nation's welfare system to better
serve local needs and different populations, our nation's state
legislatures have made different choices. States have crafted different
approaches that respond better to local economies. Many states further
devolved policymaking responsibility to localities, as my own state of
New York did. State legislatures' diverse policy choices and funding
decisions mean that any further changes in the program may impact
states in different ways.
Like you, I work in an environment where bipartisan compromise is
necessary because control of the chambers is divided by party. Like the
U.S., the state of New York has urban and rural areas that have unique
sets of needs. My own district, which includes large rural areas, is
vastly different from New York City. The most exciting thing about TANF
is that we can tailor our programs to best serve the needs of very
different places. The Federal Government devolved policymaking
authority to the states. In New York, we have taken this policy even
further by giving some policymaking authority to our 58 counties so
they can tailor programs even further to local needs.
As the County Executive of Oneida County ten years ago, I was
involved in welfare reform before the passage of the federal welfare
reform law in 1996. I instituted a program with federal and state
waivers requiring and supporting work and eliminating barriers to
employment by welfare recipients. I have furthered these efforts in the
state legislature as chairman of the Senate Social Services Committee.
A job provides freedom, independence and the ability to support oneself
and one's family. Welfare reform has made employment possible for
millions of families and helped give people the freedom to make a
better life for themselves.
Our work is not done. While case loads have declined dramatically,
many families struggle with barriers to self-sufficiency. Mental
illness, substance abuse, physical challenges, low literacy, limited
English proficiency, domestic violence, and learning disabilities are
among the challenges faced by our clients, especially long-term
recipients. Given the declining economy and the impact of the tragic
events of September 11th on industries that have traditionally hired
former welfare recipients, special attention is needed to ensure that
there are no adverse unintended consequences in reauthorization. State
legislators also believe that welfare reform is an ongoing process of
sustaining the work effort of former welfare recipients. This includes
services that support job placement, retention and advancement to
prevent welfare recidivism and improve the lives of children and
families. Our work has also focused on welfare prevention strategies
including teen pregnancy prevention, noncustodial parents and
fatherhood programs, promoting marriage and other family formation
strategies.
I participated in the listening sessions held by HHS to hear the
views of state policymakers. I appreciated the sincere effort the
Administration made to listen to our experience in the states. The
President's welfare reform proposal reflects an effort to resolve many
issues that were raised by state legislators in these sessions and will
increase state flexibility. Unfortunately, less attention has been paid
to these helpful provisions because the proposal also adds new
requirements with no additional funding, resulting in less flexibility
for the states. In particular, the President's work rates proposal will
force states to concentrate their efforts on those receiving cash
assistance. This will force states to reallocate TANF funding away from
creative and innovative services to fund these new efforts, and will
exacerbate the difficulties states face in providing child care to
those on welfare and poor working families including former welfare
recipients since no new child care funds are included.
FUNDING
States and territories have used the flexibility in the TANF
program to fund services such as expanded child care, substance abuse
treatment, pre-kindergarten classes, training to help parents get
better jobs and after school programs aimed at reducing teen pregnancy.
In FY2000, only 50% of TANF was spent on cash assistance. 20% was spent
on child care and the remainder was spent on other services.
The TANF program today serves a very different population than the
AFDC program at its inception in the 1930s. People accessing our
services are no longer widows and most children on welfare are not
orphans. Most women work outside the home and our economy has changed
the type of job opportunities available to low-skilled workers. The
case load for cash assistance has declined nearly 60% nationally since
passage of PRWORA; however, as we provide increasing support to ensure
job retention and advancement as well as services for children and
families, the total case load receiving services has increased. This is
why continued full funding is critical.
We appreciate that both the Administration's proposal and your own
legislation, Chairman Herger, do not cut the block grant but maintain
the commitment to fully funding the block grant. We also appreciate
that the TANF supplemental grants are continued and that the
contingency fund, which provides federal cost sharing in an economic
downturn is reinstated. However, the contingency fund should have a
less restrictive trigger mechanism and less complicated requirements
for state participation than the contingency fund in the 1996 law. I
urge you to construct the reconciliation and maintenance of effort
provisions so that needy states can have greater access to the fund.
FINANCIAL FLEXIBILITY
In addition, the administration's proposal continues the financial
flexibility of the block grant structure. We are pleased that the
Administration rejected pressures to earmark the block grant. NCSL will
oppose any effort to earmark the TANF block grant as a limitation on
critical flexibility and antithetical to the notion of devolution. Mr.
Chairman, there are a number of provisions included in the President's
proposal and your legislation that would enhance the financial
flexibility for the TANF program. These items reflect concerns raised
in the listening sessions by myself and my colleagues in the nation's
state legislatures. First, restrictions are lifted from TANF that is
carried-over from the previous fiscal year so it can be spent as
flexibly as current year TANF, not limited to funding only time-limited
assistance for basic needs. The administration promotes changes so
states get ``credit'' for rainy day funds when we appropriate the funds
for that purpose and your legislation mirrors this. Currently, states
are discouraged from maintaining their own contingency funds because
such funds remain in the federal treasury and are considered
unobligated, thus making it appear that those funds are not needed or
not allocated for any purpose. We appreciate your recognition that
state rainy day TANF funds as a legitimate use of TANF block grant
funds is consistent with state budgeting principles. We especially
appreciate that the current artificial distinction on the treatment of
child care and work supports for the employed and unemployed is removed
in the President's proposal. Currently, time limits are triggered for
the unemployed using these services while they search for a job.
WORK
Mr. Chairman, state legislators believe strongly in the value of
work. In fact, states changed their welfare programs into programs that
require and support work using waivers before the Federal Government
acted. 48 states operated their welfare programs under these waivers
before 1996. The rigid rules of the old AFDC program actually prevented
programs from implementing strategies to help welfare recipients become
self-sufficient. For every dollar earned, welfare recipients lost a
dollar in benefits. Poor people can do the math. If we make it
advantageous to go to work and provide support to those confronting
tough challenges, parents will work. We supported the federal bill in
1996 because we recognized that the old system had trapped too many
families in poverty by not having any expectation that individuals work
or make themselves ready to work.
States are strongly committed to the work first focus of TANF.
Federal constraints will compromise our ability to allocate our
resources to best serve individual recipients. Major changes in the
current requirements could upend state spending decisions. We have
learned that different strategies are needed for clients who have very
different barriers to work. We also believe that part-time employment
with some support is better than no employment, and feel that states
should be able to count all recipient work effort. We value job
retention and advancement efforts. These supports are critical for
long-term self-sufficiency and truly represent the next phase of
welfare reform. States are best suited to decide what work activities a
recipient can perform. We know we must work quickly to get recipients
into the workforce. After all, TANF is a time limited program, with a
60 month lifetime limit on benefits.
In my own state of New York, labor participation rose in the years
following welfare reform with the largest increases occurring in groups
most likely to use welfare; for example, single mothers. Between 1994
and 2000, work rates for never-married single mothers increased from
40.6% to 60.8%, an increase of 50% in just five years.
Mr. Chairman, we have targeted TANF resources toward supporting
families who are in the workforce. New York provides a package of work
supports that include child care subsidies, EITC, Child Health Plus,
Medicaid, housing and transportation along with administrative changes
that increased child support collections. New York has a very generous
state earned income credit. The average state and federal credit was
$1,849, for the most recent year in which statistics are available.
Mr. Chairman, New York's combined impact of increased supports make
a difference. For a working mother with two children holding down a $6
an hour job, food stamps and the EITC boost her income well above what
she'd get in welfare and move her above the federal poverty level. And,
if we give her help with her child care bills and get her the child
support she is due, this will further boost her family income.
Unfortunately, with higher work participation rates and an increase
from 30 to 40 hours per week, the New York legislature will be forced
to reallocate funds from these supports. States like mine are facing
our own budget deficits--in fact, 45 states and the District of
Columbia have budget shortfalls--and cannot make up the difference with
state funds.
Mr. Chairman, it is very misleading to think that because of the
case load reduction credit, states are not requiring recipients to
undertake productive activities. The current case load dropped
dramatically, 63% in New York, from January 1995 through December 2001.
This was beyond our wildest expectation. No one predicted so many
families would leave public assistance. Many are still receiving TANF
funded service but are no longer receiving cash. The so-called
``effective'' work rate doesn't reflect state efforts at putting people
to work at all. It has been a longstanding policy of NCSL to support a
measure that gives us credit for putting people to work or keeping them
from going on welfare in the first place. We have supported giving
credit to the states for case load reduction and are intrigued by your
proposal that would maintain the case load reduction credit, but change
the baseline year. We will need to examine the implications further.
However, if the case load reduction were to be removed or limited, an
employment credit would more accurately reflect the accomplishments of
the TANF program.
Federal statistics about the number of recipients receiving cash
who are working under-represent the number of mothers and fathers
actively engaged in preparing themselves for life without cash
assistance. Under current rules the Federal Government does not collect
this information. Half of the states don't report activities that don't
count under the federal definition of activities that count toward the
work participation rate, including job preparation. Activities that
represent critical steps to self-sufficiency, such as drug treatment,
do not count. In New York, about 50% of adults receiving TANF cash
assistance are either in a work training activity or actual employment.
If exempt adults are removed from the equation, then 70% of nonexempt
adults receiving cash assistance are engaged in some level of training
or employment. The remainder are mostly in the process of being
assessed and assigned to work activities or sanctioned for
noncompliance.
Unless they work for the full 30 hours, recipient work efforts
cannot be included under current rules. If we value part time work, all
hours worked should count. If a recipient who never worked or a victim
whose batterer had prevented her from working outside the home is able
to work 15-20 hours a week, that's a success to be built on. They also
miss the families we have exempted from work--notably parents caring
for a disabled child--and it's worth noting that these families are at
high risk of divorce and dissolution, contrary to our shared goal of
promoting marriage and family formation. In New York state, 26% of the
adults exempted were exempt due to caretaker status of a child under 12
months or as a caretaker of an incapacitated individual; 33% were
exempt due to long-term disability which could make them SSI eligible;
and 28% were exempt because of short-term disability.
Current law and the President's proposal don't give us credit for
those we help who never touch cash assistance and are diverted from the
welfare system. I am proud of our TANF funded Wheels to Work Program
that helps families with their transportation needs without making them
go on welfare. Let me give you an example of how it helped one
individual, a grandmother in the rural part of Dutchess County raising
her deceased daughters' three kids. She has an $8 an hour job at Wal-
Mart. To get to work, she had to spend $8 on taxi fare each way--in
other words, two hours of her earnings every day were consumed by
transportation. Our Wheels for Work program helped her buy a car. Now
that's an example of how we can wisely use our TANF resources to give
an individual the freedom to make a better life for themselves and
avoid cash assistance. I would hate to see innovations like these
stifled.
As I said before, the TANF program has given each state the freedom
to respond to its own unique set of needs and circumstances. What
troubles state legislators about the President's plan is not that it
focuses on work--let me repeat that state welfare programs have honored
and rewarded work--but that it will force states to establish community
work programs for those on the rolls at the expense of those who have
left or have never been on the rolls. If new and inflexible work
requirements are added to the program, states, constrained by the fixed
sum of money available from the block grant and their own economic
difficulties, will be forced to cut back on other TANF funded programs
that support work. Programs that could be cut include programs like our
INVEST program which provides on-the-job training help for employers
hiring welfare recipients and programs that prevent welfare dependency
in the first place, such as after school programs to prevent teen
pregnancy. Instead, states will have to fund an administration
structure to create slots and monitor activities to meet the work
participation rates. To do otherwise would leave states vulnerable to
substantial fiscal penalties--losing 5% of TANF block grant,
backfilling this penalty with state dollars and an increase in 5% for
the state maintenance of effort requirement.
While my state has experience with workfare program, few other
states have chosen this approach. We have permitted each county to make
their own decision--and while workfare is used in some locations,
notably New York City, this has not proven to be a useful strategy in
more suburban and rural counties. My own attitude is that everyone who
is able should give some work effort back to the community while they
are receiving public assistance. Still, a welfare recipient who we
require to perform public service such as cleaning public parks is
still on welfare. If our goals are personal and economic independence,
then the place to find them is where Americans have historically found
them, in private sector employment. The majority of states have focused
on getting welfare recipients into unsubsidized jobs in the private
sector--a proven strategy to increase earnings, promote family
stability and end the cycle of dependence. States have succeeded with
this strategy, and I am puzzled that Congress and the Administration
seem to be considering making it difficult for states to continue this
success.
Another troubling feature is that job search and vocational
education would not count for the first 24 hours of the work
requirement as they do under current law. Job search, often through job
clubs, has been an effective means of ensuring placement in the private
sector. The focus on work should not come at the exclusion of necessary
basic or vocational education including English as a Second Language
that would enhance skills, job retention and earnings. NCSL has always
urged the Federal Government to leave the decision on when and how
education should count for each client up to the states, similar to
other TANF benefit and services decisions. The current policy that
limits the amount of time and caps the number of clients engaged in
vocational education does not take into account state decision-making.
We should have the ability to count educational activities if we choose
to include them in our range of job preparation efforts. Both job
search and vocational education should continue to count as work.
We strongly support the Administration's proposal to eliminate the
two-parent work participation rate and have all families count in one
consistent work participation requirement, which will help strengthen
families and remove a barrier to marriage.
We appreciate that your legislation and the Administration's
proposal attempt to give states more flexibility in counting
employability services such as job search, mental health treatment,
treatment for substance abuse and education both for 3 months towards
the 40 hour work requirement and towards 16 of the 40 hours of the work
requirements thereafter. Unfortunately, the work rates overall are less
flexible, but recognizing the value of treatment and employment
preparation by counting such activity for the work rate, even if in a
limited manner, is a positive step. However, since 24 hours of work are
required in order for any of the 16 hour activities to count, this is
hardly flexible.
In addition, the 24 hour work requirement represents a four hour
increase for parents with children under 6 who are required to meet 20
hours under current law. Child care is most expensive for these
families with young children and under current law, we cannot compel a
parent with a child under six to work without child care assistance.
Finally, it is not clear to us why an increase in the requirement
from 30 to 40 hours is necessary. The jobs most readily available to
low-skilled workers don't offer 40 hours a week of work, or the hours
worked may vary from one week to the next. Hotel workers, for example,
found their hours cut back after September 11th. In addition, the
Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the workweek for production or
nonsupervisory workers on private payrolls has consistently averaged
34-35 hours over the last decade.
The work requirements will have a different impact on each state
because each state sets its own welfare benefit level and eligibility
requirements. In fact, under current state law, welfare recipients
working at minimum wage at 40 hours a week would be ineligible for cash
assistance in 27 states. In 5 states, a recipient working 24 hours a
week would make too much to qualify for cash.
CHILD CARE
Increased funding for child care is essential to the continued
success of TANF. Mothers and fathers cannot work without safe, reliable
child care. In addition to using all of our CCDF dollars, states are
currently spending 20% of our TANF funds on child care, yet we still
struggle with deciding whether the poor families who have never been on
TANF or poor families who are moving off cash assistance or low income
poor families who never received welfare but are a crisis away should
receive subsidies. By the way, that TANF spending funds more child care
than the entire value of the federal Child Care Development Fund.
New York's CCDF funds, even when augmented by TANF transfers, only
reach 12% of the eligible case load. If, as the administration
proposes, states are faced with more parents having to work more hours
a week, and no new funds are provided, the situation will only get
worse. There is simply no way to continue our progress without
increased funding for child care. In New York, TANF transfers to child
care are more than the value of the federal block grant and these funds
mean 76,000 additional subsidies annually.
Mr. Chairman, we strongly support an increase in the mandatory
funding of the Child Care Development Fund. I believe that this is a
critical support for these families--families on welfare meeting work
requirements, families leaving welfare for work and working poor
families.
FAMILY FORMATION AND MARRIAGE
While marriage is an issue that transcends discussion of the
reauthorization of the TANF program, promoting the formation of stable
families is part of ensuring that the cycle of dependency on government
programs is broken. Marriage provides important benefits, including
economic ones, for adults and children. Government policy should be to
support healthy marriages, and, perhaps as critically, not to set up
barriers to marriage. While we have made great progress has been in
reducing dependence on welfare, state legislators recognize that much
remains to be done in addressing the underlying causes of poverty. That
includes strengthening two-parent families. State legislators also
recognize that not everyone will choose to marry or choose to stay
married.
State legislators believe that any federal discussion of the issue
of marriage must be based on the following principles:
NCSL recognizes that efforts to salvage some
relationships may not be appropriate and there needs to be
special awareness of the prevalence of domestic violence,
family violence and abuse. Therefore, NCSL supports the family
violence option;
Marital status must never be a condition of receiving
TANF benefits or services. Because people approaching human
services agencies are in a vulnerable position, great care must
be taken to respect personal decisions;
Efforts to encourage marriage should respect cultural
differences and should be conducted in culturally sensitive
ways;
States must have maximum flexibility as they utilize
a range of approaches to promote marriage, especially within
the finite resources of the TANF block grant. Marriage laws
have been the purview of state government, not the Federal
Government;
A central focus of these efforts must be child well-
being. NCSL supports efforts to assist parents with parenting
skills, even in the absence of marriage, so the children
involved have a stable support system, and
Rules for the TANF program and other federal programs
must be examined to ensure that they do not penalize couples
that choose to marry.
The Federal Government should consider existing efforts and how
those efforts might be strengthened. States are already working to
promote marriage outside the TANF program. Some examples of actions
states have taken include establishing fatherhood programs, providing
incentives for marriage education including reduced fees for marriage
licenses, enacting earned income tax credits without penalizing marital
status, enacting family law related to both marriage and divorce and
creating programs to sustain the marriages of parents of children with
disabilities with respite care services. State legislators urge federal
policymakers to affirm the value of these efforts.
Mr. Chairman, NCSL supports the President's proposal to use the
funds in the current out-of-wedlock bonus fund to create a technical
assistance and demonstration fund for states to implement marriage and
family formation initiatives including out of wedlock pregnancy
prevention. We also support the creation of a fund to expand the
ability of states to create new programs in this area. NCSL opposes any
efforts to earmark the TANF block grant for the purpose of family
formation or marriage. We strongly urge the Federal Government to
provide more technical assistance to states on this topic. We
appreciate that you have made it simpler for states to use maintenance
of effort funds for services states provide under purposes three and
four of the TANF program, promoting marriage and family formation and
preventing out-of-wedlock births.
TEEN PREGNANCY
Teen pregnancy has declined, but it still must be a focus of
efforts to reduce out-of-wedlock child bearing. NCSL believes that this
national problem deserves our full and continued attention. We have
found through our research that teen mothers and fathers have worse
future outcomes including educational attainment and income than other
teens. Over time, we believe, teen parents have much more difficulty
remaining self-sufficient and are more vulnerable to economic shifts in
the labor market.
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT/NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS
Child support enforcement is a critical component of welfare reform
and these payments represent an important part of family income. Child
support payments can make the difference in a working family living in
or moving out of poverty. State legislators have been at the forefront
of innovative efforts to improve child support including establishment
of orders, collection, enforcement and work with noncustodial parents.
We are concerned, however, about unfunded mandates and preemption of
state law in any new federal child support law.
Mr. Chairman, NCSL strongly supports the creation of options for
states to pass through child support directly to families without
having to reimburse the Federal Government. Thank you for addressing
this issue in your bill. Currently federal law requires that state pay
not only the state share of collected child support, but reimburse the
Federal Government for their share if the state chooses to pass through
support to families. NCSL strongly supports a change in federal law
that eliminates the requirement that states reimburse the Federal
Government if the state chooses to pass-through child support to
families. This will also strengthen the relationship between fathers,
mothers, and their children. It may also lead to reconciliation and/or
marriage. Noncustodial parent programs, especially fatherhood programs,
are also critical to this effort. We reiterate our concern that as
states update their child support legislation, technical assistance is
needed to assist the states as they come into compliance with federal
goals.
LEGAL Immigrants and refugees
Mr. Chairman, I urge you to reconsider the 1996 provisions that
deny eligibility for legal immigrants and certain refugees to the TANF
program and to create a state option to provide TANF funded services to
these families. The 1996 welfare law eliminated most of the federal
safety net that serves legal immigrants and consequently shifted these
costs to states. 23 states including New York provide assistance to
those families using state funds. Unfortunately, by barring these
families from TANF, legal immigrants cannot even access TANF funded
services that could make it possible for them to improve their ability
to work such as job training and ESL. While some benefits have been
restored to some immigrants, much more should be done. The President
listened to state lawmakers' concerns on this issue and has proposed
restoration of food stamp benefits to legal immigrants. There should be
a state option to provide TANF to legal immigrants as well.
WELFARE WAIVERS
NCSL strongly believes that states need flexibility for further
innovation. State legislators would prefer to have options, rather than
waivers, for policy changes. NCSL strongly believes that states must be
able to continue current federal waivers and receive new federal
waivers for welfare reform.
Program coordination remains a barrier to state innovation. I was
very pleased to hear the President propose a ``super waiver'' process
for demonstration programs that could cut across programs and federal
departments. It is very important that we work closely together on the
details of this proposal.
SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT
Social Services Block Grant (SSBG or Title XX) funds are a vital
part of the delivery of community and home-based services to the most
vulnerable segments of society including the disabled, elderly, and
children in need of protective services. NCSL urges the Federal
Government to fund the SSBG at the level agreed to as part of the
enactment of the 1996 welfare reform act, $2.8 billion. New York
transfers more from TANF into SSBG than the amount of its SSBG
allotment. It is critical that the amount states can transfer from
their TANF grants to the SSBG remains at least 10% and is not reduced.
If New York can only transfer 4.25% of its TANF grant into the SSBG,
that would mean:
21,000 fewer children in subsidized day care;
70,000 fewer adults helped in adult protective
services; and
138,000 cases in the child protective services system
that would have casework disrupted or delayed.
States use their SSBG funds to provide protective services for
children and adults, adult day care, meal preparation and delivery for
the elderly, counseling services, and serve the disabled in their
homes, rather than in institutions. Further reductions in funding for
this grant would mean programmatic losses and service reductions.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony, I would be very happy to
respond to any questions that you and the members of the subcommittee
have at this time.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Senator Meier. Now, Mayor
O'Malley.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARTIN O'MALLEY, MAYOR, BALTIMORE,
MARYLAND, AND CHAIRMAN, TASK FORCE ON TANF REAUTHORIZATION,
U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
Mr. O'MALLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good
afternoon. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to join you
here on this very, very important issue critical to America's
cities and America's families, including many in my own City of
Baltimore.
My name is Martin O'Malley. As you have been told, I am the
Mayor of the City of Baltimore testifying today on behalf of
the U.S. Conference of Mayors in my capacity as Chairman of the
Conference of Mayors Task Force on TANF Reauthorization. I am
supported by our Assistant Executive Director, Ms. Crystal
Swann, seated directly behind me.
The U.S. Conference represents Mayors on both sides of the
political aisle, and regardless of party this is an issue about
which we care very deeply. Cities have made great progress in
reducing our welfare case load since 1996. Child poverty
recorded its greatest 5-year drop in 30 years. The percentage
of people on welfare fell to its lowest level in 35 years, but
if you look at the recent turn of events, the number of
children now with an unemployed parent rose sharply in 2000,
when single moms suffered a 25-percent jump in unemployment.
Whatever progress we have made, it is very fragile progress
and it is very incomplete progress, but in the past 5 years we
have learned about some things that work and things that don't.
We now know of course people with a degree or skills are more
likely to escape poverty, and among parents who left Welfare-
to-Work and are now unemployed, it is the lack of child care
that was the leading reason for their job loss.
Baltimore's Congressman Ben Cardin introduced a bill that
addresses one of these critical needs by increasing Child Care
and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) funding to $11.5 billion. I
support that and thank him for his leadership on this issue in
Congress, as he was a leader in our State.
Local welfare offices play a critical role in determining
whether families who leave welfare actually receive the support
they need. Local offices have to create one-stop centers
providing referrals for a range of services, including child
care, health care, and transportation. They would work better
by combining TANF and workforce investment funding.
This year we have an opportunity to work together to
accomplish some tremendous things in this reauthorization at
all levels of government.
I would like to focus today in my testimony on three
primary objectives: Opportunity, accountability, and outcome.
It is my personal view that some time limits in work
participation rate requirements are critical to continued
success. In my own State of Maryland, since 1995, Baltimore has
gone from representing 43 percent of the State's welfare case
load to now, though unfortunately, representing 63 percent even
as the number of cases in our city drop by more than half.
We have changed expectations, but those reforms have
resulted in a welfare system that is increasingly concentrating
poverty in America's cities. This shift has left us with an
enormous task in lifting residents in America's poorest, most
violent, and blighted communities. In our cities, even in
places like the rest of Maryland where the welfare rolls have
dropped by more than three-quarters, the goal of self-
sufficiency is not being met. No one with a family can be self-
sufficient on a minimum wage income. We can't ask employers to
hire these Americans without some assurance that they have had
significant skills training.
The TANF should provide funding for transitional community
service jobs. One possible means to accomplish this through
federal-local partnership, funding entry level jobs in cities,
should help low income fathers find jobs by extending access to
TANF employment services and eliminate provisions that bar two-
parent families from participating.
Given the great need to invest in training and to address
other skills needs for Americans, it is encouraging that there
is a broad consensus to preserve TANF funding at the current
level, but there has to be greater accountability for how those
funds are spent. I would like to use a few examples of my own
State to illustrate what I mean.
As of last year, since the passage of the 1996 welfare
reform legislation, 150,000 clients left the welfare rolls.
There were 77,000 welfare recipients in Maryland compared to
227,000 in 1995.
That case load reduction resulted in $530 million in
welfare reform savings in State and federal funds, which once
solely made direct cash payments to Maryland's families in
need. Half, or $265 million, of these savings are federal TANF
funds, provided specifically to needy families.
Of this $530 million in savings, only $200 million has been
reinvested in breaking the cycle of poverty. Ninety million
dollars was shifted to a dedicated purpose fund in the event of
an economic downturn. This year most of that rainy day fund was
raided, or appropriated, shall we say more politely, to plug
gaps in the State general fund.
Far worse, $210 million, or only 40 percent, of these funds
have been diverted entirely from the mission of welfare reform:
Supporting poor families and helping them become self-
sufficient.
Our State, like other States, instead substituted welfare
savings to make foster care payments that used to be funded by
general funds, child welfare services, and Maryland Department
of Human Resources programs, all that were once funded by State
dollars.
I would like to conclude, I see my time is up. It is
extremely important as you look at this that we end supplanting
at the State level, that we continue to provide flexibility but
also increase accountability and, additionally, that you allow
local governments to directly access these. This is where we
are on the hook, where we have a political stake in the
outcomes to make sure that these dollars go to improving
people's lot in life, helping them escape poverty, these
dollars should be used for families that are facing tough
times, not for Governors who are facing tough choices. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Malley follows:]
Statement of the Hon. Martin O'Malley, Mayor, Baltimore, Maryland, on
behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors
Good Afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Cardin and Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before
you today on an issue critical to America's cities and America's
families--including many in my city, Baltimore.
I am Martin O'Malley, Mayor of Baltimore. I am testifying today on
behalf of The United States Conference of Mayors in my capacity as
Chairman of the Conference of Mayors Task Force on TANF
Reauthorization.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors represents mayors on both sides of
the political aisle. And regardless of party, this is an issue about
which we care deeply. Cities have made great progress in reducing our
welfare case loads since 1996. Child poverty recorded its greatest 5-
year drop in 30 years. The percentage of people on welfare fell to its
lowest level in 35 years. These are indisputably good things.
In the past five years, we've learned what works and what doesn't.
For example, education and training and access to child care are major
factors in how people fare after welfare.
People with a degree or skill are more likely to
escape poverty.
And among parents who left welfare for work, and are
now unemployed, lack of child care was the leading reason for
their job loss.
Baltimore's Congressman Ben Cardin introduced a bill that addresses
one of these critical needs by increasing Child Care and Development
Block Grant funding to $11.5 billion.
Welfare offices play a critical role in determining whether
families leaving welfare actually receive the support they need.
They must one-stop centers providing referrals for a
range of services including child care, health care and
transportation. And they would work better by combining TANF
and Workforce Investment Act funding.
This year, we have an opportunity to work together--on all levels
of government--to complete the job we have begun: moving more families
from welfare to work, and more working poor families to a better, more
self-sufficient life.
My testimony today will focus on three primary objectives that are
critical in TANF reauthorization: opportunity, accountability and
outcomes.
Opportunity
My personal view is that time limits and work participation rate
requirements are critical to the continued success of welfare reform.
But while they have changed expectations, these reforms have resulted
in a welfare system that is increasingly concentrated in America's
cities. In my own state of Maryland, since 1995, Baltimore has gone
from representing 43% of the State's welfare case load to 63%--even as
the number of cases in our city dropped by more than half.
This shift has left us with the enormous task of lifting the
residents of America's poorest, most violent and blighted communities--
communities that were allowed to, or even hastened into, decay by
decades of well-intended but misguided government policy on the
federal, state and local level.
Given government's culpability, we have a special, moral
responsibility to invest in returning these areas to decent standard of
living. Many of the pathologies that affect cities, like teenage
pregnancy, addiction, violence and generations of grinding poverty,
were enabled by policies that shredded the social compact in America's
cities--in the apt phrase of former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, we
``defined deviancy down.''
In our inner cities, and even in places like the rest of Maryland's
counties where the welfare rolls have dropped by more than three-
quarters, the goal of self-sufficiency in the current law is not being
met. Without work supports such as childcare, transportation, food
stamps, housing supports, and Medicaid, many people who are working,
and working hard, would not be making it.
No one with a family can be self-sufficient in a minimum wage job.
And many of those who still remain on the welfare roles are, in fact,
only qualified to work in minimum wage jobs. They are the hardest to
help. Many have multiple barriers to employment. Many are high school
dropouts with no GEDs. Many are non-English speaking. Many often have
multiple problems like substance abuse and mental illness. Many are
severely learning-disabled. And many have no work history.
If you were an employer, would you hire them without the assurance
that they have had significant skills training? TANF should:
Provide funding for transitional community service
jobs. One possible means to accomplish this is through a
federal/local partnership funding entry-level jobs in cities to
improve the quality of life in troubled neighborhoods--a double
benefit, providing local employment and enhanced local
services, like sanitation and community development.
Help low-income fathers find jobs by extending access
to TANF employment services.
Eliminate provisions that bar two-parent families
from participating.
Additionally, we should expand the earned income tax credit and
eliminate the existing marriage penalty in the effective program.
Accountability
Given the great need to invest in training and addressing other
critical needs for those Americans who remain on our welfare rolls five
years after the beginning of reform, it is encouraging that there is
broad consensus to preserve TANF funding at its current level. The
President is providing strong leadership in this regard.
But there must be greater accountability for how this funding is
spent. Sadly, far too many states are using TANF funds to supplant
state funds in their budgets. We support some level of flexibility to
ensure that the wide range of issues we face can be met, but stricter
controls must be put in place to remind governors that the Congress
appropriated these funds for families facing hard times, not
politicians facing hard choices.
Let me use the example of my own state to illustrate what I mean:
As of last year, since the passage of the 1996
welfare reform legislation, 150,589 clients left the welfare
rolls. There were 77,298 welfare recipients in Maryland
compared to 227,887 in 1995.
This case load reduction has resulted in $530 million
in welfare reform savings in State and federal funds, which
once solely made payments to Maryland's families in need.
Half--or $265 million--of these savings are federal Temporary
Assistance For Needy Families (TANF) funds, provided
specifically to aid needy families.
Of this $530 million in savings, $200 million has
been reinvested in breaking the cycle of poverty and dependence
by providing employment opportunities, supporting local
welfare-to-work efforts and subsidizing child care for working
mothers.
$90 million was shifted to a ``dedicated purpose
fund'' in the event of an economic downturn. This year, most of
this rainy day fund was raided to plug a gap in the State
general fund--to dodge difficult budget choices, not to help
struggling families. There is about $11 million left.
However, $210 million--or 40%--of these funds have
been diverted entirely from the mission of welfare reform:
supporting poor families and helping them become self-
sufficient.
The Governor substituted welfare savings to make
Foster Care Payments, and to fund Child Welfare Services and
other DHR programs. While these are TANF eligible programs,
they always have been funded in addition to not instead of
welfare-to-work programs. By diverting welfare savings from
their intended purpose, the State is able to shift $210 million
in State General Funds, formerly used for foster care and child
welfare, into purposes unrelated to helping poor families.
As a result--despite $530 million in savings that
could and should be dedicated to helping poor families--we are
spending much less, not more, to support low-income families in
their efforts to become self-sufficient.
Much of the $210 million that has been diverted from
welfare reform is being spent in large part on construction
projects around the state. And the dividend from welfare
reform's success is not being reinvested in the human capital
that remains.
I know that Maryland is not alone in these budgetary shenanigans.
Very simply, the TANF funds that the Congress has appropriated are not
being spent in the manner the Congress intended. And they are badly
needed for that purpose--providing opportunity and increasing self-
sufficiency. If nothing else is changed from the 1996 law, please clamp
down on this abuse.
One possible solution, given the increasing concentration of
welfare recipients in America's cities, is to provide TANF funding
directly to cities. Send the resources to where they are needed and
hold us accountable for getting people to work.
Outcomes
Finally, our calls for compassion can't be an excuse not to demand
results. Mayors are as guilty of this offense as anyone, but it extends
to all levels of government. Adlai Stephenson once said, ``Bad
administration will kill good policy every time.'' It's not enough to
say you care, you have to prove it through your actions.
Just as accountability must be increased for state governments
concerning how TANF dollars are spent, we support increasing
accountability for local government. What gets measured gets done. We
must remain focused on results.
Given the importance and difficulty of what we are trying to
accomplish, it is unconscionable that we do not better track outcomes--
outcomes like employment, rising income levels, and each generation
improving on their parent's life. This is the American Dream, yet it
does not seem available for children growing up in neighborhoods where
poverty is an expectation and upward mobility virtually unknown.
In Baltimore, every other week, we are tracking indicators ranging
from social services, to job training and placement, to clients served
at our one-stop centers. We're not yet where we need to be. I don't
know that anyone is.
Traditionally, human services agencies have been reluctant to
measure outcomes because the work they do is so difficult. But we must
take responsibility for helping people change their circumstance. The
only way I know is to relentlessly track results and manage based on
quality information. Jack Maple, the inventor of Comstat once told me
that everything can be statted.
I don't have all the answers, but I do know if we are not wed to
what has failed in the past, and we are not afraid of what real
information might tell us, we can do a better job for the people we
serve.
To do so:
We must end supplanting at the state level.
We must continue providing flexibility for state--and
additionally local--governments to serve the people they know
best.
We must think creatively about how we get people into
jobs, and how we engage the private sector--whether with
subsidies or training.
We must help people get past that first entry-level
job.
And we can't forget fathers.
Thank you for allowing me to testify here today. This is critical
to America's cities. I will be glad to answer any questions.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mayor O'Malley, and I thank
you, Senator Meier. With that, we will turn to questions. The
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Camp.
Mr. CAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mayor O'Malley, I
appreciate your testimony and certainly for the record you have
laid out in terms of reducing child poverty and other positive
things that have happened as a result of welfare reform. I know
that one of your calls is for more money to be spent on child
care, and I don't know if you were present when the Secretary
testified that over the next 5 years we are going to have $167
billion in federal funds on TANF and child care dollars
available.
So, it is a significant investment in these programs, and
child care funding has tripled since welfare reform began, and
yet there is a perception here that there is no rational basis
for the amount of child care funds people have come before this
Committee and requested. I note that your testimony initially
was that it was essential that $20 billion be spent on child
care and now I know your testimony today is that $11 billion
would be appropriate, and I just think that we have to be
careful that there is some rational basis for the numbers that
are thrown around here. I guess I would just ask for your quick
comment on that if I could. Which is it?
Mr. O'MALLEY. I would be happy either with $20 billion or
$11.5 billion, Congressman.
Mr. CAMP. Did you say $11.5 million?
Mr. O'MALLEY. Billion.
Mr. CAMP. All right.
Mr. O'MALLEY. While that is nice, $167 million is a
fraction of what is needed. The people who lose their jobs
after getting out of welfare and going to work always cite
child care as the biggest impediment for them continuing in the
workplace.
I mean, we are asking moms to choose between whether they
want to keep their job or whether they want to keep their kids,
and I think that the dollars spent on investing--I mean look at
all of the dollars that have gone into TANF, all of the savings
that have been supplanted by States. If a fraction of those
were directed by this Congress to go into child care, I think
those would be dollars well spent. If only you were to stop
half of the supplanting the States do and start directing those
things to care, I think it would be a benefit to the economy of
this country. I think it would be a huge benefit to the
workforce, which would help businesses in this country, and I
don't know the rational basis for it but I don't understand the
rational basis for allowing Governors to use TANF savings as a
slush fund so that they don't have to make----
Mr. CAMP. One of the things that we are hoping to do, as
you asked for, is to have greater flexibility and have the
ability, where necessary, in certain States to transfer TANF
funds to the child care block grant and have a little greater
flexibility there.
I appreciate your testimony whether it is $11 billion or
$20 billion, but we don't have those kinds of options. It is
important to have really some idea as to why the Conference of
Mayors would have such a disparity in terms of the numbers they
are asking for when they come before this Committee, and that
is just a point that I think is a concern to us because none of
the dollars come here unless we take it from other people and I
think we want to make sure that we exercise that responsibility
very, very carefully. So, I appreciate what you are doing and
all the testimony you gave today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. O'MALLEY. Thank you.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Camp. Now we turn to the
gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, to inquire.
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me try to first
respond to Mr. Camp if I might. I don't think the Conference of
Mayors, or NCSL or National Governors are asking for any
greater share of the federal pie for poverty programs than we
are currently spending. If you add up all the additional funds,
it still will be a percentage of the federal budget, will
probably decline.
In regards to child care let me just try to help you again.
We currently spend $4.5 billion a year in the federal program,
which meets about 18 percent of federal eligible in child care.
We can do the arithmetic and I would be the first to
acknowledge that we cannot afford to get up to 100 percent in a
short period of time. It is going to take us time to get up
there. So, every dollar we can get into child care will be
spent by our States and local governments to make available
child care to people who currently cannot afford it.
Last, let me say there has been a survey that we will hear
from later that the additional requirements on the States
brought about by the administration's bill would cost about
$7.5 billion more in child care to implement. So, using any of
those rationalizations, we can come up with a figure I think
that we all could agree upon should be added to the current
dollars made available by the Federal Government for child
care.
Senator Meier, let me thank you very much for your
testimony. Some of my finest moments were in NCSL, including
testifying before Congress as representing NCSL. So, it is a
pleasure to have you here. I want to just underscore the point
you made and make sure I say it correctly. It seems to me that
New York currently has 70 percent of its case load in
activities that I think any rational person would say is on a
path to self-sufficiency, but yet you would not meet the 70
percent test that is in the administration's proposal. Am I
correct in that?
Mr. MEIER. Statewide we would not presently meet the test
under the proposal.
Mr. CARDIN. That is what concerns me. I agree with you,
this is a partnership, this is trust, this is flexibility to
States and funding to States and New York is doing it right if
you have 70 percent of your case load in activities that will
lead to self-sufficiency. We shouldn't be telling you to do it
differently, and that I guess is my major concern, and I very
much appreciate having the specifics from one particular State.
Mr. Mayor, I agree with your point about the shifting of
funds. I saw what the Maryland General Assembly did in this
past session in the Maryland legislation. The Governor has been
pretty supportive of poverty programs, but not this year. It
was a tough year. We found that without additional requirements
that our States are likely to shift to more popular programs,
and if we are going to break the cycle of poverty, if we are
going to break the welfare cycle, it seems to me we have to
really break the poverty cycle in our cities and that is what I
guess concerns me. You have the highest proportion of welfare
recipients but you have also have the poverty, and if we can
break the poverty cycle, if we can get people into real jobs,
it seems to me that is our best hope for our urban centers, and
I would like to work with you to see how we can make sure the
money gets to our cities. I am concerned that in many cases the
cities are being short-changed on the dollars that are being
made available.
Mr. O'MALLEY. Sadly, Congressman, as you know from your
experience with our State budget, when the supplanting happens
unfortunately the savings that the Congress intended would go
to help families get out of poverty are instead becoming
suburban reparations. They fall to the bottom line. They get
spread around like so much political capital around the State
at the end of the day, and it is really sad. I think if there
were direct funding to cities where the local governments and
the people who they work for actually have the political stake
in the effective and proper use of those funds, for jobs skills
training, I think that the Federal Government would get a much
better bang for their dollar than making it easier on State
budgets.
Mr. CARDIN. Senator Meier, I just want to see how great the
risk is that you mentioned that you could be taking money that
you currently use for English language programs or for job
training programs and using them for subsidized employment or
job fair type programs, which I know New York has resisted.
Every State has resisted. Under these guidelines as proposed by
the administration is that a real risk?
Mr. MEIER. I think it is, but let me emphasize, I believe,
as I think most people do, that everybody receiving benefits
ought to do something, but we think that, for example, the task
of learning English is work. We are not talking about having
people to go to school interminably. We are talking about
people receiving some services that they need to work through
some basic barriers to employment, literacy, English
proficiency, perhaps some degree of vocational training, and we
think that then, as I said, leads to private sector employment.
People on welfare should be given the opportunity to reach
independence the same way everyone else in America does it,
which is in the private sector economy, not on a created make-
work kind of government job.
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you.
Chairman HERGER. Again, I thank you but I might mention
before I recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
English, that the 16 hours after the 24 would be at the
discretion of the States to be able to determine. So, you would
have the opportunity to determine whether or not English as a
second language would count in your work. So, with that, I turn
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. English, to inquire.
Mr. ENGLISH. I want to thank the Chairman, and I
particularly want to thank you, Senator Meier, for taking the
time to appear here. As someone who worked as a staffer for the
Pennsylvania Senate, I am very well aware of the level of
professionalism and seriousness in your State legislature and
particularly in your State Senate. So, we are grateful to you
for bringing your expertise here and for your coming here as an
advocate of State flexibility.
On that point, some proposals, for example Mr. Cardin's
bill, seek in one respect to tie States' hands in enforcing
sanctions, requiring lengthy conciliation and notification
processes enforced under federal law before anyone can be
subjected to sanctions for refusing to work, among other
things. What do you make of such proposals, and what effect do
you think they would have on States' abilities to operate
welfare programs that are focused on getting people into work?
Mr. MEIER. Congressman, thank you for that question. I
think one of the great geniuses of welfare reform was it
started with the most basic principle of American government,
federalism. We are a country that has a vast array of
differences and different types of communities, and so forth,
and States know best what is going to work in terms of whether
it is the sanction process or any other element of how they
structure this welfare program.
My own experience in New York has been that the sanction
process generally fairly observes the rights of public
assistance recipients. If I might briefly respond to Ranking
Member Cardin's point, the problem, Mr. Cardin, is not the
split or the discretion we get in 16. It is that if someone who
lacks English or basic skills can't even get up to 24 hours in
part-time employment, then none of it counts and that would be
the problem, sir, with, for example, the young woman in the
article that you authored. If because of a lack of English she
couldn't even get 20 hours, none of it would work. We are not
asking to say let her do nothing. We are saying give us some
flexibility in how to structure it into up front things like
basic English proficiency.
Mr. ENGLISH. Reclaiming my time. Senator Meier, could you
give us a sense of where NCSL bounces when it comes to lengthy
conciliation requirements built in as a prerequisite to taking
someone out of a--well, cutting off someone's benefits or
putting them in a work program?
Mr. MEIER. The NCSL comes down on the side of federalism,
Congressman, and believes those matters are best left up to
individual States addressing the particular characters of their
own States and communities.
Mr. ENGLISH. Very good. Senator, on another point, quoting
your testimony, there should be a State option to provide TANF
to legal immigrants as well. We have looked at this issue a
couple of times since 1996. We have liberalized benefits in a
couple of areas, but I find there continues considerable
resistance to the notion of providing transfer payments, cash
payments to non-citizens. Can you give us some hypotheticals of
where you think States should be allowed to use TANF benefits
to support non-citizens?
Mr. MEIER. Well, Congressman, what we are talking about is
the area of legal immigrants, people who have played by the
rules, obeyed the law. We might want to look at some inquiries
to make sure that this is not someone who has come here for the
sole purpose of qualifying for public assistance benefits. I
would think you would find that it is arduous enough to get
here that you wouldn't find too many people who would do that
kind of drill, but if they have played by the rules and come
here we want to encourage them to participate in American
society. If they play by the rules with everyone else, I don't
see why they shouldn't qualify at State option for the
benefits.
Mr. ENGLISH. I am not sure I agree but I appreciate your
testimony, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, and again we thank you, Senator
Meier, for your fine testimony.
Mr. MEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members.
Chairman HERGER. You are welcome. Before we move to panel
4, we have the Honorable Barbara Lee, Congresswoman from
California, to testify.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BARBARA LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon.
Chairman HERGER. Good afternoon.
Ms. LEE. I want to thank you and our Ranking Member, Mr.
Cardin, and the Subcommittee Members for this opportunity to
address the Subcommittee on the issue of welfare reform
reauthorization proposals.
Now unfortunately, or fortunately, I have some personal
experience with this issue. If we allow women access to
education and child care, they can do anything, anything that
they set their minds to do, even be elected to the U.S.
Congress.
I want to focus on three important issues surrounding
welfare reform, access to education and child care, and
comprehensive sex education. We all agree that education is the
key to success in this country.
Just last year, for example, a huge bipartisan majority
worked together to pass a major piece of legislation better
known as the Leave No Child Behind law. Now I want to also
leave No Public Assistance Recipient Behind either. We must
allow them to receive their General Equivalency Diploma, attend
a technical school, or enroll in a community college or a 4-
year college or a university.
Now, we all know that people with higher education have
higher incomes. Full-time workers with master's degrees earn
over $4,500 a month on average and those with a bachelor's
degree earn over $3,700 a month. However, high school graduates
bring home comparably less, only about $2,200 a month. Now,
those without a diploma earn on the average a paltry $1,700.
When you factor in paying for rent, especially in high cost
areas such as northern California, transportation, groceries,
and child care, that $1,700 a month really becomes zero.
Now, I believe that the administration's welfare reform
plan makes it significantly harder for parents transitioning
off of welfare to get that needed education to get a good
paying job which not only lifts their family out of poverty but
also contributes to the economy. Instead of allowing parents to
finish high school, it is my understanding that the
administration's plan actually eliminates the current law's
ability to count high school attendance for dropouts over age
20.
So, instead of making it easier for parents to prepare
themselves for better jobs, the administration's plan
eliminates the current law's ability to count up to a year of
full-time education or training.
Now, this goes in the wrong direction. We continue to pass
legislation in Congress to make it easier for parents to save
for college and have tax credits to use for college expenses,
but then we single out poor mothers by taking away the few
means that they have to attend college or finish high school.
Congress must continue and expand the credits available for
education in any welfare reform legislation.
Also, I believe that education should be counted as work.
We should not kick someone off of welfare if they are in
college. This is really counterproductive.
Child care is absolutely essential to any successful
welfare reform program. The extremely high cost of child care
and the difficulty parents have in finding child care are two
of the most pressing issues and challenges facing parents
transitioning off of welfare to work. We cannot expect a mother
to lose all of her benefits and take a job for $5.15 an hour if
her child has nowhere to go that is safe and affordable.
Again, low income parents are hardest hit. Poor families
spend over 35 percent of their income on child care while non-
poor families only spend about 10 percent, according to
Congressional Research Service, and this is assuming of course
that child care is available. Many low income parents have to
work off hours, are far from home and cannot even access this
care, let alone afford it.
So, we must increase discretionary funds for the Child Care
and Development Fund and entitlement funding so that we may
adjust for inflation and enact necessary changes to serve more
families in need and to ensure quality child care. We must
maintain the current programs' flexibility and ensure that all
child care accounts are fully funded.
Finally, I want to touch just briefly on the issue of the
abstinence-only program that was established under the 1996
Act, and I was in the California Senate at that time serving on
the conference Committee on welfare reform. We actually, I
believe, are the only State not to take these funds, in part
because of our mandate in teaching comprehensive AIDS
education.
I believe this is a misguided program and really prohibits
the teaching of comprehensive sex education. We cannot prevent
unwanted teen pregnancies, HIV and AIDS and other sexually
transmitted infections unless our schools are allowed to talk
about contraception as well as abstinence.
No studies have shown that abstinence-only programs are
successful. So, I ask this Committee to consider really
President Bush's call to defund unproven programs, and this is
one that really should be defunded.
So, I have introduced H.R. 3469, the Family Life Education
Act, which would provide $100 million to teach comprehensive
sex education.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, once again thank you for allowing me
the opportunity to be here. I believe that Congress must stop
punishing women and children solely because they are poor. The
majority of women on welfare want to work. I know that. Welfare
reform should have as a goal access to education, to good
paying jobs, and to the reduction of poverty. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lee follows:]
Statement of the Hon. Barbara Lee, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cardin, and subcommittee members,
thank you for this opportunity to address the subcommittee on the issue
of welfare reform reauthorization proposals.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, I have personal experience with this
issue. If we allow women access to education and child care, they can
do anything they set their minds to--even be elected to the United
States Congress.
I want to focus on three important issues surrounding welfare
reform: access to education and child care, and comprehensive sex
education.
Education is the key to success in this country. Just last year, a
huge bipartisan majority worked together to pass the Leave No Child
Behind law. I want to leave no welfare recipient behind. We must allow
them to receive their GED, attend a technical school, or enroll in a
community college or four-year college or university.
We all know that people with higher education have higher incomes.
Full-time workers with master's degrees earn over $4,500/month on
average and those with a bachelor's degree earn over $3,700/month.
However, high school graduates bring home comparably less--only about
$2,200/month. Those without a diploma earn on average a paltry $1,700/
month.
When you factor in paying for rent (especially in high-cost areas
such as the Bay Area), transportation, groceries, and child care, that
$1700/month quickly becomes $0.
However, the Bush/Herger welfare reform plan makes it significantly
harder for a parent transitioning off of welfare to get that needed
education to get a good-paying job, which not only lifts their family
out of poverty but also contributes to the economy.
Instead of allowing parents to finish high school, the Bush/Herger
plan actually eliminates the current law's ability to count high school
attendance for dropouts over age 20.
Instead of making it easier for parents to prepare themselves for
better jobs, the Bush/Herger plan eliminates the current law's ability
to count up to a year of full-time education or training.
This goes in the wrong direction. We continue to pass legislation
in Congress to make it easier for parents to save for college and have
tax credits to use for college expenses. But then we single out poor
mothers by taking away the few means they have to attend college or
finish high school. Congress must continue and expand the credits
available for education in any welfare reauthorization legislation.
Education should be counted as work. We should not kick someone off
welfare if they are in college.
Child care is absolutely essential to any successful welfare
reform. The extremely high cost of care and the difficulty parents have
in finding care are two of the most pressing issues and challenges
facing parents transitioning off of welfare to work. We cannot expect a
mother to lose all of her benefits and take a job for $5.15 if her
child has nowhere to go that is safe and affordable.
Again, low-income parents are hardest hit. Poor families spend over
35% of their income on child care while non-poor families only spend
about 10%, according to CRS.
And this is assuming that care is available. Many low-income
parents have to work off-hours, or far from home, and cannot even
access this care, let alone afford it.
We must increase discretionary funds for the Child Care and
Development Fund and entitlement funding so that we may adjust for
inflation and enact necessary changes to serve more families in need
and to ensure quality child care. We must maintain the current
programs' flexibility and ensure that all child care accounts are fully
funded.
Finally, I want to touch on the issue of the abstinence-only
program that was established under the 1996 Act. This misguided program
prohibits the teaching of comprehensive sex education if states take
the funds. My state of California, in fact, is the only state to not
take these funds, in part because of our mandate of teaching
comprehensive AIDS education. We cannot prevent unwanted teen
pregnancies, HIV/AIDS, and other STIs unless our schools are allowed to
talk about contraception.
No studies have shown abstinence-only programs to be successful. I
ask that this committee consider President Bush's call to de-fund
unproven programs. The abstinence-only program clearly fails the Bush
criteria to show proven results. I have introduced legislation, H.R.
3469, the Family Life Education Act, which would provide $100 million
to teach comprehensive sex education. Reducing the number of unwanted
teen pregnancies will surely reduce the number of mothers who turn to
the welfare rolls.
In short, Congress needs to stop punishing women and children
solely because they are poor. Everyone deserves the same access to the
American dream--an education, a good job, enough to eat, and a home.
Welfare reform should have as a goal access to education leading to
good paying jobs and the reduction of poverty.
Thank you.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Ms. Lee. We appreciate your
testimony, and with that if we could hear from our panel 4
please, if there aren't any questions.
Ms. LEE. Thank you.
Chairman HERGER. Panel 4, Robin Arnold-Williams, Executive
Director, Utah Department of Human Services, on behalf of the
American Public Human Services Association; Lawrence Mead,
Professor of Politics, New York University; Robert Rector,
Senior Policy Analyst, Heritage Foundation; Wendell Primus,
Director of Income Security Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities; Jason Turner, Director, Center of Self-Sufficiency,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Ray Scheppach, Executive Director,
National Governors' Association. Ms. Williams.
STATEMENT OF ROBIN ARNOLD-WILLIAMS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UTAH
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF UTAH,
AND AMERICAN PUBLIC HUMAN SERVICES ASSOCIATION
Ms. ARNOLD-WILLIAMS. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today on behalf of the State of Utah.
Chairman HERGER. If you could turn your microphone on,
please, the switch in there.
Ms. ARNOLD-WILLIAMS. Is it on now? There. Okay.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you.
Ms. ARNOLD-WILLIAMS. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today on behalf of the State of Utah and the American
Public Human Services Association (APHSA).
Prior to welfare reform, families were trapped in a pattern
of dependency that few believed could be reversed. By the mid-
1990s, 48 States, including mine, were operating our programs
under waiver with work as a central focus and with great
success.
In 1996, States and Congress struck a new bipartisan deal
to expand upon this success. We were challenged to achieve new
goals like mandatory work participation requirements and
lifetime time limits within fixed federal funding and in return
were given tremendous flexibility in how to choose to achieve
those goals. We have reached unprecedented success, as
evidenced by 1 million former welfare recipients moving into
private sector employment, escalating child support
collections, and declining poverty.
In Utah we have maintained a consistent focus on increasing
family income through employment and child support. Our
strategies include universal participation, individualized case
assessment and employment planning, diversion, and ongoing case
management.
On behalf of APHSA, I express our enthusiastic support for
many of the proposals made by the President and provided for in
Chairman Herger's bill, specifically full TANF funding and
supplemental grants, removing restrictions on unobligated
funds, expanding flexibility in the State maintenance of effort
requirement, excluding child care and transportation from the
definition of assistance, State rainy day funds, continuing and
expanding transferability options and funding research and
demonstration related to marriage and family formation, and
renewal of abstinence education efforts.
As you consider reauthorization, continued success will be
contingent on four factors. First, maintaining and enhancing
flexibility, and we urge you to reject any changes requiring
States to abandon their goals and meet process measures,
penalties, or purposes that are inconsistent with our
successful strategies. Second, maintaining federal and State
financial investments in TANF and related programs, including
allowing for inflationary increases, full restoration of Social
Services Block Grant Program funding, and transferability
options. Third, maintaining the work focus.
We have demonstrated that we can make work, work. We
believe it is important to raise the bar of expectations in the
next phase of welfare reform, but we urge a focus on broad
outcomes. Work rates may have been the most appropriate success
measure in 1996, but today they are an incomplete measure of
State efforts and client success.
I am troubled by recent national data showing such large
portions of our case loads participating. This may not truly
provide the complete picture of actual participation by our
TANF families. Policy decisions regarding participation rates,
hours of work, and countable activities must not divert
attention from maintaining our clear focus on the goal of
unsubsidized private sector employment.
Speaking on behalf of a large Western State with
significant rural areas, tribal populations, and encountering
our fifth consecutive month of negative job growth, we are
concerned about the significant challenges that we may face in
meeting the 24-hour work requirement. We are also concerned
about the 3-month limit on intensive substance abuse and other
therapeutic efforts.
Fourth, simplifying and aligning federal program rules and
restrictions that impede our ability to deliver critical
services to families in need. We are supportive of any options
to allow States to align these programs and are excited about
the possibilities of the program integration waivers.
I want to turn my attention to two additional areas that
are critical. Now is the ideal time to address child welfare
issues related to the TANF program, and we appreciate Chairman
Herger addressing it in his bill. To sustain and grow our
progress in assisting children who have been abused or
neglected and their families, States are requesting greater
flexibility within the entitlement structure while maintaining
State accountability and statutory protections for children. We
need to address the look back provision, increase flexibility
in the funding, and reauthorization and expansion of the IV-E
waivers, which Chairman Herger has addressed very well in his
bill, and we thank you for that.
The last area is child support, where we do support efforts
put forth again by the Chairman that would give States the
option to simplify their distribution systems and pass their
moral support to families with the Federal Government sharing
in these costs. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify,
and I would be happy to respond to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Arnold-Williams follows:]
Statement of Robin Arnold-Williams, Executive Director, Utah Department
of Human Services, on behalf of the State of Utah, and American Public
Human Services Association
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am
Robin Arnold-Williams, Executive Director of the Utah Department of
Human Services. Today I am testifying on behalf of the state of Utah
and on behalf of the American Public Human Services Association
(APHSA), a nonprofit, bipartisan organization representing state and
local human service professionals for more than 70 years. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify today on the reauthorization of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.
The National Welfare Reform Success
It is important to note that prior to the enactment of welfare
reform, AFDC case loads were soaring and families were trapped in a
pattern of dependency that few believed could be reversed. Despite poor
family outcomes, for decades rigid federal rules prevented state
administrators from implementing innovative approaches to help families
in need. Under AFDC, states could give families little more than a
check to help them provide for their children. Families faced a
financial cliff if they moved from welfare-to-work because federal
rules discouraged work.
In an attempt to break free from federal restrictions, by the mid-
1990s, 48 states, including my own, were operating their AFDC programs
under federal waiver demonstration programs. Work was the hallmark of
early welfare reform experiments, and by 1996 it became clear that
states were in a better position than the Federal Government to achieve
success in this area. Under the federal welfare reform law of 1996,
states were challenged to achieve new goals under the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families Program--like mandatory work
participation requirements and lifetime time limits--with fixed federal
funding in a block grant. States accepted the challenge of meeting
these new goals within the funding parameters, because the new law also
afforded them tremendous flexibility to achieve those goals.
States have achieved unprecedented success in implementing welfare
reform, such as increased private-sector employment, decreased
dependency on cash benefits, expanded child care services, escalating
child support collections, and declining poverty. For example,
employment rates for never-married mothers increased by 40 percent over
the past five years, reaching an all-time high in 2000. Sixty-six
percent of TANF mothers are working for 30 hours a week in private-
sector employment and an additional 12 percent of them are actively
looking for work. Sixty percent of the TANF mothers who left cash
assistance are holding jobs. And to support those families with work,
between 1996 and 1999 there was an 80 percent increase in the number of
children receiving a monthly child care subsidy. Paternity
establishment has exceeded all expectations and the number of child
support cases with collections has doubled since 1996.
The flexibility afforded to states spawned innovation at the local
level as well; new partnerships were forged with businesses, community
agencies, tribal governments, and faith-based providers to support
welfare families in their transition from welfare to work. In 1996,
Congress may have envisioned 50 different state TANF programs, but in
fact today there are thousands of partnerships in thousands of
communities sharing in the implementation of the welfare law.
Utah's Success
In 1993, Utah received a federal waiver to launch its welfare
reform program that was designed to increase income through earnings
and child support. Utah's strategy is a departure from AFDC; the focus
is placed on universal engagement in activities leading to employment,
a self-sufficiency plan, and full-family case closure for
nonparticipation. Utah achieved great success in moving families off of
welfare and into work through an individualized case assessment,
diversion assistance, employment and training, on-going case management
and aggressive child support collection efforts. When the federal
welfare law was enacted, Utah implemented a 36-month lifetime time
limit with extensions for those who are medically unable to work;
victims of domestic violence; parents caring for the medical needs of a
dependent; or unable to complete education or training programs due to
state inability to deliver needed services. Month to month extensions
are also granted for those employed at least part-time.
Since 1996, Utah's welfare case load has declined 44 percent to a
low of 7,990 in June 2001. case loads began increasing slightly in fall
2001 due to the recent economic downturn. The January 2002 case load
stood at 8656--an 8.3 percent increase over the June 2001 level. But
the true success of our program cannot be captured in case load
statistics or work participation rates. Utah's success is best measured
by the number of TANF families who entered employment. We are
particularly proud of the fact that in FY 2000, Utah received a federal
High Performance Bonus for job placement and in FY 2001, received a
second High Performance Bonus award for our ability to retain our
former TANF clients in employment. Utah has a universal engagement
strategy for all clients receiving assistance, but our ultimate goal
has been private-sector employment through training, on-going
counseling, and aggressive job search. We have not focused our
resources on developing community work experience programs or community
service.
Pending Reauthorization Proposals
First, on behalf of APHSA I would like to express our support for
many of the President's welfare reform proposal outlined in the
document, ``Working Towards Independence.'' Specifically, APHSA is
grateful for the President's bold leadership in maintaining the present
level of TANF block grant funding, and for his recognition of the
demands on high poverty and high population growth states by restoring
the TANF supplemental grants. Between 1990 and 2000, Utah was the
fourth fastest growing state in the country and we appreciate the
recognition of the impact this growth has on service needs. In
addition, we enthusiastically support other financing measures included
in the president's proposal, such as;
continuing and improving the TANF contingency fund;
removing the restriction on unobligated TANF funds;
excluding child care and transportation from the
definition of assistance;
creating state ``rainy day funds'' using unobligated
TANF funds;
continuing the transfer of 30 percent of TANF funds
to the Child Care Development Fund; and
restoring the full transfer authority into the Social
Services Block Grant. APHSA urges the immediate restoration of
transfer authority of up to 10 percent of TANF funds and a
funding level of $2.8 billion annually, as provided in the
original 1996 welfare law.
These provisions will dramatically increase state and local
flexibility in the administration of the TANF program and we urge this
subcommittee and Congress to include these provisions in TANF
reauthorization legislation.
We understand that there were pressures to include earmarks in the
TANF block grant for various initiatives and we are grateful to the
President for proposing a block grant free from any so-called ``set-
asides'' that would restrict state and local flexibility.
We strongly support the President's proposal to eliminate the Two-
Parent Family Work Participation rate. We recognize that Congress may
act to eliminate the case load reduction credit and therefore, we
support the President's proposal to phase-out the credit over time. We
support the President's proposal to continue state authority to exempt
up to 20 percent of their TANF case load from the lifetime time limit
on federal cash assistance payments.
We support the President's proposal to provide technical assistance
to the tribes who currently operate Tribal TANF programs as well as
assistance to those tribes interested in administering their own
programs.
We support the President's focus on child well-being and the
reauthorization of the Abstinence Education Program. We believe the
proposal to fund research, demonstration and technical assistance
programs related to marriage and family formation is superior to a
federal mandate on states to spend a certain percentage of the TANF
block grant on such efforts. In my state of Utah, we have engaged
community, business and religious leaders for several years in an
effort to strengthen marriage and prevent family disintegration. These
efforts, in my view, are most effective when government is one of many
partners in a community-wide effort to invest in and support families.
With respect to child support enforcement, we support proposals,
such as those put forth by the President, that would give states the
option to simply their child support distribution systems and
passthrough more support to families, with the Federal Government
sharing in these costs.
The President's proposal also included recommendations to improve
the federal Food Stamp Program. We support efforts to simplify program
administration; allow families to own a vehicle; restore benefits to
non-citizens and eliminate the cost-neutrality criterion on state
Electronic Benefit Transfer Programs.
We are supportive of the President's objective to provide states
with greater flexibility to manage federal programs together to better
serve families. The Program Integration waivers have the potential to
move performance goals from process measures to outcome measures. We
are anxious to learn more details about eligible programs and the
waiver administration, particularly the rules pertaining to cost
neutrality--a criterion that in previous years, proved to be a serious
obstacle to waiver implementation.
Finally, with respect to the work proposals contained in the
President's reauthorization plan, we support maintaining work as the
primary focus of the TANF program. Work is the centerpiece of state
welfare reform efforts across this country as it was the hallmark of
the early welfare reform demonstrations of the early 1990s. We support
the objective to set new effort to improve state performance with
respect to work. And we look forward to working with the Administration
and Congress to setnew outcomes for the TANF program that would
enhance, rather than refocus state efforts in this area.
Principles of Reauthorization
As Congress considers reauthorization of welfare reform, continued
state success is contingent upon four factors: (1) maintaining and
enhancing the flexibility of the TANF block grant; (2) maintaining an
adequate level of federal support for the block grant and related
programs; (3) maintaining work as a key focus of welfare reform and,
(4) simplifying and aligning federal program rules and goals.
Maintaining and Enhancing Flexibility. States are afforded great
flexibility to design TANF programs that meet their individual goals
and respect the diversity of each state and its citizenry. Over the
past five years, we have learned that the TANF case load is both
dynamic and diverse. Private-sector employment should continue to be
the goal of the TANF program participants. States also need continued
flexibility to design programs and innovative approaches to meet the
changing needs of the families served by their programs. In addition to
work, TANF programs provide support to fragile families struggling to
support their children; promote family well-being; provide child care
services and early childhood development programs; improve parenting
skills and support and preserve families; extend employment and
training opportunities to noncustodial parents; support two-parent
families; prevent teen pregnancy; and provide services to youths to
prevent intergenerational dependence on government assistance. All of
these TANF investments are critical to ensure the continued success of
welfare reform.
There is broad agreement that welfare reform has been a success,
and we urge Congress to continue to support that success. States have
committed TANF resources in support of their state priorities and in
compliance with federal goals and objectives. And thousands of
community partnerships are involved in the implementation of those
priorities. APHSA urges Congress to reject any changes in the TANF
statute that would require states to abandon their goals and redirect
their limited TANF resources to meet process measures, penalties, or
purposes that are inconsistent with states' successful welfare reform
strategies. We urge Congress to set broad goals for the reauthorization
of welfare reform and afford states with the flexibility to devise
their own strategies to meet those outcomes.
We ask the Subcommittee to minimize the burden placed on states to
report unnecessary and costly data reporting requirements. The
information technology changes and increased administrative costs
associated with such requirement could be better expended on provided
services to families in need.
Maintaining Adequate TANF and Related Program Funding. After an
initial start-up transition period from the check-writing focus of AFDC
to the work-focused TANF program, the majority of states are allocating
their full TANF block grant this year and spending prior year dollars
as well. According to the Congressional Budget Office, current TANF
expenditures exceed the authorized level of funding by $2 billion.
APHSA supports maintaining the federal commitment to the TANF block
grant and allowing for annual inflationary increases in the program in
order to sustain services to low-income working families.
Maintaining the Work Focus. Long before Congress mandated work from
welfare clients, states were implementing successful waiver
demonstration projects with work as the focus. States have demonstrated
that they could devise effective TANF strategies that moved more
families from welfare-to-work than ever before in our nation's history.
This record of success should offer Congress adequate evidence that
states are focused on employment. And for those who are left on the
cash assistance case load, according to the most recent federal data,
77 percent of the families that count toward the participation rates
are either in unsubsidized employment or looking for it. Only 11
percent are engaged in workfare activities. The data provide compelling
evidence that states have placed their emphasis on ``real'' work.
Recent Senate and administration proposals have placed a renewed
focus on TANF work participation rates, hours, and definitions. We urge
this subcommittee to look at the welfare-to-work effort more broadly.
TANF work participation rates only represent a very small part of the
welfare-to-work story. The work participation rates only measure the
number of families receiving cash assistance who are engaged in at
least 30 hours of work activities. And in a time-limited welfare
system, the families represented in the work rates are an ever-
shrinking number.
The work participation rates do not include the thousands of
families who receive TANF-funded child care or transportation that
allows them to keep their private-sector jobs. The current rates do not
include the TANF mother who works 29 hours or fewer in a private-sector
job. Mothers, who hold private jobs and received short-term TANF
assistance, such as car repair or assistance in paying their rent or
utilities, are not included in the work rates. Nor are the hundreds of
thousands of mothers who no longer receive cash assistance because they
are earning a paycheck in the private sector.
Work rates may have been an appropriate measure when welfare reform
was enacted in 1996, but today they are an outmoded and incomplete
measure of state welfare-to-work efforts. APHSA recommends that states
be afforded the option to choose between the process measures of
participation rates and the high performance bonus outcome measures of
job placement, retention, and earnings progression. At the very least,
reauthorization legislation should place as much emphasis on the
placement and retention of TANF clients in unsubsidized employment as
it places on the work activity of those receiving cash.
The following proposed changes may require states to restructure
their TANF strategies--eliminating the case load reduction credit,
increasing work participation rates, increasing required work hours to
40 per week, restricting work activities for 24 of the 40 hours, and
eliminating federal waivers. States are in the process of evaluating
the full effect of these potential changes on their programs. We urge
the members of this subcommittee to reach out to your states to
determine the full impact of such policy changes.
With respect to the case load reduction credit, we recognize that
Congress may not continue to allow states to be credited for a case
load decline based on 1995 data. However, if it is eliminated we
recommend phasing out the case load credit and replacing it with an
employment credit. The new credit would provide an incentive for states
to place and retain TANF clients in jobs with earnings; additional
credit should be earned for providing short-term assistance to clients
with earnings as well as for clients in part-time employment with
earnings. As the case load reduction credit is phased out over time,
the improved employment credit would be phased in.
With respect to work participation rates, APHSA supports the
president's proposal to include two-parent TANF families in the all
families rate. And we also believe that TANF mothers, who have multiple
barriers to overcome such as mental health, substance abuse, or
learning disabilities, may need additional time to enter the workforce.
States should be afforded additional flexibility in defining work
activities so that they can place these clients in meaningful
activities that increase the likelihood of long-term success in the
workforce. In this respect, APHSA also supports continuing state
welfare waivers.
With respect to increasing required hours of work to 40, the new
requirement would have unintended effects and increased costs. First,
it is important to note that in 27 states, TANF clients no longer
qualify for cash benefits when they work 40 hours per week at the
minimum wage. In 16 states, clients lose eligibility after 24 hours of
work at $7 per hour. In short, clients will exit welfare before they
can be counted toward the participation rate. For example, if a TANF
client loses eligibility when she works 28 hours at the minimum wage,
the state would have to adjust eligibility rules in order to keep the
family on cash long enough to count them. In a time-limited TANF
program, this would be unfair to the client and contrary to our mission
of moving families off assistance.
According to federal data, in FY 2000, TANF clients worked an
average of 29 hours per week in all federal work categories. Increasing
the number of required hours and work rates will increase the costs of
child care and may require one or more additional child care
arrangements. It may be necessary to either significantly increase TANF
block grant funding or child care funding to support the new work
requirements.
In states experiencing an economic slowdown and in rural or tribal
areas, significant challenges may arise in implementing the proposed
24-hour requirement. Utah, for example, does not have the community
worksite infrastructure to place families in the strict work activities
as proposed. We are concerned that our employment counselors, who work
to negotiate individualized employment plans, would shift to worksite
development and monitoring.
When considering changes to the work rates, we urge you to consider
the potential impact on the millions of families served with TANF
funds. States may be required to redirect program resources or face
substantial financial penalties. States lose 5 percent of their block
grant and must appropriate the equivalent amount of state funds to
their program and the state maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirement is
increased by 5 percent. While there is an existing corrective
compliance plan that might mitigate the financial penalty, the broader
public message will be that the welfare reform program is a failure.
In the long run, neither rates, hours, nor activities matter for
the families we serve. Rather, the ultimate goal of welfare reform is
the transition from cash dependency to job retention and earnings
progression--generating sufficient income to support a family free from
welfare for a lifetime.
Over the past year, APHSA has worked with the National Council of
American Indians to develop joint recommendations for tribal TANF
reauthorization. States and tribal governments share the goal of
expanding employment and economic opportunities for tribal TANF
families. We have endorsed direct and enhanced funding for tribes; new
funding for technical assistance, infrastructure improvement, research,
and program evaluation; access to contingency funds and performance
bonuses; economic development assistance; and a strengthened
partnership between federal, state, and tribal governments. We urge
this subcommittee to consider these proposals.
Simplifying and Aligning Federal Program Rules and Goals.
Conflicting federal program rules, restrictions, and requirements
impede state administrators' ability to deliver critical services to
families in need. For example, TANF program goals and objectives
conflict with Food Stamp Program rules. Rigid eligibility requirements
prescribed in the Workforce Investment Act and the Welfare-to-Work
Program do not afford states with the opportunity to structure a
continuum of employment and training services. As states move TANF
clients from cash assistance, the resources to operate their child
support program decrease significantly. Current federal funding for
child welfare services creates perverse incentives to remove children
from their homes rather than keep families together. Last year, APHSA
published Crossroads: New Directions in Social Policy, setting forth an
agenda for the reform of a wide range of federal human service
programs. We commend this document to your attention and urge
consideration of our recommendations.
Child Care
Since the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in 1996, we have seen a
dramatic increase in the number of families and children served as
evidenced by the unprecedented growth in child care expenditures.
Between 1996 and 1999, there was an 80% increase in the number of
children receiving a monthly child care subsidy.
States have programmed every dollar available for child care. The
child care story is a CCDF and TANF story. Since Fiscal Year (FY) 1997,
we have doubled spending on child care. In FY 2000, states expended
over $9 billion in combined federal and state dollars on child care.
This includes $7 billion from the Child Care and Development Fund
(CCDF) and TANF dollars transferred, plus $2 billion in direct TANF
spending. States have increased TANF spending on child care from $189
million in FY 1997 to $4.3 billion in FY 2000. TANF funds spent on
child care exceeded the entire federal portion of the CCDF allocation
in FY 2000.
Under CCDF, states have met or exceeded the 100% maintenance-of-
effort requirement each year. States have drawn down all matching funds
and have obligated all mandatory and discretionary funds.
The simplicity introduced with the Child Care and Development Block
Grant has greatly contributed to state child care successes.
APHSA supports the need for flexibility in the CCDF that permits
states to design child care plans that balance the expansion of
services and new quality of care initiatives. To that end, state
administrators oppose creating new mandatory set-asides of funding and
increasing current ones. CCDBG was created in part to simplify what was
a myriad of child care programs with little flexibility. We have
demonstrated that we can achieve much more under the current program.
Let us not move backwards by adding more strings to the program and
impeding states' abilities to meet parental needs in a changing
employment environment.
APHSA also advocates flexibility in programming by transferring
funds to CCDF. We support permitting states to transfer up to 10% of
their TANF block grant to the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), a key
source of funding for child care. APHSA also backs the preservation of
state authority to transfer up to 30% of the TANF block grant into CCDF
and the ability to spend TANF funds directly on child care.
APHSA believes that the funding currently in the system should
remain in the system. States are concerned that increased TANF case
loads during the current economic recession may reduce the amount of
TANF funds available for child care. In addition, if Congress mandates
new TANF work requirements, then federal child care funding must
increase as well. We need $4 billion in addition to the CCDF funding to
maintain our current investment. If Congress wants states to increase
quality and increase access, then additional funds will also be needed.
APHSA supports maintaining the state's option to draw down these
funds by a matching fund formula to make unmatched dollars available to
other states at the close of a fiscal year. APHSA calls for a statutory
change to allow donated funds from private sources to count toward
maintenance of effort when funds benefit the donors' facility or use.
States continue to have strong concerns about using 85% of the
state median income as an eligibility standard. Federal funding has not
been provided in order to furnish child care services to this
population deemed federally eligible. In light of the fixed funding
available for child care, we believe strongly that program eligibility
be determined at state and local levels.
Demand for different types of child care is growing as well. We
need more funding to help increase access and quality within
nontraditional hours for child care. We also need additional resources
to create greater access and quality for children with special needs
who require child care. Expanded access and quality require financial
investment. In a block grant, reaching a balance between these
objectives must be accomplished at the state and local levels. We
oppose increasing or expanding quality set-asides before we have agreed
that we have sufficient resources to expand access to all families in
need of such support.
Finally, with respect to child care data reporting requirements,
the system must be simplified. The aggregate data collection report
asks elements repetitive of other required reports and should be
eliminated. The case-level data collection report needs to be amended
to contain elements that actually inform programming needs. States
should also be allowed the option of requiring a social security number
for receipt of benefits under CCDF to increase the ability to offer
cross-programming opportunities.
Child Welfare
APHSA believes that now is the ideal time to address child welfare
issues related to the TANF program. To meet current challenges,
additional requirements posed by the Adoption and Safe Families Act,
increased expectations of state performance, and to sustain and expand
the significant progress that has been made in assisting children who
have been abused or neglected and their families, states will require
greater flexibility in using current funding or increased resources in
the form of new federal investments, and an increased capacity to get
the job done. APHSA supports increased flexibility within the
entitlement structure, with additional federal investments, while
maintaining state accountability and the statutory protections for
children. Our recommendations for child welfare reform at this time
consist of three specific points, (1) Fixing the AFDC ``Look Back, ''
(2) Reauthorization of the Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver
Demonstration Program and (3) Increased flexibility in Title IV-E
funding.
APHSA believes that income eligibility as a criterion to determine
who among the children placed in foster care or subsidized adoption is
eligible for federally reimbursed foster care and adoption assistance
under Title IV-E should be eliminated. Under the welfare reform law,
states are required to ``look back'' to old AFDC rules in effect on
July 16, 1996, to determine Title IV-E eligibility. Not only is this
administratively burdensome, but as the law does not allow the income
standards in effect on July 16, 1996 to grow with inflation,
eligibility for federal reimbursement will continue to decrease over
time, resulting in a loss of federal funding to states. It is only
reasonable that federal funds be provided for the care of all children
in foster care.
In order to maintain needed flexibility in child welfare, the
current Title IV-E Child Welfare Demonstration Waiver program, which
expires this fiscal year, must be expanded and made more flexible. The
National Council of State Human Service Administrators (NCSHSA)
recently reaffirmed earlier policy stating that substantial
modifications should be made to the Title IV-E waiver process to allow
more flexibility, a broader scope, and to foster system change in child
welfare. Specifically, the program should be reauthorized for five
years with additional state flexibility including expanding the limited
number of waivers and the number of states that may conduct waivers on
the same topic.
APHSA believes that states should be allowed to use Title IV-E
funds for services other than foster care maintenance payments, such as
front end, reunification, or post-adoption services for children who
come to the attention of the child welfare system. Title IV-E should be
amended to give states the option to redirect federal revenue for Title
IV-E maintenance payments into their Title IV-B programs, thereby
providing states with the flexibility to reinvest federal revenue into
other child welfare services whenever foster care is reduced, while
maintaining accountability for outcomes. If states had up-front funding
to reinvest foster care expenditures in the kinds of services that
reduce the need for foster care, better outcomes could be achieved
while allowing more efficient use of current resources.
Child Support
States have shown remarkable achievement in implementing the child
support provisions contained in the Welfare Reform Act. The percentage
of child support cases with orders that had collections increased from
34 percent in 1995 to 68 percent in 2000. Total paternities established
and acknowledged increased from 931,000 in 1995 to 1.556 million in
2000.
We believe that child support should be included in TANF
reauthorization discussions in light of the key role that child support
plays in promoting self-sufficiency. The current system for
distributing child support arrears collected on behalf of families that
have left welfare is complicated and confusing. The assignment and
distribution of arrears depends on what year the arrears accrued,
whether the family was on welfare, and by what method the arrears were
collected. If a family never received TANF, AFDC, or Medicaid, all of
the child support collected by the state child support agency,
including arrearages, goes to the family. While a family is receiving
TANF benefits, the state can keep any child support it collects,
regardless of how it is collected, to reimburse itself for the family's
benefits.
For families that formerly received public assistance, the rules
are more complex. For former recipients of public assistance, welfare
reform legislation created a more ``family friendly'' distribution
policy. In general, once a family leaves TANF, if the state collects
child support for the family, the state must give the family any
current child support as well as arrearages that have built up after
the family left TANF and any arrearages that built up before the family
received TANF before it reimburses itself for assistance costs.
States have spent many resources programming computers to keep
track of the many ``buckets'' of support, determining whether an
arrearage accrued before assistance, during assistance, or after
assistance; whether it is permanently assigned, never assigned,
temporarily assigned, conditionally assigned, unassigned during
assistance, or unassigned before assistance; and whether it was
collected by the tax refund intercept program, by levy of a bank
account, or by other methods. Many state personnel believe that the
complexity of the system contributes to more errors and creates more
difficulty in explaining payments to clients.
The complicated distribution system is a burden on state child
support programs. Staff has spent considerable resources programming
computer systems to properly distribute child support. Maintaining
these systems requires continued staff resources. In addition, families
find the current distribution system hard to understand. The fact that
an arrearage payment goes to the state rather than the family just
because it was collected through the tax intercept program does not
make intuitive sense, and states must devote staff to answer questions
related to the current distribution rules. Such complexity adds to the
sense of arbitrariness of the program and reduces public support for
it.
We support proposals, such as those put forth by the President,
that would give states the option to simply their child support
distribution systems and passthrough more support to families, with the
Federal Government sharing in these costs.
Concluding Comments
In order to achieve program outcomes, inspire state innovation, and
leverage scarce program resources, funding streams should be flexible,
program eligibility and federal funding restrictions should be
simplified and the values underpinning the programs should be aligned
as well. In the end, the success of human service programs will be
measured by the health and well-being of America's children, families,
and adult; by their reduced dependence on government assistance; and by
self-sufficiency for generations to come.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to
respond to any questions you may have.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Ms. Williams. Now Mr.
Mead to testify.
STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE M. MEAD, PROFESSOR OF POLITICS, NEW YORK
UNIVERSITY, NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Mr. MEAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I broadly support the
administration's proposals and your own bill. The main
resistance to this comes from Governors and States who say that
welfare reform is working. If it isn't broke let us not fix it.
So, they say we shouldn't impose the sort of mandates which
appear to come from the President's proposals.
Now, they are assuming that welfare reform has already been
implemented, that it is a going concern, and I think we ought
to question that. I think it is partially implemented. It is
clear from the numbers showing that only about a third of the
clients are satisfying the current work requirements that we
have got a long ways to go before these become a reality for
the case load as a whole.
So, the Governors are wrapping themselves in the case load
fall and saying it is a big success, and they are doing it.
Well, I think they are doing part of it. In part, welfare
reform is driven by a change in expectations, and by a good
economy. We are not exactly sure how far welfare has changed on
the ground, and we have to be sure that we push that purpose
forward.
As I see it, the administration's proposals are primarily
designed to complete the implementation of TANF so that we do
in fact enforce work on the case load as a whole, something we
simply have not done to date. We are kidding ourselves if we
think the case load fall indicates a full implementation of
reform.
The way I see these proposals, they are an attempt to
recenter the reform effort on the two essentials that we know
from research are really critical to generating effects. The
first is to enforce participation. You can't benefit from a
program if you are not in the program. So, we have to have
mandatory participation, and that is what the full engagement
requirement is about.
I think it is a little vague in the President's proposal.
We need to specify what this means, how it is going to be
measured, how it is going to be enforced, but the idea is
critical.
The second thing that is critical is the 24-hour work
requirement. We have to require that people actually enter into
jobs. It is jobs and not education and training that have been
shown to have the largest effects on the client's earning and
employment. The fact that all of us in this room did well in
school and we got ahead that way doesn't mean that everybody on
welfare can do the same thing. We have to recognize that for
most recipients the most important step forward is to get a
job. It doesn't mean they shouldn't go to school at some point,
but the first thing they need is a work history.
So, the full engagement requirement and the 24-hour work
requirement strike me as well justified. I think one might
argue for an element of job search in the 24 hours, because
government jobs as such don't provide for job search in the
private sector. That is something we do want to include. We are
mistaking the real purpose of the 24 hours if we think it is
just to buildup public jobs.
The real point of this is to require States to get serious
about placing people in the private sector. That would be the
real effect, and that has been the effect in the localities
which have taken this most seriously, in particular Wisconsin
and New York.
On the other hand, I think the 40-hour overall activity
requirement is probably too ambitious. That is probably more
than we can really achieve. The 30 and 35 hours that we now
have is probably more realistic.
I also think the 70-percent participation level is probably
too ambitious. That too is probably more than we can probably
achieve on a routine basis. Those provisions I take to be less
critical. The key is not so much that we obtain an extreme
participation or an extreme of hours. It is rather that we get
everyone on welfare doing something consistently, that we build
work into the welfare mission.
A couple of things that Congress should address is full
family sanctions. Many recipients escape the work test,
particularly in New York and California. This matter should be
addressed. Congress should insist on a full family sanction. We
should look at the child-only cases which have risen to be a
third of the case load. Some element of that, I suspect,
involves evasion of the work test. We need some more analysis
of the nature of that group and which elements of it might well
be subjected to the work test.
Another question is child support enforcement programs. We
should continue development of mandatory work programs for
fathers such as Parents Fair Share or Wisconsin's Children
First. These programs are not ready for prime time and should
not be mandated. They should be developed in the same manner as
the marriage and unwed pregnancy programs recommended by the
administration.
There are some other areas I recommend we look at. Work
test and food stamps, work thresholds of some kind for EITC
which would make the program more effective. We should also
look ahead to management questions.
The Administration proposed performance measures. They
would have them, however, be developed by the States. I would
have them developed by the Federal Government but then offer
the States a range of goals that they can choose from. These
measures could be more reliably used for keeping the States
accountable if they were developed in Washington.
Program integration, the super waiver. The caution I have
about that is that it might cause serious problems with the
implementation of TANF as has already happened due to the
Workforce Investment Act. Thank you, Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mead follows:]
Statement of Lawrence M. Mead, Professor of Politics, New York
University, New York, New York
I am a Professor of Politics at New York University, currently on
sabbatical at Princeton. I am a longtime student of welfare reform and
the author of several books on the subject.\1\ I have just finished a
book on welfare reform in Wisconsin. I appreciate this chance to
testify on the reauthorization of Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Lawrence M. Mead, Beyond Entitlement: The Social Obligations of
Citizenship (New York: Free Press, 1986); idem, The New Politics of
Poverty: The Nonworking Poor in America (New York: Basic Books, 1992);
idem, The New Paternalism: Supervisory Approaches to Poverty
(Washington, DC: Brookings, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Success and Future of Reform
Welfare reform is unquestionably a success. Welfare rolls have
plummeted while work levels among the poor have soared and poverty has
fallen, among other good effects. The achievement is mostly due to
social policy, although good economic conditions helped. The key
policies were (1) stronger work requirements, coupled with (2) generous
funding for the EITC, child care, and other support services. The
results refute those who say the poor face too many ``barriers'' to
work, but also those who think welfare can never succeed. Mostly,
welfare reform is the achievement of a new, less permissive aid system.
Support is still being given to needy families, but many more adults
have to function in return.
I fear that reauthorization will get bogged down in issues going
back to the creation of TANF in the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996. Clear problems in the
old law should be fixed, but reauthorization should not seek to restore
entitlement, end the time limits, undo ``work first,'' or restore
coverage for aliens. The main purpose of PRWORA was to end the old
system. The agenda now should be more constructive. We should ask how
to rebuild welfare around work--on the other side of entitlement.
Alone of the American states, Wisconsin has totally redesigned
welfare. This state asked, not just how to change AFDC, but what an
ideal work-based aid system would be. Congress and other states should
now ask that same question.
My recommendation is to continue down the road we are on: (1)
strengthen work requirements further, and (2) provide additional income
and supports to low-income working families, especially but not only
those that have left welfare.
A secondary goal should be to improve the performance of state
governments as the chief implementers of reform. TANF banked heavily on
the idea that states could innovate in welfare and then carry out their
decisions. In fact, TANF implementation has gone smoothly chiefly in
states with strong good-government traditions--not only Wisconsin, but
Michigan, Minnesota, and Oregon, to name a few. Many urban states that
traditionally had large case loads, such as California, Massachusetts,
or New York, have been seriously divided about how to reform welfare.
And many states, especially in the South, have encountered serious
administrative problems.
Although the main goal of reauthorization is to fine-tune national
policy, Congress should do this in ways that promote a fuller
implementation of reform at the state level. The best ways to do that
are (1) to set strong enough work standards so that the more hesitant
urban states have to accept a serious work test, and (2) to set ongoing
performance standards that will promote better state programs over
time. While state choice is an integral part of TANF, the nation has an
interest that states choose some clear goals for their programs and
then work to achieve these.
Most of what the Administration has proposed for reauthorization
would advance these ends. Wade Horn, Ron Haskins, and the other
drafters are highly qualified. The plan is well judged overall,
although I would change some details. I will comment only on the work
and management provisions, which are the areas I know best.
Work Provisions
Full engagement
The Administration would require that all recipients be fully
engaged in constructive activities within 60 days of going on aid. I
support this. The essence of effective reform programs is that
recipients must participate. To demand universal engagement is a way to
obtain this. Otherwise, recipients and their families cannot obtain the
benefits that, on average, participation brings. And the more
conflicted urban states can continue to avoid a full reckoning with the
work test.
However, the proposal does not clearly define what full engagement
means. The idea that recipients must be in activities or ``in the
process of being assessed or assigned'' within 60 days looks like a
loophole. What actually will be demanded of states? How will engagement
be measured and enforced? These details must be nailed down in the law
or regulations, or this requirement will remain a platitude.
Case load fall credit
TANF demanded that states raise the share of their cases where
adults were in work activities by increments, until 50 percent were so
engaged by 2002. But the law also allowed states to count against those
targets any percent by which their case loads have fallen since 1995.
Because the fall was unexpectedly great, it knocked the bottom out of
the new work standards. This freed the big urban states from serious
pressure to build the work mission into welfare. In 1999, for example,
states were supposed to have 35 percent of their cases working, but the
case load fall credit cut the standards that most states actually faced
to trivial levels--in 23 cases to zero. Virtually all states met these
lowered standards, but 23 failed to reach the original 35 percent.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Administration for Children and Families, Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program: Third Annual Report to
Congress, August 2000 (Washington, DC: U.S. Administration for Children
and Families, August 2000), table 3:1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administration proposes to withdraw this credit over two years.
Some conservatives argue that the credit should be kept or, perhaps,
benchmarked on case loads later than 1995. In their view, driving the
case load down is equivalent to enforcing work on the rolls. But to do
this does not force states truly to reform welfare itself. Withdrawing
the credit would do more to accomplish that than anything else. This is
the most important single change that reauthorization must make.
Work participation rates
The Administration also recommends that the work participation
levels required of states be raised from the 50 percent required in
2002 to 70 percent by 2007. This strikes me as too ambitious,
especially if it is combined with an end to the case load fall credit.
In effect, the Administration would require that the single-parent case
load work at close to the levels TANF mandated for two-parent cases--
standards the states had great difficulty meeting.
The Administration's proposals as a whole are bound to have a
strong diversion effect, causing a further deflation of the case load.
This means that the remaining recipients are bound to be the less
employable. Wisconsin's W-2 program has been able to achieve very high
work rates among the least employable clients, but only through intense
case management and lavish support services. Most other states do not
yet have administration of this quality. It may be best to keep the
current 50 percent standard but make it real by ending the case load
fall credit.
Some also object that the Administration has not provided the
funding needed to realize the higher level, particularly for child
care. Here I am less doubtful. The Administration has kept TANF block
grant and child care funding at roughly constant levels in nominal
terms. While that is a fall in real terms, one might have expected
cuts, given the drastic fall in the case loads. And Congress should
remember that much of the transitional child care offered by states to
families leaving welfare has not been claimed. Many people are making
informal arrangements for their children rather than claiming care from
government. The need and cost of child care may well have been
overestimated, as it has been throughout the history of welfare reform.
Work levels
Compared to TANF 1996, the Administration would be more definite
about work for part of a recipient's activities, but less definite
about work for the rest of the time. Twenty-four hours of effort in
actual work or community service would be expected. That level strikes
me as reasonable and practicable for most recipients.
Some have objected that the new rule would force localities to
create community jobs on a large scale. I doubt that. The real purpose
is to make the states get serious about placing recipients in private
jobs. Public jobs operate as a backstop for that effort. Recipients
take job search more seriously if they know they will be going to work
in some job in any event. To date, New York City and Wisconsin are the
only localities that have created public positions on a large scale. In
both cases, the work-enforcing effect has been considerable.
A fairer criticism of public employment is that it makes no
provision, by itself, for job search to get a real job outside
government. The Administration's plan allows localities to place
recipients in remedial activities for three months before the work norm
kicks in, and this time might be used for job search. Congress might
stipulate, as well, that public employment positions allow for 6 hours
a week of private-sector job search, provided it was supervised as
closely as the work assignment.
How does one achieve public jobs for meaningful hours in low-
benefit states? Community service typically requires that one ``work
off'' one's benefits at an hourly rate. With a low grant, only a few
hours of work would suffice to defray the grant each month, at least if
one pays the minimum wage. To require more hours would effectively
raise the grant. Congress may have to stipulate a form of work
experience where there is no correspondence between the grant and hours
worked.
Activity levels
In addition to 24 hours of work, the Administration would demand 40
hours a week in total activity. While this effort would be more loosely
defined than the work activities, this level strikes me as unrealistic.
Very few recipients participate in programs at this level, even in
Wisconsin, with its intense administration. In practice, many
recipients would be exempted. I would accept 30 or 35 hours, the
current standard.
It is more important to achieve high participation for limited
hours than to achieve lower participation for more hours. The former
does the most to transform the culture of welfare, so that work is
universally expected.
Additional Steps
I would take these additional steps, not mentioned by the
Administration, either to strengthen work requirements or to build up
support for low-income working families. I realize that not all of
these recommendations fall under the purview of this committee.
Full-family sanctions
TANF allows states to reduce the grant only partially if an adult
refuses to cooperate with the work test. In states with high benefits
but partial sanctions, notably California and New York, thousands of
cases have come to subsist on the rolls indefinitely in sanctioned
status.
This seems to happen in many cases because, with a partial
sanction, recipients fail to grasp that there is a work test. When they
fail to show up for work assignments, their grants are reduced, but
they think their benefits have just been recalculated. Other recipients
know about the work test and choose not to comply, but realize they can
still stay on welfare. They can give up their own share of the cash
grant, but keep the children's share and all in-kind benefits, and
henceforth be free of the work test.
The culture of welfare cannot truly be changed until the right to
do this is ended. Only then will many recipients take the work
requirement seriously. Congress should mandate that families get no
cash grant at all unless the adults comply with the work test. Grants
are already closed for many other reasons; they should be for this one.
Child-only cases
These are cases where the children but not the caretaker is on the
grant. They have grown rapidly to comprise a third of the TANF case
load, yet are exempt from the work test. Some of this relative growth
is due to the departure of regular cases from the rolls. Yet child only
cases, like weak sanctions, seem to have become a major loop-hole that
undercuts work enforcement.
While the problem is little-analyzed, the child-only cases appear
to fall into several groups. In one type, the mother is too impaired to
function, often due to substance abuse, so a grandmother takes over the
children and is given aid. Or the mother transfers the children to a
relative in order to avoid the work test, then receives support from
this relative informally. The mother may be an alien, legal or illegal,
while the child is native-born and thus a citizen. Or she may be on SSI
or Disability Insurance, so that TANF for the children operates as a
kind of caretaker supplement.
The idea that only the children receive support in these cases is a
fiction. Congress should find a way to bring at least some of these
groups under the work test, perhaps by putting the caretakers on the
grant. A lesser reform would be to include these cases in the
denominator for the work participation rate calculation.
Child support enforcement
The Administration would help fund higher pass throughs of child
support to welfare families. This is desirable. The 100-percent pass
through in Wisconsin has been shown to have positive effects on
collections and on the involvement of absent fathers in the legal
economy. Unless absent fathers see their payments going to their
families and not to the state, solutions to the child support dilemma
will be impossible.
The proposals, however, do little more to improve payment of child
support. The Administration proposes to fund the development of
marriage and unwed pregnancy programs. I think Congress should also
fund further development of child support enforcement programs. Low-
income fathers who have failed to pay their child support judgments are
referred to these work programs. They either have to pay up or
participate regularly, on pain of going to jail. The goal is to raise
collections and also work levels for the fathers, much as welfare work
programs have raised employment for welfare mothers.
Two such programs have been evaluated--Parents' Fair Share, which
was a national demonstration, and Children First in Wisconsin. Both
programs showed a power to raise fathers' payment of child support.
Both ``smoked out'' hidden earnings and forced the fathers to pay up.
Neither, however, showed clear impacts on the employment or earnings of
the fathers.\3\ It may be too soon to mandate such programs, but states
should get federal funding to develop them further.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Fred Doolittle, Virginia Knox, Cynthia Miller, and Sharon
Rowser, Building Opportunities, Enforcing Obligations: Implementation
and Interim Impacts of Parents' Fair Share (New York: Manpower
Demonstration Research Corporation, December 1998); Ron Blasco,
Children First Program: Final Evaluation Report (Madison: Department of
Workforce Development, November 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatively, one could set definite performance standards for
child support enforcement. Currently, states receive financial
incentives to do better in child support, but they face no definite
standards, despite substantial federal funding. Just as states have to
achieve specified participation levels in welfare work programs, so
they might have to achieve support payment in some percentage of child
support cases where the family was on welfare. This might well cause
them to implement enforcement programs.
The Food Stamp work test
Work standards in Food Stamps are more lenient than in TANF. Adult
recipients without children under 6 are supposed to work or participate
for at least 30 hours a week. Yet the rules are not well enforced in
most place, in part because TANF's work tests take precedence for
families subject to both programs. The Food Stamp Employment and
Training program (FSET) is supposed to enforce the work rules, but it
seems to exist more on paper than in reality. Often, eligibles are
required to do little more than sign up for possible work with the Job
Service. PRWORA made no important change other than to limit nonworking
single people to three months on the rolls at a time.
Now that Food Stamp rolls are much larger than TANF, enforcing
these requirements should get more attention. Work enforcement should
probably be less stringent than in welfare work programs, since many
families that draw Food Stamps are already working, at least to some
extent. Congress in the past has treated Food Stamps as an entitlement,
not to be conditioned seriously on the behavior of claimants.
Congress needs to reconsider the standard. The work tests should
become real for at least part of the Food Stamp case load, especially
principal earners in two-parent families. And FSET should become more
like a real program, with an administrative presence of its own.
Work thresholds for EITC
One reason why welfare leavers often remain poor is that they do
not work steady hours once off TANF. This means they do not reap all
the benefit they could from the Earned Income Tax Credit and other work
supports. EITC currently subsidizes low earnings regardless of the
number of working hours. However, the most successful work incentive
programs, such as the Minnesota Family Investment Plan, required that
recipients work at least 30 hours to get any benefits.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Virginia Knox, Cynthia Miller, and Lisa A. Gennetian, Reforming
Welfare and Rewarding Work: A Summary of the Final Report on the
Minnesota Family Investment Program (New York: Manpower Demonstration
Research Corporation, 2000); Gordon L. Berlin, ``Welfare that Works:
Lessons from Three Experiments that Fight Dependency and Poverty by
Rewarding Work,'' The American Prospect, June 19-July 3, 2000, p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If such a threshold were attached to EITC, the result might be more
working hours and higher incomes from both wages and wage subsidies.
The threshold should probably be lower than in welfare work programs
like MFIP, perhaps 20 hours rather than 30. This minimum might apply,
not to the existing benefit, but to the enhancements which Congress may
consider, or to state tax credits. It might have to be run through the
welfare system, which is more able to track working hours, than the tax
system, which runs the existing EITC.
Management
The administration has suggested some changes in the management of
welfare reform where I have different views. These matters are
especially critical for improving TANF in the states that have faced
administrative difficulties, especially in the South. A paternalistic
structure that promotes work must be maintained even after families
have left cash welfare. Congress should also look ahead and ask how to
fund and manage welfare when that task can no longer be associated with
clear case loads.
Performance standards
The Administration proposes to hold states accountable by expecting
them to manage their programs using performance measures. But it would
let them define those measures. I find this unrealistic. Unless
Washington creates the measures, they will not be comparable across the
country, nor they be clearly enough measured. It will then be
impossible to hold the states accountable. States should have choice
about the specific goals of TANF, but the way to assure this is to have
multiple measures. These could cover employment outcomes, such as job
entries, wages, or job retention, but also poverty reduction,
nonmarital births, and perhaps other outcomes. States could choose
which goals to emphasize, but then they would be seriously accountable
for results.
The JOBS programs never had performance measures other than
participation rates. While TANF has the measures used to award its
unwed pregnancy and high-performance bonuses, these apply only to the
states that apply for the bonuses. It is time to define comprehensive
performance measures for TANF, applying to all states, even if this
requires a regulatory process following reauthorization.
Program integration
The Administration proposes to create a new waiver process under
which states could combine the administration of a wide range of social
programs. The integration could go far beyond what was previously
allowed under TANF or the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). Critics fear
that this would allow states to apply full-family sanctions or time
limits to Food Stamps or Medicaid, programs that PRWORA left as
entitlements.
My question rather is about the administrative implications. Even
the program reorganization permitted under PRWORA has created serious
implementation problems for TANF. Many states have turned over the
administration of welfare work requirements to the WIA agencies, either
the Job Service or the voluntary training programs previously run under
the Job Training Partnership Act. That change has worked well in a few
states. But in most, it has created serious confusion, to the detriment
of TANF.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ I base this on the examination of case studies of TANF
implementation in 24 states. Most of these studies were done as part of
the Assessing the New Federalism project at the Urban Institute or the
State Capacity Study at the Rockefeller Institute of Government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historically, the WIA agencies have served welfare recipients
poorly. The Job Service and JTPA are accustomed to serving voluntary
jobseekers, so they usually do not understand the role of enforcing
work required by welfare reform. They are also unaccustomed to
providing the complex support services that recipients often require in
order to work. In short, they are unwilling to be paternalistic. In an
era of declining welfare case loads, to turn welfare work over to WIA
can look like an administrative economy. But it has seldom worked,
simply because the WIA agencies are ill-suited to the welfare mission.
The TANF mission is demanding enough for the agencies already
involved. This suggests that, at least for the immediate future,
program integration should go no further than welfare and WIA. If the
``superwaiver'' is enacted, states that seek to combine a wider range
of agencies should have to demonstrate that they have already handled
TANF-WIA integration well.
Paternalism
It is too easy to think the welfare task is over once families have
left cash aid. But we find that many have trouble working, or working
consistently, off welfare, much as they did on the rolls. This is why,
as many experts are saying, welfare needs to provide services to
promote job retention and advancement for former welfare families after
they are on the job.
I would go further. The most effective welfare work programs are
those that combine generous benefits with close staff oversight of
clients. Some structure like that is probably still necessary to
achieve steady work after families have left cash aid. Staffs must
still be available to people to work out problems that may block them
working. And to be effective, they must still possess the capacity to
influence behavior. They might speak for the administrative work tests
that clients would still have to satisfy in Food Stamps or other non-
cash benefits. Or they might persuade families to satisfy the hours
thresholds that might be attached to EITC.
In the New Hope project in Milwaukee, a generous package of
benefits--jobs, child and health care, and a poverty-level income--was
offered to clients provided they worked 30 hours a week. Program staff
helped recipients work out practical problems about participating, such
as child care. They also actively persuaded people to put in the 30
hours so that they could claim the benefits. This combination of ``help
and hassle'' was warmly appreciated by most of the recipients.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Thomas Brock, Fred Doolittle, Veronica Fellerath, and Michael
Wiseman, Creating New Hope: Implementation of a Program to Reduce
Poverty and Reform Welfare (New York: Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation, October 1997), chap. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hope is a model for the welfare administration of the future. I
find it unlikely that WIA or other non-welfare agencies are willing or
able to perform these functions. This is another reason for caution
about program integration.
Beyond caseloads
We are accustomed to thinking of welfare as a case load, and
welfare reform as a reduction in case loads. But the very success of
reform has tended to merge the welfare population with the broader low-
income population, most of which is employed. The major point of reform
was to achieve this, but it has made managing welfare in the old way
outdated.
We now have legions of welfare leavers who are working and no
longer on cash aid, but who continue to receive subsidized child care,
Food Stamps, or Medicaid. This has made them less distinct from the
higher-income population, which also is employed but occasionally
dependent on Unemployment Insurance or other social insurance benefits.
Even within welfare, case loads do not indicate the size of the
task as well as they once did. Formerly, many cases stayed continually
on TANF for years. Today, short-term receipt is more usual. Large
numbers of families cycle rapidly on and off the program. The rolls in
a given month only suggest the broader population that may draw aid at
some point in a year. And many families who have left cash aid continue
to look to TANF agencies for short-term help of various sorts, not only
benefits. Accordingly, administrators say that their work loads have
dropped much less than case loads.
One practical result is that it is no longer sufficient to fund
welfare in terms of case loads. The low numbers that some states today
have on TANF do not begin to account for their actual responsibilities.
In extreme cases like Wisconsin, the near-extinction of traditional
welfare has led to a funding crisis. Spending on cash benefits has
plummeted, while subsidized child care has soared. But some counties no
longer receive from the state the administrative funding they say they
to continue to serve the families who look to them.
The time is coming when welfare funding must be based more on
populations than case loads. Welfare is changing from a system that
serves ``cases'' to one that seeks to maintain an entirely low-income
community in work. The correct model is not traditional welfare but an
HMO, where a provider gives health care to an entire population on an
as-needed basis. Funding is based on capitation fees for the population
rather than the number of patients served actively at a given time.
This suggests that TANF allocations among the states should
eventually be shifted from their current basis in historic AFDC
spending patterns to a basis in relative needy populations. The basis
for funding ought to be not how many people a state has or once had on
welfare but how many it has in principle agreed to serve by the way it
sets its eligibility for cash aid or other benefits.
A focus on populations also reinforces the need for national
performance measures. As case loads drop, mere reduction in dependency
ceases to be a reasonable criterion for success in welfare. We must
instead ask how well welfare functions to achieve a range of outcomes
for the population as a whole--not only lower dependency but higher
employment and earnings, lower unwed pregnancy and poverty, and so on.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Mead. Mr. Rector to
testify.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT RECTOR, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, HERITAGE
FOUNDATION
Mr. RECTOR. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate the
opportunity to come here and speak today. The first point I
would like to make today is to say again that we cannot
emphasize too much what a remarkable success welfare reform has
been to this point. If we look at the chart that we just put up
here, the chart shows black child poverty from 1970 to the
present. As we can see, black child poverty was either constant
or rising slightly right up until the mid-1990s, and then
suddenly we have a one-third drop. Black child poverty is now
at the lowest point in U.S. history. While a good economy
helped there, it is quite clear that the predominant factor is
welfare reform. There are few successes of that magnitude in
the history of government policy in the post-war period.
The second point I would emphasize today is that we always
must remember that the welfare system is predominantly federal.
In the United States today, we spend $430 billion on means
tested aid. Seventy-five percent of that expenditure is
federal. When you take Medicaid out of the mix, it is an 85-
percent federal contribution. When you hear State official
after State official saying do not have this work requirement,
do not have that requirement, I would suggest that you ask
these officials how much of this welfare cost they would like
to pay at the State and local level. The answer will be as
little as possible. As long as States are asking you to pay 85
percent of means tested assistance costs in the United States,
then it is the primary responsibility of the Federal Government
to insist, in detail, that this money is spent appropriately
and spent to promote the primary purposes of the act, reduce
poverty, to increase employment, and to strengthen marriage.
Third point--the key to success in welfare so far, has been
strong federal work requirements that motivated the States to
change what they had been doing in the past and to bring the
case loads down. These strong federal work requirements were
strenuously opposed by most State and local groups, including
the National Governors' Association back in 1996. They lobbied
against them from dawn to dusk through the entire process. They
were wrong then, and they are wrong now. We need to renew these
strong federal requirements and intensify them, as your bill
does, Congressman Herger.
Fourth point--you have heard a lot of rhetoric in the last
few weeks about how strong work requirements cost more than the
status quo. This was also said in 1996 over and over and over
again. It was a mantra. Work requirements cost more. You cannot
require work unless you put in vast amounts of money. It was
wrong then; it is wrong now. The central problem with these
arguments is that they are based on the assumption of a static
case load. If the case load is static, then, in fact, work
requirements do cost more. The overwhelming rule that we have
learned in the last 5 years is that good work requirements
dramatically reduce the case load, thereby freeing funds which
can be used for daycare and ancillary social services.
Fifth, I would like to commend the Congressman for
retaining and updating the primary goal of case load reduction.
I believe that is a very positive step.
Sixth and finally, I would like to also reemphasize the
point that Mr. Mead just made, that it is very important in
this system to have a national requirement of full check
sanctions. Close to half of the TANF case load are now in
States where if the recipient adamantly refuses to participate
in all required activities, they continue to receive the bulk
of their assistance, indefinitely. That is an abuse of taxpayer
funds, and it is an abuse of the recipient as well who is being
allowed to fritter away their lives away in a very unproductive
way. We need to have a clear provision assuring that if the
person does not perform the required activities, if they
consistently and over time fail to perform required activities,
that the entire TANF check will be sanctioned. I think it
should be a forgiving system that allows the individual to get
back on once they enter into compliance and are participating
constructively. The notion of allowing hundreds of thousands of
individuals to continue to receive checks when they have
consistently refused to take steps toward self-sufficiency
benefits no one. I thank you very much for the opportunity to
testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rector follows:]
Statement of Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow, Heritage Foundation
The Good News about Welfare Reform
Six years ago this month, President Bill Clinton signed legislation
overhauling part of the nation's welfare system. The Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L.
104-193) replaced the failed social program known as Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC) with a new program called Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The reform legislation had three
goals: 1) to reduce welfare dependence and increase employment; 2) to
reduce child poverty; and 3) to reduce illegitimacy and strengthen
marriage.
At the time of its enactment, liberal groups passionately denounced
the welfare reform legislation, predicting that it would result in
substantial increases in poverty, hunger, and other social ills.
Contrary to these alarming forecasts, welfare reform has been effective
in meeting each of its goals.
Overall poverty, child poverty, and black child
poverty have all dropped substantially. Although liberals
predicted that welfare reform would push an additional 2.6
million persons into poverty, there are 4.2 million fewer
people living in poverty today than there were in 1996,
according to the most common Census Bureau figures.
Some 2.3 million fewer children live in poverty today
than in 1996.
Decreases in poverty have been greatest among black
children. In fact, today the poverty rate for black children is
at the lowest point in U.S. history. There are 1.1 million
fewer black children in poverty today than there were in the
mid-1990s.
Conventional figures exaggerate the poverty rate. The
poverty rate is even lower when the Earned Income Tax Credit
(EITC) and non-cash welfare benefits, such as Food Stamps and
public housing, are counted as income in determining poverty.
This more accurate assessment shows that the overall poverty
rate in 1999 was 8.8 percent down from 10.2 percent in 1996.
Hunger among children has been almost cut in half.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), there
are nearly 2 million fewer hungry children today than at the
time welfare reform was enacted.
Welfare case loads have been cut nearly in half and
employment of the most disadvantaged single mothers has
increased from 50 percent to 100 percent.
The explosive growth of out-of-wedlock childbearing
has come to a virtual halt. The share of children living in
single-mother families has fallen, and the share living in
married couple families has increased, especially among black
families.
Some attribute these positive trends to the strong economy in the
late 1990s. Although a strong economy contributed to some of these
trends, most of the positive changes greatly exceed similar trends that
occurred in prior economic expansions. The difference this time is
welfare reform.
Welfare reform has substantially reduced welfare's rewards to non-
work, but much more remains to be done. When TANF is re-authorized next
year, federal work requirements should be strengthened to ensure that
states require all able-bodied parents to engage in a supervised job
search, community service work, or skills training as a condition of
receiving aid. Even more important, Congress must recognize that the
most effective way to reduce child poverty and increase child well-
being is to increase the number of stable, productive marriages. In the
future Congress must take active steps to reduce welfare dependence by
rebuilding and strengthening marriage.
PREDICTIONS OF SOCIAL DISASTER DUE TO WELFARE REFORM
Five years ago, when the welfare reform legislation was signed into
law, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) proclaimed the new law to
be ``the most brutal act of social policy since reconstruction.'' \1\
He predicted, ``Those involved will take this disgrace to their
graves.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cited in Arianna Huffington, ``Where Liberals Fear to Tread,''
August 26, 1996, at www.arianaonline.com/columns/files/082696.html
\2\ Cited in The Wall Street Journal, ``Welfare as They Know It,''
August 29, 2001, p.A14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marian Wright Edelman, President of the Children's Defense Fund,
declared the new reform law an ``outrage . . . that will hurt and
impoverish millions of American children.'' The reform, she said,
``will leave a moral blot on [Clinton's] presidency and on our nation
that will never be forgotten.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Children's Defense Fund, ``Edelman Decries President's Betrayal
of Promise `Not to Hurt Children,''' July 31, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Children's Defense Fund predicted that the reform law would
increase ``child poverty nationwide by 12 percent . . . make children
hungrier . . . [and] reduce the incomes of one-fifth of all families
with children in the nation.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Children's Defense Fund, ``How the Welfare Bill Profoundly
Harms Children,'' July 31, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Urban Institute issued a widely cited report predicting that
the new law would push 2.6 million people, including 1.1 million
children, into poverty. In addition, the study announced the new law
would cause one-tenth of all American families, including 8 million
families with children, to lose income.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Cited in ``Urban Institute Study Confirms that Welfare Bills
Would Increase Child Poverty,'' Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
July 26, 1996
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities asserted the new law
would increase the number of children who are poor and ``make many
children who are already poor poorer still . . . No piece of
legislation in U.S. history has increased the severity of poverty so
sharply [as the welfare reform will].'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ David A. Super, Sharon Parrott, Susan Steinmetz, and Cindy
Mann, ``The New Welfare Law,'' Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
August 13, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organization for Women,
stated that the new welfare law ``places 12.8 million people on welfare
at risk of sinking further into poverty and homelessness.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Quoted in Lisa Bennet-Haigney, ``Welfare Bill Further Endangers
Domestic Violence Survivor,'' National NOW Times, January 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Edelman, the husband of Marian Wright Edelman and then
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the Department of
Health and Human Services, resigned from the Clinton Administration in
protest over the signing of the new welfare law. In an article entitled
``The Worst Thing Bill Clinton Has Done,'' Edelman dubbed the new law
``awful'' policy that would do ``serious injury to American children.''
\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Peter Edelman, ``The Worst Thing Bill Clinton Has Done,'' The
Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 279, No. 3 (March 1997), pp. 43-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Edelman believed the reform law would not merely throw
millions into poverty, but also would actively worsen virtually every
existing social problem. He stated, ``[t]here will be more malnutrition
and more crime, increased infant mortality, and increased drug and
alcohol abuse. There will be increased family violence and abuse
against children and women.'' According to Edelman, the bill would fail
even in the simple task of ``effectively'' promoting work because
``there simply are not enough jobs now.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED
In the half-decade since the welfare reform law was enacted, social
conditions have changed in exactly the opposite direction from that
predicted by liberal policy organizations. As noted above, overall
poverty, child poverty, black child poverty, poverty of single mothers,
and child hunger have substantially declined. Employment of single
mothers increased dramatically and welfare rolls plummeted. The share
of children living in single-mother families fell, and more important,
the share of children living in married couple families grew,
especially among black families.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The beginning of welfare reformactually occurred in stages
during the mid-1990s; therefore it is somewhat arbitrary to assign a
single date to mark the start of reform. During 1993 and 1994, some
states experimented with workfare programs using federal waivers. In
January 1995, Republicans took control of both houses in Congress and
many states began implementing reforms in anticipation of the federal
legislation that was finally enacted in August 1996. Overall, the onset
of reform could be said to have occurred over a three-year period from
1994 through 1996; thus, some of the positive changes from welfare
reform may predate the actual signing of the bill in 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reform opponents would like to credit many of these positive
changes to a ``good economy.'' However, according to their predictions
in 1996 and 1997, liberals expected the welfare reform law to have
disastrous results during good economic times. They expected reform to
increase poverty substantially even during periods of economic growth;
if a recession did occur, they expected that far greater increases in
poverty than those mentioned above would follow. Thus, it is
disingenuous for opponents to argue in retrospect that the good economy
was responsible for the frustration of pessimistic forecasts since the
predicted dire outcomes were expected to occur even in a strong
economy.
Less Poverty
Since the enactment of welfare reform in 1996, the conventional
poverty rate has fallen from 13.7 percent in 1996 to 11.8 percent in
1999. Liberals predicted that welfare reform would push an additional
2.6 million people into poverty, but there are actually 4.2 million
fewer people living in poverty today than there were when the welfare
reform law was enacted.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. Bureau of the Census, Poverty in the United States 1999:
Current Population Reports Series P60-210, (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 2000). p. B2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the Earned Income Tax Credit and non-cash welfare benefits,
such as Food Stamps and public housing, are counted in determining
poverty, the poverty rate in 1999 was even lower: 8.8 percent, down
from 10.2 percent in 1996.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The U.S. Census Bureau defines a family as poor if its annual
``income'' falls below specified poverty income thresholds. For
example, the poverty income threshold for a family of four in 1999 was
$17,029. The conventional or most common poverty measure counts most
cash as income but excludes welfare benefits, such as the Earned Income
Tax Credit, Food Stamps, and public housing. When these benefits are
counted, the number of persons deemed poor drops substantially. Poverty
figures including EITC and non-cash aid are from U.S. Bureau of the
Census, Poverty in the United States 1999, p. 29, and Poverty in the
United States 1996, Current Population Reports Series P60-198
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1997), p. 25. The
figures use income definition 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less Child Poverty
The conventional child poverty rate has fallen from 20.5 percent in
1996 to 16.9 percent in 1999. In 1996, there were 14.4 million children
in poverty compared with 12.1 million in 1999. Though liberals
predicted that welfare reform would throw more than 1 million
additional children into poverty, there are actually some 2.3 million
fewer children living in poverty today than there were when welfare
reform was enacted.\13\ (See Chart 1.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ U.S. Bureau of the Census, Poverty in the United States 1999,
p. B2.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The child poverty rate is even lower when the EITC and non-cash
welfare benefits, such as Food Stamps and public housing, are counted
as income; the 1999 child poverty rate in this more accurate assessment
was 11.2 percent, down from 14 percent in 1996.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Poverty figures including EITC and non-cash aid are from U.S.
Bureau of the Census, Poverty in the United States 1999, p. 29, and
Poverty in the United States 1996, p. 25. The figures in the text use
income definition 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less Black Child Poverty
According to the Census Bureau, the decreases in poverty have been
the greatest among black children. Today, the poverty rate for black
children has fallen to the lowest point in U.S. history. The
conventional black child poverty rate has fallen by one-third, from
around 43.8 percent in the mid-1990s to 33.1 percent in 1999. There are
1.1 million fewer black children in poverty today than there were in
the mid-1990s.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ U.S. Bureau of the Census, Poverty in the United States 1999,
p. B-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the EITC and non-cash welfare benefits, such as Food Stamps
and public housing, are counted as income, the black child poverty rate
is even lower. According to this more accurate measure, the black child
poverty rate in 1999 was 21.6 percent, down from 31.1 percent in the
mid-1990s. (See Chart 2.)
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Less Poverty Among single Mothers
Like the rate for black children, the poverty rate for children
living with single mothers also is at its lowest point in U.S. history.
The rate fell from 44 percent in the mid-1990s to 35.7 percent in 1999.
There are 700,000 fewer single mothers living in poverty today than
there were in the mid-1990s.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Ibid., p. B-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the EITC and non-cash welfare benefits, such as Food Stamps
and public housing, are counted as income, the poverty rate for single
mothers is substantially lower. According to this more accurate
measure, the poverty rate for single mother families was 25.7 in 1999,
down from 34.4 percent in the mid-1990s.
Decrease in the ``Severity of Poverty''
Liberals, like those at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
predicted that welfare reform would increase ``the severity of
poverty.'' Specifically, it would increase the so-called poverty gap
for families with children by over $4 billion.\17\ (The poverty gap is
the measure of total income that is needed to lift the income of all
poor families exactly to the poverty line.) In reality, the poverty gap
for families with children has decreased by $4.5 billion.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, ``Urban Institute
Study Confirms That Welfare Bills Would Increase Child Poverty.''
\18\ U.S. Bureau of the Census, Poverty in the United States 1996,
p. 21, and Poverty in the United States 1999, p. 23. Confusingly, the
average poverty gap per poor family has actually increased by $428 per
year. Ironically, this is largely a result of the substantial reduction
in the number of poor families. If the typical family exiting from
poverty historically tended to have a higher income than those
remaining in poverty, then as the number of poor families shrinks, the
average income of those who are still in poverty may actually appear to
decrease, since it is the relatively poorer families which remain
within the poverty group. This statistical mirage of declining income
of the poor can occur even if everyone's income is rising.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the number of children living in ``deep poverty'' has
declined appreciably. (Families in ``deep poverty'' have incomes that
is less than half the poverty income level.) In 1996, there were 6.3
million children living in deep poverty; by 1999, the number had fallen
to 4.9 million.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ U.S. Bureau of the Census, Poverty in the United States 1996,
p. 2, and Poverty in the United States 1999, p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dramatic Reduction in Child Hunger
The number of children who are ``hungry'' has been cut nearly in
half since the enactment of welfare reform, according to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. The USDA reports that in 1996, 4.4 million
children were hungry; by 1999, the number had fallen to 2.6
million.\20\ Thus, there are nearly 2 million fewer hungry children
today than at the time welfare reform was enacted. (See Chart 3.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The figures reflect the number of children living in
households that were ``food insecure with hunger:'' See Margaret
Andrews, Mark Nord, Gary Bickel, and Steven Carlson, Household Food
Security in the United States, 1999, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service, 2000, p. 3.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Plummeting Welfare Dependence
The designers of welfare reform were concerned that prolonged
welfare dependence had negative effects on the development of children.
Their goal was to disrupt inter-generational dependence by moving
families with children off the welfare rolls through increased work and
marriage. Since the enactment of welfare reform, welfare dependence has
been cut nearly in half. The case load in the former AFDC program (now
TANF) fell from 4.3 million families in August 1996 to 2.2 million in
June 2000. (See Chart 4.)
Contrary to conventional wisdom, the decline in welfare dependence
has been greatest among the most disadvantaged and least employable
single mothers--the group with the greatest tendency toward long-term
dependence. Specifically, dependence has fallen most sharply among
young never-married mothers who have low levels of education and young
children.\21\ This is dramatic confirmation that welfare reform is
affecting the whole welfare case load, not merely the most employable
mothers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ June E. O'Neill, and M. Anne Hill, ``Gaining Ground? Measuring
the Impact of Welfare Reform on Welfare and Work,'' Manhattan Institute
Civic Report No. 17, July 2001, pp. 8, 9.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Increased Employment
Since the mid-1990s, the employment rate of single mothers has
increased dramatically. Again, contrary to conventional wisdom,
employment has increased most rapidly among the most disadvantaged,
least employable groups:
Employment of never-married mothers has increased
nearly 50 percent.
Employment of single mothers who are high school
dropouts has risen by two-thirds.
Employment of young single mothers (ages 18 to 24)
has nearly doubled.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Ibid., pp. 10-14.
Thus, against conventional wisdom, the effects of welfare reform
have been the greatest among the most disadvantaged single parents--
those with the greatest barriers to self-sufficiency. Both decreases in
dependence and increases in employment have been most dramatic among
those who have the greatest tendency to long-term dependence, that is,
among the younger never-married mothers with little education.
A Halt in the Rise of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing
Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, the illegitimacy rate
(the percentage of births outside of marriage) increased enormously.
For nearly three decades, out-of-wedlock births as a share of all
births rose steadily at a rate of almost one percentage point per year.
Overall, out-of-wedlock births rose from 7.7 percent of all births in
1965 to an astonishing 32.6 percent in 1994. However, in the mid-1990s,
the relentless 30-year rise in illegitimacy came to an abrupt halt. For
the past five years, the out-of-wedlock birth rate has remained
essentially flat. (See Chart 5.)
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Among blacks, the out-of-wedlock birth rate actually fell from 70.4
percent in 1994 to 68.8 percent in 1999. Among whites, the rate rose
slightly, from 25.5 percent to 26.7 percent, but the rate of increase
was far slower than it had been in the period prior to welfare reform.
A Shift Toward Marriage
Throughout the War on Poverty period, marriage eroded. However,
since the welfare reform was enacted, this negative trend has begun to
reverse. The share of children living with single mothers has declined
while the share living with married couples has increased.
This change is most pronounced among blacks. Between 1994 and 1999,
the share of black children living with single mothers fell from 47.1
percent to 43.1 percent, while the share living with married couples
rose from 34.8 percent to 38.9 percent. Similar though smaller shifts
occurred among Hispanics.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Allen Dupree and Wendell Primus, ``Declining Share of Children
Lived With Single Mothers in the Late 1990's,'' Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, June 15, 2001, p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While these changes are small, they do represent a distinct
reversal of the prevailing negative trends of the past four decades. If
these shifts toward marriage are harbingers of future social trends,
they are the most positive and significant news in all of welfare
reform.
LWHO GETS THE CREDIT? THE GOOD ECONOMY VERSUS WELFARE REFORM
Some would argue that the positive effects noted above are the
product of the robust economy during the 1990s, rather than the results
of welfare reform. However, the evidence supporting an economic
interpretation of these changes is not strong.
Chart 4 shows the AFDC case load from 1950 to 2000. On the chart,
periods of economic recession are shaded while periods of economic
growth are shown in white. Historically, periods of economic growth
have not resulted in lower welfare case loads. The chart shows eight
periods of economic expansion prior to the 1990s, yet none of these
periods of growth led to a significant drop in AFDC case load. Indeed,
during two previous economic expansions (the late 1960s and the early
1970s), the welfare case load grew substantially. Only during the
expansion of the 1990s does the case load drop appreciably. How was the
economic expansion of the 1990s different from the eight prior
expansions? The answer is welfare reform.
Another way to disentangle the effects of welfare policies and
economic factors on declining case loads is to examine the differences
in state performance. The rate of case load decline varies enormously
among the 50 states. If improving economic conditions were the main
factor driving case loads down, then the variation in state reduction
rates should be linked to variation in state economic conditions. On
the other hand, if welfare polices are the key factor behind falling
dependence, then the differences in reduction rates should be linked to
specific state welfare policies.
In a 1999 Heritage Foundation study, ``The Determinants of Welfare
case load Decline,'' the author examined the impact of economic factors
and welfare policies on falling case loads in the states.\24\ This
analysis showed that differences in state welfare reform policies were
highly successful in explaining the rapid rates of case load decline.
By contrast, the relative vigor of state economies, as measured by
unemployment rates, changes in unemployment, or state job growth, had
no statistically significant effect on case load decline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Robert E. Rector and Sarah E. Youssef, ``The Determinants of
Welfare case load Decline,'' Heritage Foundation Center for Data
Analysis Report CDA99-04, May 11, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recent paper by Dr. June O'Neill, former Director of the
Congressional Budget Office, reaches similar conclusions. Dr. O'Neill
examined changes in welfare case load and employment from 1983 to 1999.
Her analysis shows that in the period after the enactment of welfare
reform, policy changes accounted for roughly three-quarters of the
increase in employment and decrease in dependence. By contrast,
economic conditions explained only about one-quarter of the changes in
employment and dependence.\25\ Substantial employment increases, in
turn, have led to large drops in child poverty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ O'Neill and Hill, ``Gaining Ground? Measuring the Impact of
Welfare Reform on Welfare and Work,'' Table 4, p. 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, it is true that the health of the U.S. economy has been a
positive background factor contributing to the changes in welfare
dependence, employment, and poverty. It is very unlikely, for example,
that dramatic drops in dependence and increases in employment would
have occurred during a recession. However, it is also certain that good
economic conditions alone would not have produced the striking changes
that occurred in the late 1990s. It is only when welfare reform was
coupled with a growing economy that these dramatic positive changes
occurred.
Out-of-Wedlock Child-Bearing and the Economy
Out-of wedlock child-bearing and marriage rates have never been
correlated to periods of economic growth. Efforts to link the positive
changes in these areas to growth in the economy are without any basis
in fact. The onset of welfare reform is the only plausible explanation
for the shifts in these social trends. Welfare reform affected out-of-
wedlock childbearing and marriage in two ways.
First, even before the passage of the law, the public debate about
welfare reform sent a strong symbolic message that, in the future,
welfare would be time-limited and that single mothers would be expected
to work and be self-reliant. This message communicated to potential
single mothers that the welfare system would be less supportive of out-
of-wedlock child-bearing and that raising a child outside of marriage
would be more challenging in the future. The reduction in out-of-
wedlock births was, at least in part, a response to this message.
Second, reform indirectly reduced welfare's disincentives to
marriage. Traditional welfare stood as an economic alternative to
marriage, and mothers on welfare faced very stiff financial penalties
if they did marry. As women leave AFDC/TANF due to welfare reform,
fewer are affected by welfare's financial penalties against marriage.
In addition, some women may rely on husbands to provide income that is
no longer available from welfare. Thus, as the number of women on
welfare shrinks, marriage and cohabitation rates among low-income
individuals can be expected to rise.
What Will Happen During a Recession?
There is considerable concern over what will happen to welfare case
loads and poverty during the current economic slowdown . . . No one at
present can answer these questions, but a reasonable guess is that
welfare case loads and poverty will rise during the slowdown, though
not as steeply as they did in prior slowdowns.
Throughout the slowdown or recession, TANF will provide support to
parents without jobs.\26\ Welfare reform was not designed to kick
single mothers off welfare and abandon them if they cannot find a
private-sector job. If the number of available jobs shrinks during the
recession, mothers should be welcomed back onto the TANF rolls.
However, while on TANF, all parents should be required to perform
community service work, training, or supervised job search. Such
performance requirements will increase the incentive to re-enter the
labor market and will reduce the length of future stays on welfare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ A recession is two successive quarters of negative economic
growth in which the Gross Nationl Product actually shrinks. A slow down
is a period of little or no economic growth. The U.S. economy is
currently in slow down rather than a full fledged recession.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The re-entry into TANF of large numbers of former recipients may
seem to conflict with strict time limits on the receipt of TANF
benefits. However, federal and most state time limits have sufficient
loopholes that time limits should not serve as an obstacle to receipt
of benefits in most cases. Under no circumstances should a state deny
TANF benefits to a parent who genuinely cannot find private-sector
employment.
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
The trends of the past five years have led some of the strongest
critics of welfare reform to reconsider their opposition, at least in
part. In 1996, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Services
Policy, Wendell Primus, also resigned from the Clinton Administration
to protest the President's signing of the welfare reform legislation,
predicting that the new law would throw millions of children into
poverty.
As Director of Income Security at the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, Primus has spent the past five years analyzing the effects
of welfare reform. The evidence has tempered his earlier pessimism. He
recently stated,
In many ways welfare reform is working better than I thought it
would. The sky isn't falling anymore. Whatever we have been doing over
the last five years, we ought to keep going.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Quoted in Blaine Harden, ``Two Parent Families Rise after
Change in Welfare Laws,'' The New York Times, August 12, 2001, Section
1, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wendell Primus is correct. When Congress reauthorizes the TANF
program next year, it should push forward boldly to further promote the
three explicit goals of the 1996 reform:
To reduce dependence and increase employment;
To reduce child poverty; and
To reduce illegitimacy and strengthen marriage.
These three goals are linked synergistically. Work requirements in
welfare will reduce dependence and increase employment, which in turn
will reduce poverty. As fewer women depend on welfare in the future,
marriage rates may well rise. Increasing marriage, in turn, is the most
effective means of reducing poverty.
Next Steps in Reform
When Congress re-authorizes the Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families programs in 2002, it should take the following specific steps.
1. Strengthen federal work requirements. Currently, about half of
the 2 million mothers on TANF are idle on the rolls and are not engaged
in constructive activities leading to self-sufficiency. This is
unacceptable. Existing federal work requirements must be greatly
strengthened so that all able-bodied parents are engaged continuously
in supervised job search, community service work, or training.
In addition, some states still provide federal welfare as an
unconditional entitlement; recipients who refuse to perform required
activities continue to receive most benefits. In re-authorizing the
TANF program, Congress should ensure that the law will prohibit federal
funds from being misused in this manner in the future.
2. Strengthen marriage. As Charts 6 and 7 show, the poverty rate of
single-parent families is about five times higher than among married
couple families. The most effective way to reduce child poverty and
increase child well-being is to increase the number of stable,
productive marriages. This can be accomplished in three ways.
First, the substantial penalties against marriage in the overall
welfare system should be reduced. As it is currently structured,
welfare rewards illegitimacy and wages war against marriage. That war
must cease.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ While it is widely accepted that welfare is biased against
marriage, relatively few understand how this bias operates. Many
erroneously believe that welfare programs have eligibility criteria
that directly exclude married couples. This is not true. Nevertheless,
welfare programs do penalize marriage and reward single parenthood
because of the inherent design of all means-tested programs. In a
means-tested program, the benefits are reduced as non-welfare income
rises. Thus, under any means-tested system, a mother will receive
greater benefits if she remains single than if she is married to a
working husband. Welfare not only serves as a substitute for a husband,
it actually penalizes marriage because a low-income couple will
experience a significant drop in combined income if they marry.
For example, the typical single mother on TANF receives a combined
welfare package of various means-tested aid benefits worth about
$14,000 per year. Suppose this typical single mother receives welfare
benefits worth $14,000 per year while the father of her children has a
low-wage job paying $15,000 per year. If the mother and father remain
unmarried, they will have a combined income of $29,000 ($14,000 from
welfare and $15,000 from earnings). However, if the couple marries, the
father's earnings will be counted against the mother's welfare
eligibility. Welfare benefits will be eliminated or cut dramatically
and the couple's combined income will fall substantially. Thus, means-
tested welfare programs do not penalize marriage per se, but instead
implicitly penalize marriage to an employed man with earnings.
Nonetheless, the practical effect is to significantly discourage
marriage among low-income couples. This anti-marriage discrimination is
inherent in all means-tested aid programs, including TANF, Food Stamps,
public housing, Medicaid, and the Women Infants and Children (WIC) food
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the government should educate young men and women on the
benefits of marriage in life.
Third, programs should provide couples with the skills needed to
reduce conflict and physical abuse and to increase satisfaction and
longevity in a marital relationship.
The 1996 TANF law established the formal goals of reducing out-of-
wedlock childbearing and increasing marriage, but despite nearly $100
billion in TANF spending over the last five years, the states have
spent virtually nothing on specific pro-marriage programs. The slowdown
in the growth of illegitimacy and the increases in marriage have
occurred as the incidental by-product of work-related reforms and not
as the result of positive pro-marriage initiatives by the states. The
current neglect of marriage is scandalous and deeply injurious to the
well-being of children. In future years, 5 percent to 10 percent of
federal TANF funds should be earmarked for pro-marriage initiatives.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
CONCLUSION
More than 20 years ago, President Jimmy Carter stated, ``the
welfare system is anti-work, anti-family, inequitable in its treatment
of the poor and wasteful of the taxpayers' dollars.'' \29\ President
Carter was correct in his assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Quoted in Roger A. Freeman, Does America Neglect Its Poor?
Stanford, Cal.: The Hoover Institution, 1987), p. 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1996 welfare reform began necessary changes to the disastrous
old welfare system. The rewards to non-work in the TANF program have
been substantially reduced. But much more remains to be done. When
Congress re-authorizes TANF next year, it should ensure that, in the
future, all able-bodied welfare recipients are required to work or
undertake other constructive activities as a condition of receiving
aid.
But increasing work is not enough. Each year, one-third of all
children are born outside of wedlock; this means that one child is born
to an unmarried mother every 25 seconds. This collapse of marriage is
the principal cause of child poverty and welfare dependence. In
addition, children in these families are more likely to become involved
in crime, to have emotional and behavioral problems, to be physically
abused, to fail in school, to abuse drugs, and to end up on welfare as
adults.
Despite these harsh facts, the anti-marriage effects of welfare,
which President Carter noted over two decades ago, are largely intact.
The current indifference and hostility to marriage in the welfare
system is a national disgrace. In reauthorizing TANF, Congress must
make the rebuilding of marriage its top priority. The restoration of
marriage in American society is truly the next frontier of welfare
reform.
______
Members of The Heritage Foundation staff testify as individuals
discussing their own independent research. The views expressed are
their own, and do not reflect an institutional position for The
Heritage Foundation or its board of trustees.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Rector. Now to testify, Mr.
Primus.
STATEMENT OF WENDELL PRIMUS, DIRECTOR, INCOME SECURITY, CENTER
ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES
Mr. PRIMUS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. What all Members of
this Subcommittee want is to have both parents of the children
who receive welfare to be working in the labor force and not in
make-work pay jobs.
Chairman HERGER. If you could speak directly into the
microphone, please.
Mr. PRIMUS. Is it on now?
Chairman HERGER. Yes.
Mr. PRIMUS. By that criteria, I would have to judge Mr.
Cardin's bill vastly superior to that of the administration's
proposal. Here is why. The Administration's proposal restricts
State flexibility in how to achieve employment gains. Except
for a 3-month period, only individuals who are in non-
subsidized work or in work experience programs count toward
meeting the 70-percent work requirement. The Administration's
proposal is a Washington-knows-best Welfare-to-Work model which
would force many States to adopt a New York City style
approach. There is no evidence that suggests this particular
Welfare-to-Work model emphasizing work experience is better
than any other State's model. The proposal does not provide any
increased funds for childfare or in the TANF block grant. In
fact, in real terms, the moneys are cut.
The best way to describe the administration's proposal is
that it is an unfunded mandate upon States. Forty-one out of
the forty-seven States that have responded to the NGA survey of
States suggests they would have to make fundamental changes to
their programs to meet these new requirements. In a press
release issued by Secretary Thompson, the administration
insisted that all workfare recipients would not be required to
work at below the minimum wage. However, Mr. Chairman, your
bill still retains the 24-hour requirement. It was not changed.
Therefore, it will be very hard for States like Louisiana to
achieve these work requirements without waivers.
In a study released yesterday, the Center on Law and Social
Policy indicated that meeting these requirements would cost $15
billion, about 26 percent of the TANF and child care block
grants in 2007. States are already spending above their annual
TANF grants.
In sharp contrast, the Cardin bill would achieve additional
employment gains because it increases State flexibility,
especially with respect to education and training. It provides
real increases in child care of $9 billion and adjusts the TANF
block grant for inflation. It only rewards State efforts when
mothers leave welfare rolls for work, and something that I
think you would be very concerned about, Mr. Chairman, it
allows immigrants to be served with federal TANF dollars. This
means that immigrants would be subject to the work
requirements. Under the administration's approach, immigrants
cannot be served and there is no incentive for States to move
them into the labor force.
Despite what I have said thus far about work, the most far-
reaching and possibly the worst part of the administration's
bill is the extraordinary waiver authority. This proposal would
abrogate your role as elected Members of Congress and our
system of governance. This is a wholesale grant of authority
from this Committee and the Congress to the executive branch of
government. This would allow, for example, the transfer of
funds between programs, from the TANF program to the education
programs, and change the appropriation authority of Congress.
This would allow child support and child welfare programs to be
block-granted. It would allow the Secretary to waive the
requirement that all mothers receiving welfare cooperate with
child support and would allow the minimum wage laws not to
apply to work experience programs.
The language in H.R. 4090 is far too broad. If the issue is
flexibility, change the rules that unduly restrict the ability
of States to properly and efficiently administer these
programs. All the Members of this Committee want effective
government. You should be able to do this in a manner other
than throwing up your arms and letting unelected officials make
these decisions for you.
On child support, as you all realize, the distribution
rules are way too complex. You produced a good bipartisan bill
in late 2000. You passed it on the House Floor by a vote of 405
to 18. There is no reason why you should not return to those
provisions.
Let me add one thought about promoting marriage. I think
the approach that is in your bill, Mr. Chairman, is too narrow
and inflexible. If you want strong families, I think you also
need to be concerned about childbearing among teens. It makes
no sense to cut DOL programs that help males get jobs at the
same time you are providing marriage skill training. My final
point, Mr. Chairman, is I hope that this Committee could write
a bipartisan bill in the House.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Primus follows:]
Statement of Wendell Primus, Director of Income Security, Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, for the
opportunity to testify before you today. I am Wendell Primus, Director
of Income Security for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The
Center is a non-profit institute that conducts research and analysis on
policy issues affecting low-and moderate-income families at both the
state and federal levels. We receive no government funding.
My testimony will briefly review the experience of welfare reform
over the last six years, then analyze the Chairman's TANF
reauthorization bill in light of what research and state experience
have shown to be effective in moving families from welfare-to-work.
Finally, I will outline a work-focused alternative plan that would
allow states to address some of the remaining challenges of welfare
reform by building on current successful state-based approaches.
The Experience of the First Six Years of Welfare Reform
Nearly six years ago, Congress passed legislation that dramatically
altered the basic safety net for low-income families with children. The
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which had
existed for 60 years, was dismantled, and a new block grant--Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)--was put in its place.
States used their block funds to design programs that capitalized
on the strong economy and moved welfare recipients into private-sector
jobs. As cash assistance case loads tumbled and the economy surged,
employment rates among single mothers rose significantly, continuing a
upward trend that began in 1993. While clearly playing a role, the
law's work requirements were not the only factor in this increase.
States were able to use TANF funds to create an expanded system of
supports for low-income working families. In addition to helping
families leave welfare, these supports, including child care,
transportation assistance, and state earned income tax credits, have
helped low-wage workers avoid going on to welfare in the first place.
Besides TANF, other federal programs, including Medicaid, the Earned
Income Tax Credit, and the Child Care and Development Block Grant
(CCDBG)--all expanded in the 1990s--are part of this work support
system.
The extent to which TANF has been transformed into a work support
system is reflected in state spending patterns and the number of
families served in TANF that do not receive welfare. Fewer than 4 out
of every 10 TANF dollars are now spent on cash assistance.\1\ The
largest share of the remaining dollars is spent on child care and other
work supports. It is important to note that the work support system
funded by TANF extends beyond welfare recipients to low-income families
who have left welfare and those who have never received welfare.
Unfortunately, there is no official count of the number of families who
receive TANF-funded work supports outside of the welfare system.
However, recent GAO data suggest that at least 1 million non-welfare
families--and quite likely many more--receive work supports funded in
part with TANF.\2\ Thus, the number of non-welfare families receiving
TANF-funded work supports is likely as large, if not substantially
larger, than the number of families receiving cash assistance who are
subject to TANF work requirements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analysis of fiscal year
2001 data reported by states to the Department of Human Services.
\2\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: States Provide
TANF-Funded Services to Many Low-Income Families Who Do Not Receive
Cash Assistance, March 15, 2002, http://www.house.gov/cardin/
GAO__TANF.pdf. GAO counted the number of non-welfare families in a
single TANF-funded program in 22 states (generally the TANF-funded
program with the most participants) and the number of non-welfare
families in more than a single program in three states. This count
yielded approximately 830,000 non-welfare families who received TANF-
funded services. GAO noted that this is a substantial underestimate of
the number of families receiving TANF-funded services. If the count
were extended to all 50 states, included participants in MOE-funded
separate state programs, and encompassed more than a single program
from each state, the number would easily exceed one million families.
For a further discussion of these points, see Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, TANF's ``Uncounted'' Cases: At Least One Million
Families Receiving Services in TANF-Funded Programs Not Included in
TANF case load, April 2002.
\3\ Of the roughly 2.1 million TANF cash assistance cases, about
1.3 million include adults who are subject to federal work
requirements. More than a third of the cash assistance case load (about
700,000 cases) is composed of ``child-only'' cases that are not subject
to federal work requirements. Approximately 8-9 percent of the
remaining cases (roughly 110,000 to 130,000 cases) are families who are
not subject to federal work requirements because they include a child
under age 1. Thus, slightly less than 1.3 million TANF families are
subject to the federal work requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While states have made substantial progress on the employment front
in the last few years, the reduction in poverty has been much more
modest than the reduction in TANF case loads or the increase in
families with earnings. Trends in the ``child poverty gap'' provide
strong evidence that this is due in part to the large reductions in the
amount of cash assistance and food stamp received by eligible families.
(The child poverty gap, which many analysts consider the single best
measure of child poverty, is the total amount by which the incomes of
all poor children fall below the poverty line.)
Before counting means-tested programs, the child poverty gap
declined substantially between 1995 and 2000, just as it had between
1993 and 1995. The drop in the child poverty gap, as measured before
means-tested benefits are counted, primarily reflects the effect of the
economy in reducing child poverty through increases in employment and
earnings among parents. But when the benefits of means-tested programs
(and federal tax policy) are taken into account, the picture changes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child Poverty Gap Statistics (in billions of 2000 dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change Change
1993 1995 2000 1993-1995 1995-2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before Means-Tested Benefits and Taxes $87.9 $75.5 $52.4 $-12.4 $-23.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After Means-Tested Benefits and Taxes $33.1 $25.7 $22.1 $-7.4 $-3.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the gap--still shrunk--by $3.6 billion between 1995 and
2000--this was much more modest than the $7.4 billion drop that
occurred between 1993 and 1995, even though pre-transfer poverty fell
nearly twice as much during the later time period.\4\ These data
strongly support the conclusion that poverty could have fallen at a
faster rate between 1995 and 2000 if declines in the numbers of
children receiving means-tested benefits had not been as sharp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analysis of Current
Population Survey data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There appears to be broad bipartisan consensus in Washington and
among states that an important goal of the next five years of welfare
reform is to enhance child well-being, which includes reducing the
extent and depth of poverty among families with children. Meeting this
goal will require moving beyond welfare reform's initial focus on case
load decline--a move that many states are already in the process of
making. In addition, most agree that further progress on this goal will
require addressing the following challenges:
Helping TANF Recipients Who Have Severe ``Barriers''
to Employment that Impede Their Progress in Moving toward Self-
sufficiency: While there are significantly fewer families on
welfare, a recent General Accounting Office study found that 38
percent of them have a severe physical or mental health
impairment. Studies have found that these and other barriers--
including domestic violence, lack of stable housing, and having
a disabled child--significantly reduce the likelihood of
working. In order to make these families part of welfare
reform's success, we need to be realistic about what it is
going to take to get them from where they are today to where
they need to be, and ensure that states have the resources and
flexibility to work with them intensively towards that goal.
Doing More to Help Recipients Find Better-paying and
More Secure Jobs that Can Support a Family: TANF recipients
typically end up in low-paying jobs--most earn less than $8.00
an hour and many earn significantly less than that. Data from
studies of parents who left welfare for work show that median
quarterly earnings for families that left TANF and were working
were typically between $2,000 and $2,500, roughly 33 percent
below the poverty level for a family of three.\5\ Earnings do
grow after leaving welfare, but they still remain quite low
even years later. A Wisconsin study that tracked welfare
leavers in that state found that nearly 60 percent had below-
poverty-level incomes even three years after leaving
welfare.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Elise Richer, Steve Savner, and Mark Greenberg, Frequently
Asked Questions about Working Welfare Leavers, Center for Law and
Social Policy, December 2001.
\6\ Maria Cancian, Robert Haveman, Daniel R. Meyer, and Barbara
Wolfe, Before and After TANF: The Economic Well-Being of Women Leaving
Welfare, May 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strengthening Families: Several ``family formation''
trends have taken a positive turn in recent years. The teen
birth rate has fallen significantly since the early 1990s. The
share of children, particularly low-income children, living in
two-parent families increased while the share living in single-
parent families fell. The number of paternities established
soared in the 1990s and amount of child support collected in
the federal-state child support system increased dramatically.
While these statistics are heartening, there is further
progress to be made on all of these fronts.
States have begun to fine-tune their TANF programs to address these
issues, but much more could be done to improve outcomes for families in
these areas. TANF reauthorization should address these challenges by
building on current effective state strategies where they exist, and
supporting research and demonstrations to develop a knowledge base on
which to build future successful programs.
The Work Provisions in H.R. 4090
H.R. 4090 includes a far-reaching set of changes to the work
provisions in the TANF law. The most significant changes are to TANF's
participation rate structure under which states must place a certain
percentage of families in federally-authorized work activities or face
fiscal penalties. The proposed legislation makes the following changes
to the participation rate structure.
States would have to place 70 percent of TANF
families in specified work activities by fiscal year 2007, up
from 50 percent in the current fiscal year.
The current case load reduction credit--which reduces
state participation rates by 1 percentage point for each 1
percentage point reduction in case loads since 1995--would be
replaced with a ``rolling'' credit. Instead of being based on
the reduction in case loads since 1995, a state's participation
rate would be determined each fiscal year based on the
percentage reduction in the state's case load in the three
preceding fiscal years.
To count fully toward the rate, families with
children age 1 or older would have to participate in work
activities for 40 hours a week. This change would double the
number of hours required for parents with children under age 6
and increase by 10 hours a week the number of hours required
for other families.
The work activities that count toward the first 24
hours of the work requirement would be narrowed to paid work
(unsubsidized and subsidized employment, and on-the-job
training) and unpaid work (work experience programs and
supervised community service). States would be able to count
families placed in substance abuse, rehabilitative activities,
work-related training, and job search or job readiness
assistance, but for no more than three consecutive months in
any 24-month period.
Instead of addressing the remaining challenges by building on
current state strategies to help families overcome barriers to
employment and find better jobs, the proposed legislation would curtail
state flexibility and effectively require all states to adopt a
federally proscribed welfare-to-work program structure. States would be
forced to restructure their current programs and abandon many of the
successful strategies they currently use to help parents prepare for,
find, and retain employment in favor of more costly programs. Such a
change might be warranted if states had clearly failed to implement
effective welfare-to-work programs over the past few years, or if there
were research evidence showing that the proposed approach was more
effective at addressing current welfare reform challenges than existing
state approaches. There is, however, no evidence to support either of
these conclusions; indeed, there is evidence to suggest that the
proposed approach could be less effective than other state-based
approaches.
The reformulated case load reduction credit is likely to give
states little help toward meeting the work participation requirements.
Under H.R. 4090, states would only get credit toward their work
participation rates if the overall case load fell over the previous
three-year period. While no one can predict case load levels with
certainty, the rapid case load decline that occurred in the mid 1990s
appeared to be leveling off even before the recession and in 2001, 34
states saw their case loads increase. It should be noted that when a
state's cash assistance case load remains steady, this does not mean
that families are not moving from welfare-to-work. It simply means that
the number of families who have fallen on hard times and need help, at
least temporarily, is about the same as the number of recipients who
were able to leave welfare, often because they found jobs.
The Proposed Participation Rate Structure Would Limit State Flexibility
Under H.R. 4090, states would be required to place a substantially
increased proportion of their case loads in a very narrow set of work
activities or be subject to fiscal penalties. Two activities, job
search and vocational education, that currently count toward the rate
would not count at all toward the 24-hour requirement. For recipients
who do not already have an unsubsidized job, they could only be counted
toward a state's work participation rate if they worked in a subsidized
job or participated in work experience, supervised community service,
or on-the-job training programs for 24 hours each week. Families would
have to be placed in one of these activities even if the state does not
believe this would be the best approach to helping them succeed in the
labor market.
Some may argue that because participation rates remain below 100
percent, states will continue to have the flexibility to structure
different activities for a significant share of its TANF recipients.
This is incorrect. While the participation rate that states will be
required to meet is less than 100 percent, to achieve a participation
rate in the 60 to 70 percent range, they will need to impose the
federally-mandated work requirements on nearly 100 percent of families.
This is the case for two reasons. First, some parents will not be able
to meet the hourly requirements for a particular week because of
personal family circumstances, including illness or having to care for
an ill child.\7\ Second, even in well-run programs, a significant
number of recipients are not in activities at any given time because
they are waiting for a program to begin a new session, are between work
activities or assignments, or they cannot begin a work activity until
child care is in place. Researchers have recognized that in order to
attain any given participation rate, a state must actively seek to
attain participation for a considerably larger group of families.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The proposal does allow for very limited ``leave'' for
recipients. While months have an average of 4.33 weeks in them, the
proposal would provide full credit to a state for a family in which a
parent participated in countable activities for 160 hours in the
month--the equivalent of four, 40 hour weeks, rather than 4.33, 40 hour
weeks. Thus, in an average month, a parent could ``miss'' up to 13
hours of required activities and still count fully toward the state's
work rates. It appears that if the hours were missed in direct work
activities, however, the state could lose all credit for the family
toward the work participation requirements. The proposal requires, ``at
least 24 hours per week in a month'' of participation in direct work
activities which would appear to mean that if a parent were scheduled
to participate in work experience (a direct work activity) 24 hours
each week and missed two days in a particular week because her child
was sick, she would need meet the requirement that she participate 24
hours each week in direct work activities and the state would not be
able to count her toward the work participation requirements.
\8\ Gayle Hamilton and Susan Scrivener, Manpower Demonstration
Research Corporation, Promoting Participation: How to Increase
Involvement in Welfare-to-Work Activities, September 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed legislation would allow states to count families
placed in substance abuse, rehabilitative activities, work-related
education or training, and job search and job readiness activities for
three consecutive months in any 24 month period. It also would allow
states to define what counts toward work for the final 16 hours of the
40 hour work requirement. As a practical matter, however, these
provisions provide almost no new flexibility for states.
Under current law, states actually have considerable flexibility to
place participants in the types of activities that the proposed
legislation would now limit to three months. While some of these
activities do not currently count toward the work participation rates
(except in several states with waivers that the proposed legislation
would rescind), states have generally achieved actual participation
rates that are substantially higher than the required federal standard.
This is due in large part to the current law's case load reduction
credit that lower the rates states must meet based on the decline in
case loads since 1995. As a result, states have been able to place
recipients in activities that do not count toward the federal rate
without having to be concerned that they would fail to meet the
required standard. Many states have used this flexibility to place
participants in barrier-removal activities that have not necessarily
been limited to three months, while maintaining their otherwise
vigorous and intensive efforts to move recipients to work.
By increasing the overall rates and modifying the case load
reduction credit in a manner that would likely limit the extent to
which it reduces states' effective rates over time, the proposed
legislation would eliminate this flexibility that currently exists.
Similarly, allowing states to define work activities that count
toward the final 16 hours of a 40-hour requirement is not an
enhancement to the flexibility states have under the current work
participation requirements. For families with children age 1 to 6, the
federally-mandated work requirement is 20 hours but states are free
(and many do) require participation in state-approved activities--
activities which may differ from the work activities under current
federal law--for additional hours each week. Since the proposed
legislation would require an additional 20 hours of work for these
families, it can only be characterized as limiting state flexibility
for them, regardless of whether states are able to define allowable
work activities for 16 of the new hours.
For families with school-age children who are currently subject to
a 30-hour requirement, the proposed legislation would allow states to
count a broader range of activities toward hours 25 through 30 of the
work requirement than is currently allowed. This is a very limited
enhancement of flexibility, however, given that the plan would also
narrow substantially what counts toward the first 24 hours of the work
requirement. In addition to prohibiting vocational education, job
readiness, and job search from counting toward the first 24 hours, the
plan would not allow other educational activities and job skills
training--which currently can count for 10 of the required 30 hours--to
count until the 24 hour requirement in direct work activities is
satisfied.
Moreover, regardless of the child's age, in order to meet the 24-
hour requirement, states will likely have to place families in the
narrower set of paid and unpaid work activities for more than 24 hours.
This is because a state gets no credit for an individual participating
in the work activities prescribed by the proposed legislation for 23
hours or less, even if they are in other activities for 16 hours. To
avoid the potential risk of not getting any credit for a family, states
are likely to schedule participants in the narrower set of activities
for significantly more than 24 hours each week.
Finally, many states--particularly those with low cash benefit
levels--will have difficulty meeting the work requirements while
complying with the federal legal requirement that recipients not be
required to work at an effective wage below the minimum wage. Many TANF
recipients receive only partial benefits because they have other forms
of income (including Social Security benefits) while many families in
low-benefit states receive cash assistance benefits that are below $200
per month. The Herger bill makes no exception to the requirement that
families participate in paid or unpaid work for 24 hours each month for
families in which such a requirement would mean that they were working
at below the minimum wage.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ There is also no mechanism to reduce the number of required
hours by any child support paid to the state by a non-custodial parent
of a child receiving TANF assistance. In these cases, even if the state
retains the child support to reimburse itself for the assistance
provided to the child, the custodial parent would be required to work
off the entire TANF grant, rather than the amount of the grant less the
among of child support received. In effect, the custodial parent would
be forced to work off the non-custodial parent's child support payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States would be Forced to Abandon their Own Successful Approaches
Under the proposal, all states would face sharply increased work
participation rate requirements that would require them to focus on
meeting these requirements to avoid fiscal penalties. Families that are
not able to find unsubsidized employment, would have to be placed in
subsidized work, work experience, supervised community service, and on-
the-job training. Only a few states and localities have welfare-to-work
programs that place a substantial number of parents in these activities
and only about 7 percent of TANF recipients nationally who are not
working participate in one of these narrow activities.\10\ As a
consequence, most states would have to reconstruct their work programs,
jettisoning current employment initiatives in favor of the narrow set
of activities that would meet the new prescriptive federal
requirements.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of
Planning, Research and Evaluation, Average Monthly Number of Adults
with Hours of Participation by Work Activity as a Percent of the Total
Number of Adults, Fiscal Year 2000, Table 6C, http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/
programs/opre/particip/.
\11\ Nationally, in fiscal year 2000, about 21 percent of TANF
recipients subject to the work requirements satisfied those
requirements by working in an unsubsidized job. An additional 7 percent
of TANF recipients worked in unsubsidized jobs but worked fewer hours
than required to satisfy current law work requirements. Even assuming
that 28 percent of recipients can be counted toward the work
participation requirements in H.R. 4090 because they are combining work
and welfare, states would have to achieve a very large increase in the
proportion of recipients participating in subsidized employment, work
experience programs, and supervised community service programs to
achieve the proposed participation rate standards. (It is also
important to note that many of those currently combining work and
welfare do not participation in work activities for a total of 40 hours
each week and, thus, would not be countable toward the proposed
requirement.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of large-scale subsidized work or work experience programs,
most states operate welfare-to-work programs that are focused on
placing participants in unsubsidized private-sector employment. These
programs generally require participants to conduct an intensive job
search often in conjunction with ``soft-skills'' training and other job
readiness activities. In keeping with recent research findings
discussed below on the effectiveness of what is commonly referred to as
a ``mixed strategy'' approach, a growing number of states are modifying
their programs to combine an overall work emphasis with opportunities
for pre-employment training and targeted vocational education. While
work experience is often a component in these types of programs, it is
typically used on a case-by-case basis, rather than as a one-size-fits-
all activity for every participant who does not immediately find
unsubsidized employment.
While evaluation studies that cover all 50 states and compare the
effectiveness of all of the varying work program approaches are not
available, the data that is available generally finds that states using
strategies quite different from the particular program model the
proposed legislation would mandate have been successful in helping
large numbers of parents move from welfare-to-work. In fact, many
states utilizing very different approaches have achieved rates of case
load reduction and employment that equal or exceed national averages.
There is some evidence to suggest that the model mandated by the
proposed legislation could be less effective than other state
approaches. Washington State's recent decision to discontinue its work
experience program is instructive on this point. The state's decision
was based in part on results from a recent evaluation of the state's
TANF program which found that work experience had no positive impact on
participant earnings, while other activities--including jobs skills
training, a paid transitional jobs program, and pre-employment
training--all had positive impacts on earnings.\12\ The pre-employment
training program had the strongest earnings impacts, increasing
quarterly earnings by $864. The work experience program did appear to
increase employment rates somewhat, but other activities, including job
skills training increased employment by a greater amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Marieka Klawitter, Effects of WorkFirst Activities on
Employment and Earnings, University of Washington, September 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the programs evaluated in Washington State, only the work
experience program and the paid transitional jobs program would appear
to count toward the first 24 hours the proposed work rates.\13\ Since
the paid transitional jobs program is too expensive to operate on the
large scale that would be required to meet the proposed rates,
Washington State would have little choice but to resurrect a work
experience program that it had previously discontinued because of poor
results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Washington State also places a substantial number of families
in ``community service'', but this activity was not evaluated and
appears to be defined in broader fashion than would be allowable under
H.R. 4090.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The model that would be dictated by the proposed legislation also
runs counter to the growing state interest in tailoring work activities
more closely to the needs of individual parents rather than being
limited to a narrow set of work activities countable toward the work
participation requirements. States want to move their work programs in
this direction in part because of the substantial evidence that now
exists about the extent of barriers to employment among the remaining
TANF case load. By narrowing what counts toward meeting work
requirements and diverting funding to that very limited set of
activities, the proposed legislation will make it more difficult for
states to invest in benefits and services that address the significant
challenges that remain--helping the harder-to-employ move from welfare-
to-work and helping recipients with persistently low wages qualify for
higher-paying jobs. In fact, in February the National Governors'
Association passed on a bipartisan basis a welfare reform policy that
called on Congress to allow states to count a broader range of
activities toward the work participation requirements.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ National Governors' Association, HR-36, Welfare Reform Policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Proposed Legislation Would Mandate an Approach that Runs Counter to
Two Decades of Welfare Reform Research
The legislation would mandate an approach that falls outside of the
mainstream of current state welfare-to-work approaches despite a lack
of research evidence indicating that it would be more effective than
other work programs that are evaluated over the last two decades. The
clearest finding from this extensive body of research is that providing
a range of employment and training services is the most effective
welfare-to-work strategy, rather than the one-size-fits-all model that
the H.R. 4090 would impose on states. The single most effective program
in the recently completed 11-program National Evaluation of Welfare-to-
Work Strategies (NEWWS)--a program that operated in Portland, Oregon in
the mid-1990s--did not have a large-scale work experience component.
Instead, the Portland program emphasized moving participants quickly
into private sector jobs, while allowing for varied initial activities
and establishing performance standards that encouraged case managers to
help participants find jobs that paid well above the minimum wage and
offered better long-term career opportunities.\15\ Participants were
more likely to find better-paying jobs that were full-time and provided
employer-based health insurance than welfare participants in a control
group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Fewer than 15 percent of participants participated in work
experience in the Portland program. Significantly more participants
were placed in basic education, vocational education, and job search.
Susan Scrivener, Gayle Hamilton, et al., Manpower Demonstration
Research Corporation, Implementation, Participation Patterns, Costs,
and Two-Year Impacts of the Portland (Oregon) Welfare-to-Work Program,
May 1998. The Portland program only used work experience on a
individualized basis and program staff custom-designed positions based
on participant's skills and interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, none of the programs that have been shown to measurably
increase child well-being included work experience as a significant
program component. Perhaps the most notable example is the Minnesota
Family Investment Program (MFIP) demonstration, which increased child
well-being (as measured by school performance and behavior), in
addition to having strong positive impacts on employment, poverty, and
marriage rates. MFIP achieved these outcomes despite placing fewer
participants in work experience than in any other program
component.\16\ Minnesota has since adopted a statewide TANF program
modeled on this demonstration program. Program administrators have said
that the change proposed by the Administration would force them to
shift away from this program model in spite of its unprecedented
success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Over a 36-month period, less than six percent of longer-term
recipients and about two percent of shorter-term recipients (new
applicants when the program began) participated in on-the-job training
or work experience. As in Portland, substantially more clients were
placed in job search, vocational education, and other educational
activities. Cynthia Miller, et al., Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation, Reforming Welfare and Rewarding Work: Final Report on the
Minnesota Family Investment Program, September 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LSweeping New Waiver Authority Is the Wrong Mechanism for Assuring
Adequate State Flexibility
The Herger bill would allow the Secretaries of HHS and the
Department of Labor to waive any program rule in any program operated
through their agencies, with the exception of Medicaid (though it
appears that states could seek waivers of SCHIP rules). A companion
TANF reauthorization bill introduced by Rep. McKeon (R-CA), chairman of
the subcommittee on 21st Century Competitives of the House Education
and Workforce Committee (which has joint jurisdiction over some parts
of the TANF program) also would include programs under the Secretary of
Education in this ``super waiver'' proposal. Programs that could be
affected include unemployment insurance, student loans and aid
programs, federal support for K-12 education, job corps, head start,
the public health service, and family planning programs. Some have
cited this so-called super-waiver proposal as the answer to questions
raised about the significant restraint on state flexibility included in
the work-related sections of the proposal. (While the current proposal
is limited to programs in these agencies, the Administration's original
proposal was broader and House leaders have indicated that programs in
other agencies will be added to the super-waiver proposal by other
House committees.)
The super-waiver proposal does not limit the number of states that
can be granted particular types of waivers nor does it impose any
significant limitations on the types of rules states can apply to have
waived, except that a waiver must not result in higher federal costs
than would be incurred under standard federal law. This is in contrast
to most current waiver provisions. For example, the Workforce
Investment Act allows states to apply for waivers but prohibits waivers
of federal worker protection and minimum wage laws. Moreover, unlike
past waiver policies which allowed states to operate demonstration
projects to test the efficacy of new initiatives or alternative
approaches, there would be no requirement that these waivers have a
research objective or even be subject to an independent evaluation.
Rather than being designed to encourage states to test new approaches,
this waiver policy simply would allow waivers of any program rule a
state did not like.
The following are just some examples of the kinds of waivers which
the Secretaries of these agencies would have authority to approve:
The Secretary of the Department of Education could
waive any rules related to federal education funding, including
formulas that direct resources to low-income children.
The Secretary of HHS could approve a state waiver in
which key federal TANF program rules are eliminated--including
the maintenance-of-effort requirement, data reporting
standards, or the requirement that states not sanction a parent
that could not meet work requirements due to a lack of child
care.
HHS also could approve a waiver in which a state
would be permitted to divert all of the resources it now
devotes to activities to ensure that child care providers offer
safe, high-quality care to other purposes. As child care
budgets tighten due to heightened work requirements and frozen
funding, states may be tempted to ignore the importance of the
quality of child care services and wish to focus solely on
placing as many children as possible in child care programs.
Basic health and safety protections now required under federal
law also could be waived.
Waivers that transfer substantial resources from
activities permissible under one program to entirely different
programs also would be permissible. For example, the
Secretaries of these agencies could approve waivers in which
federal TANF funds are shifted to provide student aid to
middle-income college students, to augment federal funding for
public education, or employment and training programs for
higher-income laid-off workers.
The Herger bill also would appear to allow the
Secretaries to waive other independent statutory and regulatory
requirements applicable to programs within their jurisdiction,
including minimum wage requirements, OSHA standards, and civil
rights regulations. At a minimum, there is no language in the
bill that would clearly prohibit waivers of these requirements.
There also is little question that the Secretaries would be
able to waive certain program-specific civil rights protections
that provide greater protections than general civil rights law
or that clarify the applicability of civil rights rules to
specific programs. This would include section 188 of WIA which
contains equal opportunity and nondiscrimination protections
specific to WIA and 408(c) of TANF which provides that the
Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 apply to TANF.
If programs under the jurisdiction of other agencies, the problems
only compound. If programs under the Departments of Agriculture and
Housing are included, for example, a state could apply for waivers that
could dramatically reorder federal funding priorities involving
billions of dollars and cutting across multiple programs.
The only statutory limitation, other than cost-neutrality, on these
Secretaries' authority to approve waivers is that the state applying
must show that the waiver would further the purposes of all of the
programs involved. This language is so vague that a Secretary could
determine that any state proposal met this test.
In short, this broad new waiver authority would mean that if a
state and the administration agree that they do not approve of a
statutory provision in TANF, public health programs, child care
programs, education and training programs, or any other program within
the jurisdictions of HHS and DoL, they can effectively exercise line-
item veto power and have that rule waived. This would eliminate any
assurance that Congress could establish any national standard or
requirement in programs within HHS or DoL. If enacted, this waiver
authority would represent an unprecedented abrogation of Congressional
authority to establish funding priorities, set funding levels, and
legislate program parameters. In transferring such authority to the
Executive branch, this provision would allow any Administration to
make, in conjunction with a state, unilateral policy decisions that
Congress never would have agreed to within the legislative process.
Such broad waiver authority is not needed and could be very
damaging. If there are particular areas within a program in which there
is consensus that states should have more flexibility in establishing
rules, those areas should be addressed in a targeted manner. For
example, if there is consensus that states should have more latitude in
the way they design their welfare-to-work programs, then the TANF
statute should provide that flexibility. Similarly, if there are
particular areas in which states should have more flexibility to align
WIA and TANF rules, those areas should be identified and the statutes
altered to provide that flexibility.
It also should be noted that the Herger bill would terminate
welfare-related waiver programs currently operating in some 10 states.
These waivers were granted prior to the enactment of TANF and states
with such waivers were allowed to continue those programs, even if they
conflicted with federal TANF rules, under the 1996 welfare law. It
seems odd that while seeking to provide the Administration and states
with new ways to seek very broad waivers, that the bill would terminate
those waivers already in place.
The Herger bill also would appear to allow the Secretaries to waive
other independent statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to
programs within their jurisdiction, including minimum wage
requirements, OSHA standards, and civil rights regulations. At a
minimum, there is no language in the bill that would clearly prohibit
waivers of these requirements. There also is little question that the
Secretaries would be able to waive certain program-specific civil
rights protections that provide greater protections than general civil
rights law or that clarify the applicability of civil rights rules to
specific programs. This would include section 188 of WIA which contains
equal opportunity and nondiscrimination protections specific to WIA and
408(c) of TANF which provides that the Americans with Disabilities Act
and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to TANF.
LThe Child Support and Family Formation Provisions of the
Administration's Plan
The proposed legislation makes several changes in the areas of
child support and family formation.
For current and former welfare recipients, states
would be given a new option and new incentives to direct child
support payments currently retained by states and the Federal
Government to families. (Collections on behalf of current and
former welfare recipients are often retained by the Federal
Government and states as reimbursement for welfare costs.)
The ``illegitimacy reduction bonus'' would be
replaced with a ``Healthy Marriage Promotion'' competitive
matching grant program. States would be able to use federal
TANF funds to meet the state match requirement.
An additional $100 million is diverted from the high
performance bonus for use by the Secretary to fund further
marriage promotion research, demonstrations, and technical
assistance.
The fourth purpose of TANF would be changed from
``encourag[ing] the formation and maintenance of two-parent
families'' to ``encourag[ing] the formation and maintenance of
healthy, 2-parent married families, and encourag[ing]
responsible fatherhood.'' States would be required to establish
annual, specific plans and numerical performance goals to
improve outcomes with respect to this purpose and the other
three purposes of TANF.
Child Support Provisions are More Modest than Earlier House-Passed
Legislation
There is strong evidence that non-custodial parents are more likely
to pay child support if they know that the support goes to their
children. Research has shown that when child support is passed through
to families receiving welfare, the child support paid by noncustodial
parents increases, welfare receipt declines, and children's financial
well-being improves.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Vicki Turetsky, Reauthorization Issues: Child Support
Distribution, Fact Sheet: ``Early Findings from Wisconsin Experiment to
Get More Child Support to Families,'' Center for Law and Social Policy,
February 2002, http://www.clasp.org/pubs/childenforce/
Early%20Findings%20from%20Wisconsin%20W.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Herger bill includes two provisions that would help states to
implement policies that increase the extent to which child support goes
directly to children. The first provision would provide states with an
option to direct delinquent child support payments collected by
intercepting noncustodial parents' federal tax refund checks to the
children of former welfare recipients. The second provision would help
states to implement or enhance policies that direct a portion of child
support payments collected from noncustodial parents of children
currently receiving TANF to their children. Under current law, states
and the Federal Government generally retain child payments made by
noncustodial parents of children receiving TANF. While states already
have the flexibility to pass through child support, if they exercise
this option, they must still send the Federal Government its portion of
any child support collected, making it an expensive option to take. The
Herger bill would help states pay for the costs of providing up to the
greater of $100 per month or $50 more than the current state ``pass
through'' to families that receive TANF.
These provisions, while positive, are far more modest, than child
support legislation sponsored by Representatives Nancy Johnson and Ben
Cardin that passed the House of Representatives in 2000 with
overwhelming bipartisan support.
Within five years of enactment, the Johnson-Cardin
bill would have required all states to direct intercepted
federal tax refunds to former welfare recipients who are owed
past-due child support. A uniform national rule is preferable
to a state option in this area for two reasons. It is more
equitable than a state option--whether a child receives support
should not depend on her or his state of residence. It also
makes more sense given the additional complexities that would
result in the interstate distribution of child support if
states had varying rules in this area.
The Johnson-Cardin legislation would have limited the
requirement that families applying for welfare sign over to the
state their right to collect unpaid child support that was owed
to them before they applied for welfare. (The requirement that
families turn over the support owed to them while receiving
welfare is retained in both bills). The Herger bill leaves this
requirement in place. The Johnson-Cardin approach recognizes
that families who hold off from applying for welfare should not
be penalizing by having to turn over child support that was
owed to them before applying for welfare.
The Johnson-Cardin bill placed a substantially higher
limit on the amount of child support that states could pass
through to current TANF families with financial support. Under
the Johnson-Cardin bill, the Federal Government would help pay
for the costs of providing up to $400 in child support to a
family with one child receiving TANF. Johnson-Cardin also is
more advantageous than the Administration's plan for states
that had previously implemented a child support pass-through
policy.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Currently, a number of states do pass through some child
support--often $50--to families receiving TANF cash assistance. H.R.
4090 impacts these states differently from those that do not currently
pass through any child support collections. In the states that
currently pass-through child support, federal help would only be
available in meeting the costs of increasing the pass-through above its
current level. For example, if a state already had a $50 pass-through
the plan would share in the costs of increasing the pass-through to
$100, but not in the costs associated with the first $50 of the pass-
through.
Family Formation
There is substantial interest in developing programs that further
reduce nonmarital births, foster and strengthen healthy two-parent
families, and increase the proportion of children cared for by both
parents. However, very little is known about what kinds of policies and
programs could produce desirable results in these areas. (One exception
is teenage pregnancy reduction, where a growing body of research points
to successful strategies.) \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Isabel Sawhill, What Can be Done to Reduce Teen Pregnancy
and Out-of-Wedlock Births?, The Brookings Institution, October 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, both the Healthy Marriage Promotion competitive
matching grant program and the additional research and demonstration
funding proposed in H.R. 4090 are so narrowly focused that little would
be learned about effective strategies for strengthening and improving
child well-being under this proposal. In both cases, the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) would be required to fund a narrow set
projects including marriage promotion activities such as pro-marriage
advertising campaigns, pre-marital education classes, marital
counseling, and relationship strengthening.
Efforts to reduce teen pregnancy are notably absent from the list
of projects that can be funded with these resources, despite research
indicating that reducing teen pregnancy can be an effective means to
reducing the number of children living in single-parent families. Also
absent from the list of allowable uses of these funds are efforts to
foster the involvement of noncustodial parents in the lives of their
children, or to enhance the ability of noncustodial parents to pay
child support could not be supported with these resources.\20\ Because
we know so little about what works in these areas, states should be
allowed to use these funds to conduct a wide range of research and
demonstrations that could reasonably be expected to have positive
impacts on family formation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Some of these activities could be funded through the
fatherhood initiative included in the proposal. However, fatherhood
funds cannot be used to fund employment services and the initiative is
only authorized rather than actually being funded. In order to fund
fatherhood projects outlined in this part of the Herger bill, the
Appropriations Committee would have to appropriate resources for it.
Moreover, the proposal would only authorize $20 million in funding
annually for the fatherhood initiative, far less than the up to $300
million per year in federal TANF funds that could be spent on the
marriage-related projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, there are two troubling aspects of the funding mechanism
for these efforts. While we support eliminating the ``illegitimacy
bonus'' which appears to have rewarded states that experienced falling
nonmarital births unrelated to state efforts in this area, the high
performance bonus should not be cut by 50 percent to fund these
efforts. The TANF program includes many fiscal penalty provisions, but
the high performance bonus is the only TANF provision that rewards
states for achieving better employment outcomes and increasing access
to work supports. In addition, states should not be permitted to use
federal TANF funds as the state match for the Healthy Marriage
Promotion competitive matching grant program. If the Congress decides
that additional resources should be allocated to such marriage-related
proposals, states should be required to contribute new resources,
rather than taking funds from existing TANF efforts, to participate in
a competitive matching program for which they are receiving additional
federal funds.
The Fiscal Implications of H.R. 4090
Despite increasing the participation rates that states must meet
and hourly requirements that families must meet, while also requiring
states to place substantially more parents in more expensive subsidized
jobs or work experience programs, H.R. 4090 would freeze both TANF and
child care funding for five years at the FY 2002 level. Even without
the far more costly work participation requirements on states in H.R.
4090, freezing TANF and child care funding for five years would itself
mean that most states would be unable to maintain their current welfare
reform efforts.
The 1996 law based each state's TANF block grant level on its
historical AFDC spending. Funding was not indexed for inflation. Data
from the Treasury Department show that in FY 2001, states spent $18.5
billion a year on TANF--$2 billion more than the annual block grant
level. States have been able to do this because they can tap unspent
funds from the early years of the TANF program. Those funds, however,
are dwindling quickly. Many states either have few remaining reserves
of unspent funds from prior years or will be without any significant
reserves at some point in the next couple of years. If funding remains
frozen, many states will have to cut TANF services significantly,
including supports for working poor families with children. Adding to
this problem, the $16.5 billion will purchase less in services and
benefits with each passing year, due to inflation. Since 1997, the
block grant has lost 11.5 percent of its value--five more years of
funding at the current level would mean that it would fall 22 percent
below its value in 1997.
If the child care block grant is frozen, it would lose nearly 12
percent of its value by FY 2007 due to inflation. The cost of child
care is comprised primarily of the salaries of child care workers.
States will not be able to freeze the salaries of these workers for the
next five years and, thus, as the cost of child care rises, states will
be unable to maintain their current service levels without devoting
increased state resources to child care or using larger amounts of TANF
funds for child care, leaving even less in TANF for other purposes. It
is likely that most states would be forced either to reduce the number
of children served or increase the costs borne by low-income families
by reducing the value of the subsidy. Thus, while most analysts agree
that there remains large numbers of low-income families who need child
care assistance in order to afford quality, stable child care, funding
would be falling and states would not be able to maintain even their
current child care programs.
The Herger bill includes a provision which would allow states to
transfer up to 50 percent of its TANF funds to the child care block
grant. Under current law, states can transfer up to 30 percent of TANF
funds to the child care block grant but can spend an unlimited amount
of TANF funds directly on child care. In fact, under current law, a
state could choose to spend its entire TANF block grant on child care
assistance. Thus, increasing the amount that can be transferred to the
child care block grant provides no additional resources for child care.
New Work Requirements Would Be Costly
Under the proposed legislation, states would face a five-year
freeze on TANF and child care block grant funding at the same time that
the new federally-mandated work program structure substantially
increased their work program and child care costs. An analysis by the
Center for Law and Social policy of the Administration's work
participation proposal--a proposal very similar to that in the Herger
bill--estimates that states would need to spend an additional $15
billion between 2003 and 2007 to meet the Administration's work
requirements. This figure includes $7 billion in additional work
program costs and $8 billion in additional child care costs.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Mark Greenberg, et al., At What Price? A Cost Analysis of the
Administration's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Work
Participation Proposal, Center on Law and Social Policy, April 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States would face this combination of decreased ``real'' funding
for TANF and child care and increased work program and child care costs
at the very time their reserves of unspent TANF funds from the
program's early years were running out. Taken together, these factors
would likely force most states to cut spending on TANF-funded programs
that support low-income working families who do not receive cash
assistance, since the bulk of state TANF spending outside of the
traditional welfare system is dedicated to providing supports to these
families.
If states are forced to scale back supports such as child care for
low-income working families, programs designed to help welfare
recipients find and retain jobs may be much less successful. If a
parent finds a job and leaves welfare but does not have access to child
care, transportation or wage supplements--supports that states now fund
with TANF and child care block grant funds--the parent is less likely
to retain the job and remain off welfare.
Bill Would be Especially Problematic for States With Low TANF Funding
Levels
The fiscal implications of H.R. 4090 would be especially
problematic in the large number of states with very low TANF block
grant allocations relative to their needy populations. In fiscal year
2001, eight states received less than $600 in block grant funding per-
poor child--the national average is about $1200 per-poor child--and
another 13 states received less than $900 per-poor child. (These
figures include additional TANF funds provided in ``supplemental
grants''--designed in part to provide additional funding for
underfunded states). These underfunded states would likely have even
greater difficulty than most states in summoning the resources
necessary to create large subsidized job or work experience programs.
Bill Also Would Weaken the Maintenance-of-Effort Requirement
In addition to freezing federal funding, the Herger bill would
weaken the current maintenance-of-effort requirement (MOE) which
requires states to spend a certain level of their own resources in
order to be eligible for the TANF block grant. Under current law, only
state spending on needy families can count toward the maintenance-of-
effort requirement. The Herger bill would allow state spending on
activities related to reducing nonmarital pregnancies or promoting
marriage that are not targeted on low-income families to be counted
toward the MOE requirement. States already have the ability to spend
federal TANF funds on pregnancy prevention and marriage-related
programs for non-needy families. Thus, there are ample resources
available if states are interested in funding such efforts. The
practical effect of the Herger proposal will be that states will be
able to count spending on efforts they are already making that serve
these purposes and then reduce the amount of resources they spend on
TANF-related programs.
For example, suppose a state has been operating for the past five
years a mediation program through its court system to try to reduce
divorce rates and the program is available to all couples contemplating
divorce. This program was established without any consideration of the
TANF statute. Under the Herger bill, the state could now count the
entire cost of this program toward its maintenance-of-effort
requirement, enabling it to withdraw state resources it currently
spends on low-income programs to meet the MOE requirement.
Strengthening Work and Families: An Alternative to the Chairman's Plan
There is a better alternative to mandating a top-down approach that
would force states to replace their current work programs with more
costly and less effective programs that could, in some cases, become
``make-work'' programs. A better and equally work-focused alternative
plan would push states to address the remaining challenges of welfare
reform by drawing on lessons from the extensive base of welfare reform
research and building on current successful state-based approaches.
Reward States for Putting Parents in Jobs: The case load reduction
credit should be replaced with a mechanism that gives states credit
toward the work rates when a family leaves welfare for work. The case
load credit wrongly rewards states for case load decline, even if it is
achieved in the absence of work. Instead, states should get credit
based on the number of families that leave welfare for work. This
approach would send a far more positive signal to states--it would
recognize that states should be rewarded for their programs' successes,
namely, the families that have left welfare for work. To provide an
additional incentive to keep families employed after they leave
welfare, states should continue to get credit for families for six to
12 months after they leave if employment is maintained. States also
should get ``extra credit'' for placing families in higher-paying jobs.
Increase States' Ability to Focus on Helping Parents Find Better-
Paying, More Secure Jobs: Additional steps need to be taken to help
families get better jobs. States should be given broader flexibility to
allow parents to participate in vocational educational programs that
could help recipients improve their skills and secure more stable
employment. In addition to the NEWWS evaluation findings, there is
growing evidence that carefully designed educational programs can have
a substantial impact on earnings. Maine's Parents-as-Scholars program,
which allows participation in vocational education, including post-
secondary education, for more than 12 months, is one example. Wage
rates for Parents-as-Scholars participants jumped by nearly 50
percent--from about $8.00 an hour prior to entering to program to
nearly $12.00 an hour after program completion.\22\ In spite of its
proven success, Maine is not able to use federal TANF dollars to
operate the Parents-as-Scholars program because participants would not
count toward TANF work rates given the current 12-month limitation on
vocational education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Rebekah J. Smith, Luisa S. Duprez, and Sandra S. Butler,
Parents as Scholars: Education Works, March 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help Parents with Work Barriers Succeed in the Labor Market: States
need more flexibility and support in working with families with
barriers to employment. States should be encouraged--not discouraged--
to identify parents that have significant barriers to employment and
work with those parents to overcome those conditions and move toward
employment. At the very least, states should be allowed to count
families that they place in barrier-removal activities toward the work
participation requirements without any arbitrary limits. As noted
above, the proposal to allow certain barrier removal activities to
count for three consecutive months in any 24-month period is not a
significant improvement on current policy.
Families with barriers would also be helped by improvements in
sanction policies. A growing number of rigorous studies conducted by or
for states have found that sanctioned families are more likely to have
serious barriers to employment than families that leave for other
reasons. A pre-sanction review process--in which families are contacted
prior to the sanction, screened and assessed for barriers that may have
hindered families ability to meet work requirements, and provided with
services to address any barriers identified--would help improve
compliance with work rules and ensure that participants are receiving
the right types of employment services.
Provide Additional State Flexibility to Make Work Pay: One of the
most important research findings from the past few years pertains to
the importance of earnings supplement policies in ``making work pay.''
Since the early 1990's, nearly all states have adopted policies that
allow families to keep a share of their welfare benefits as a wage
supplement. These supplements remain quite modest--in the most states
they are eliminated before a family's earnings reach 75 percent of the
poverty line--but help ensure that a family is actually better off by
working. Unfortunately, such supplements count against the federal time
limit even though families must be working to receive them. This helps
explain an unanticipated finding from states that have studied the
effects of their time limit policies--that a majority of families who
are terminated due to time limits are working prior to their
termination. The families terminated due to time limits in these states
tend to have lower wages, educational levels, and higher poverty rates
than families leaving welfare for other reasons. States that decide to
provide wage supplements to working families like these should be able
to do so without applying the federal time limit.
Extend Work-Based Reforms to Low-Income Fathers: While TANF has
helped boost employment rates for single mothers, more needs to be done
to improve employment outcomes for disadvantaged fathers. The
employment rates and labor force participation of young black men with
a high school degree or less actually fell in the 1990s, even as
employment outcomes for young black women improved.\23\ The Federal
Government should provide states with incentives to extend employment
services and other necessary services to low-income fathers. States can
currently serve low-income non-custodial parents with TANF funds, but
existing programs are limited. States should be allowed to count low-
income fathers of TANF children toward their TANF work rates if the
fathers are receiving TANF-funded employment services. This would
provide states with an incentive to extend TANF-funded employment
services to more low-income fathers. States also should be given one-
time federal grants to develop programmatic recommendations to extend
employment services to low-income fathers and enhance program
coordination among programs that work with low-income fathers,
including child support, employment, and criminal justice programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Paul Offner and Harry Holzer, Left Behind in the Labor Market:
Recent Employment Trends Among Young Black Men, Center on Urban and
Metropolitan Policy, The Brookings Institution, April 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allow States to Bring Legal Immigrant Families into their TANF Work
Programs: States should also be allowed to bring recent legal immigrant
families into their federally-funded TANF work programs. About one in
four low-wage workers with children is a immigrant and most of the
children in these families are U.S. citizens. A significant share of
these low-wage legal immigrant workers are excluded from the federally-
funded TANF program because they have lived in the United States for
less than five years.\24\ In fact, recent legal immigrants are the only
significant group of low-wage workers that states are prohibited from
serving (aside from families that have received welfare for more than
60 months, but states have flexibility to provide hardship exemptions
to families after 60 months).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ According to the Urban Institute, some 3 million legal
immigrants--about one-third of all legal permanent residents in the
country--have been in the United States for five years or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal immigrant families are not only ineligible for TANF-funded
cash assistance, but also for TANF-funded work supports and services
such as child care, transportation, job training, and English-language
instruction. Opponents of state flexibility to serve legal immigrants
claim that a five-year eligibility ban is needed to prevent welfare
dependency among legal immigrants. However, TANF already provides ample
safeguards against welfare dependency, including mandatory work
requirements and a five-year limit on assistance. These restrictions
apply regardless of immigration status. It isn't clear why a complete
eligibility ban--a drastic additional protection against dependency
that does not apply to long-term immigrants or to citizens--is
necessary for legal immigrants during their first five years in the
United States. The Administration also suggests that an eligibility ban
is necessary because benefits may induce legal immigrant to migrate to
the United States for welfare benefits--the so-called ``magnet
effect''--even though recent social science research finds no evidence
to support the magnet effect hypothesis \25\ and some of the staunchest
proponents of immigrant restrictions agree there is no magnet
effect.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Neeraj Kaushal, New Immigrants' Location Choices: Magnets
without Welfare, CUNY Graduate Center Working Paper (2002); Madeline
Zavodny, Welfare and the Location Choices of New Immigrants, Economic
Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (1997); and Madeline Zavodny,
Determinants of Recent Immigrants' Locational Choices, Federal Reserve
Bank of Atlanta, Working Paper 98-3 (1998).
\26\ See Comments of U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo and Comments
of Daniel Stein, Executive Director of the Federation for Immigration
Reform, transcript from Brookings Institution forum on legal immigrants
and welfare, February 22, 2002, http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/
comm/transcripts/20020228.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provide Adequate Funding for States to Operate Effective Work
Programs: Finally, if states are to maintain their existing work
support system, expand services to more low-income fathers, and make
further progress on the challenges that remain, they will need to have
an adequate long-term funding base. The TANF block grant should be
adjusted to keep pace with inflation. Funding for the Child Care and
Development Block Grant also should be increased so states can provide
subsidies to a greater portion of eligible families.
Two final issues that arise from the current-law funding structure
also need to be addressed. As discussed above, large number of states
have very low TANF block grant allocations relative to their needy
populations. Reauthorization legislation should allocate additional
funding beyond the level currently provided in the supplemental
grants--and in H.R. 4090 which would freeze the supplemental grants at
their current level--to increase funding levels in these underfunded
states. The TANF program also lacks an adequate mechanism for providing
states with additional resources for recessions. H.R. 4090 would
reauthorize the current contingency fund, but far more substantial
modifications are needed than are included in the bill to ensure that
states have adequate resources during a downturn.
Thank you for inviting me to testify today. TANF reauthorization
represents an opportunity to build on the successes of the last six
years to ensure that poor families with children can succeed in the
labor market. Reauthorization legislation should take a work-focused
approach that recognizes both the strengths of current state welfare-
to-work efforts, addresses those areas in which more could be done to
help parents overcome barriers and find jobs that can support their
families, and provides the resources necessary for states to operate
effective programs.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Primus. That is
our goal and hopefully when it finally comes up, we end up that
way. Mr. Turner, now we turn to you to testify. Mr. Turner.
STATEMENT OF JASON A. TURNER, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR SELF-
SUFFICIENCY, MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
Mr. TURNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, there has been much discussion this afternoon on the
relative roles of the various levels of government in welfare
reform. I have had the privilege and honor working as the
Federal Director of the Aid to Families with Dependant Children
program in the first Bush Administration at HHS, then as a
State official leading the planning group that led to
recommendations that became--that Governor Thompson made into
many of his reforms. Finally, I had the honor of working for
Mayor Giuliani as a local official as the Commissioner of the
Human Resources Administration, and in that role managed about
7 percent of the national welfare case load. As an official of
these three levels of government, I would like to say, Mr.
Chairman, that your bill and the President's bill contains
objectives which can be met in every State.
Moreover, I could meet these objectives in New York City
with less money than has been in the current TANF program
because of the very significant case load reductions that have
been achieved, freeing up lots of money that used to be spent
on cash benefits for services.
Finally, as a State and Local Administrator, I wish to make
it clear that strong national work requirements are successful
for local administrators to have the authority to move forward
and get the kinds of cooperation and support they need at the
State and local level for strong programs.
Surprisingly, given the goals of TANF, the proportion of
adults who are actually engaged in constructive activities
leading to employment is very low, as Mr. Mead said in his own
testimony. For example, excluding those who are working in a
job while they are also receiving welfare, only one in five
welfare recipients are doing any constructive activity, let
alone sufficient activity that is going to lead them into
employment. Your bill, which requires a combination of 24 hours
of work-like activity and 16 hours of very flexible activity,
strikes the right balance between mandates for actual work-like
employment activity and a level of effort by the individual
recipient, on the one hand, and a State ability to design its
own program, on the other.
I want to also reiterate what some of my colleagues have
said as it relates to the ability to draw in under the existing
federal rules people that are sitting out and staying at home
and not doing any kind of work activity or any other activity.
In New York City, as a commissioner, I had at any given
time between 37,000 and 45,000 individuals, adults, who had
been asked to come in and participate in a work program who
refused to do so and continued to receive almost all of their
benefits while they sat at home. There is very little I can do
as a commissioner, or any commissioner can do, under
circumstances in which federal law permits almost all of the
money that goes through the welfare program to continue to go
to individuals who are not willing to help themselves. What we
need is what is called the full check sanction that connects
the benefit, the welfare benefit with the obligation to go into
a work assignment, much the way in a real job when you do not
show up to work, you do not get paid, and that helps you show
up to work. We have to move away from a work suggestion program
into a work requirement program.
Finally, I would like to say there is plenty of money in
this bill for child care and other requirements that are
necessary in order for us to have a successful program that
moves large numbers of individuals into employment. Lastly--I
will save my last comment for the question-and-answer period.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Turner follows:]
Statement of Jason A. Turner, Director, Center for Self-Sufficiency,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Greetings to Members of the Committee:
Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
SUMMARY POINTS OF TESTIMONY
In the discussion below we will make three arguments as follows:
The reauthorized bill should include strengthened
work requirements. These requirements are essential to
transforming the meaning of welfare away from a cash
entitlement, and to maximizing the rate of movement into and up
within the private labor force. The work requirement rates in
current law are obsolete and have been overtaken by events. The
President's proposal, as modified by Chairman Herger's Personal
Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2002, sets us
in the right direction.
Many state programs are unable to engage individuals
in constructive activities because adults under current law can
ignore the requirement to participate and continue to receive
most of their welfare benefits. This undermines the ability of
these programs to reach out and bring in those most in need of
the services. The solution is to assure that the entire welfare
check is made contingent upon acceptance of the obligation to
participate in constructive activities (full check sanction),
much the way a wage is contingent upon showing up to work.
The budget for the reauthorized TANF program can be
reduced by ten percent without adversely affecting any
essential aspect of the program, including the provision of
child care for working families, and would in many respects
result in improvements in the effectiveness of the service
delivery system.
WORK REQUIREMENTS NEED TO BE STRENGTHENED
The TANF program has been extraordinarily successful at reducing
the case load and moving individuals into employment, as we have seen
above. State programs have achieved this by instituting good up-front
job search programs in what is termed as a ``Work First'' approach.
Experimental research over the past decade and a half, influential
among the drafters of the current law, had revealed that education and
training alone is less effective at helping individuals succeed in the
private labor market than early entry into employment if feasible,
where on-the-job learning can help individuals move up the employment
ladder faster than holding them out of the labor market for classroom
instruction. Most often actual work can be combined with education and
training in a more effective combination than either one alone.
From this ``Work First'' orientation, our experience has shown
further that for those unable to find immediate private employment,
either full or part time, the next best alternative usually includes
some work experience as a core part, although not the only part, of an
overall schedule and effort resulting in employment. This is especially
true for those without extensive prior work history.
There are two key components which together influence the
effectiveness of welfare-to-work programs under TANF. One component is
the number of hours of activity required of a participant, which is a
measure of his or her effort. The second is the overall proportion of
individuals engaged in such activities, which is a measure of the
breadth and reach of the program. Both components, the intensity and
the breadth of program participation, are important to the overall
effectiveness of the program. The authors of the current TANF program
clearly intended that both program intensity and program breadth be the
focus, and they did so by setting meaningful levels of weekly work
requirements (measured in hours), and participation rates (measured by
the proportion of adults actually engaged in the activity).
Surprisingly, given the goals of TANF, the proportion of adults
engaged in constructive activities leading to employment, is quite low,
once those who are already employed while on welfare are excluded.
Although over 40 percent of the adult case load in the average state is
involved in some required activity, nearly 70 percent of these are in
unsubsidized employment; i.e., they are collecting welfare while
working at a regular job. This is, of course, good as far as it goes.
But for the remainder, i.e. those not working and still receiving
benefits, current law has done little to encourage states to
constructively engage this group. For example, excluding those who are
working in a job at the same time they are receiving welfare benefits,
of the rest only on in five adults are doing any constructive activity
leading to work.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ HHS, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, Third
Annual Report to Congress; August 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order for the TANF program to make significant continued
progress at helping adult recipients achieve financial independence, it
will have to find ways to get states to engage a far larger proportion
of the adult population than is being served under the current program.
A major management commitment is necessary to mount a large and ongoing
program for a high proportion of recipients, and although the policy
makers who drafted the TANF program may have anticipated that most
recipients would be involved in welfare-to-work activities,
implementation by states has simply not produced this result.
The President's TANF reauthorization proposal, Working Toward
Independence, (as modified by Chairman Herger's bill), moves us in the
right direction toward the next level of reform by focusing state
programs on increasing the level of effort made by individuals in the
program, and by increasing the program's breadth and reach. It does
this while retaining the state operational flexibility inherent in the
TANF program.
The President's plan as modified by Chairman Herger (hereafter
PRWFPA 2002), sets a 40 hour week as the standard for welfare-to-work
activity, which is an increase from 30 hours per week under current law
(or 20 for single parents of children under 6). The 40 hour week is
comparable to the time commitment necessary in a full-time job. Unlike
current law, however, which measures only participant time spent in
work-like activities such as subsidized employment and work experience,
the President's plan divides required activity into two parts--work-
like activity for 24 hours per week (i.e. three-day equivalent) and
state-flexible activity for the other 16 hours. This is intended to
give states the flexibility they need to blend other program components
into the week to maximize its effectiveness, such as education,
training, substance abuse treatment, and job search.
In addition to moving to a higher level of participant weekly
commitment, the PRWFPA 2002 bill intends to increase the proportion of
individuals actually engaged in welfare-to-work activities by
increasing the state required participation rate to 70% from its
current 50%, while making certain adjustments (the case load reduction
credits) to make it easier for states to achieve.
Are the state work requirements as outlined in the President's plan
realistic and achievable for the majority of states? Absolutely!
States have already shown from the current legislation that they
are capable of designing programs to meet federal performance targets
when challenged to do so. The President's plan sets important targets,
but leaves the bulk of the operational decision-making to state policy
makers.
Both former Governor Thompson of Wisconsin and Mayor Giuliani of
New York City have designed and operated large-scale welfare-to-work
programs as originally envisioned by the authors of PWRORA, and as
likely to be achieved in practice under the President's bill (with
certain suggested modifications). Both Wisconsin and New York share the
aspiration to run full-week programs with high levels of required
participation. Some of the practical fundamentals of operating such
programs are outlined below:
Welfare-to-work programs should constitute genuine practice for
private employment.
The program should operate on a standard full-time
workweek which conforms to the expectations of private
employment. This allows participants to practice organizing
their lives around a realistic work schedule of eight hour work
days and five day work weeks;
Real work should be made part of the weekly activity.
The pride and satisfaction of successfully mastering work tasks
often results in a big psychological lift and translates into
confidence in the search for private employment;
Work assignments must include close supervision and
regular feedback. Those who lack work histories are often not
familiar with workplace norms of professionalism and conduct,
and frequently find it difficult to submit or supervisory
authority or get along with co-workers. Good supervisors who
agree to make part of their task the acculturation of
participants play a large role in the success of their charges.
There must be swift consequences for non-attendance
without cause. The notion of such consequences can be a new and
ultimately constructive experience for those used to being
involved in a bureaucratic welfare system in which not much
changes. Thus, the importance of reliability must be taught,
and for this to occur benefits must be closely tied to
attendance.
High levels of required and ongoing participation best allows for
the goal of replacing cash assistance with work. Welfare-to-work
activities which become part of an ongoing obligation as a condition of
receipt of welfare, allow for an ever-present option for those rotating
in and out of the labor market. It can operate much like an accordion,
expanding and contracting to accommodate those out of the labor force,
while keeping work habits and skills in good repair.
Required ongoing participant activity probably exerts its greatest
net case load impact at the time of enrollment. Where participation in
welfare-to-work programs has been required of applicants who do not
find private employment within a certain period of time, the number of
actual slots used by participants is almost always far fewer than
anticipated. Fewer slots are necessary because individuals who know
they must engage in work in exchange for benefits frequently elect not
to enroll in the program in the first place. Instead, they find
immediate employment or increase their hours in existing part-time
employment.
Universal work programs require work slots for individuals of all
capabilities. Having a near-universal expectation of work helps change
the culture of the system and channels the energy of recipients in a
constructive direction away from attempting to qualify for exemptions.
Sanction policies play a large role in achieving high levels of
participation. High non-participation rates are a feature of most
mandatory programs. In Wisconsin, where the Wisconsin Works program
pays cash benefits only to those who first participate in work
activities, compliance by definition is high. However, in states like
New York that do not use a version of full-check sanction for non-
participation, a large proportion of families may accept a lower TANF
payment rather than engage in work.
High turnover rates present management problems but lower the
number of required work slots. The high turnover rate has at least two
causes. One cause is that those who reliably participate in their work
assignments, even for short periods, find they can obtain private
employment. Fully half of all individuals who participated in New
York's work experience program for any period during the first quarter
of 2000 found employment the same calendar year. In addition, normal
case load dynamics in which recipients leave the rolls further
increases turnover. The high work experience turnover rate means that
far fewer actual slots are needed to run a universal program than would
otherwise be required.
In conclusion, managing a large-scale welfare-to-work program is
both practical and necessary to achieving true welfare reform. The
President's plan, with modifications, sets us in the right direction.
THE CURRENT LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE INCENTIVE FOR RECIPIENTS TO
ENGAGE IN WELFARE-TO-WORK ACTIVITIES
Under the goals and objectives laid out in the President's and
Chairman's bill which would result in near-universal engagement in
constructive activities by adults on welfare, there will come a point
beyond which states will be unable to make progress under provisions of
current federal law. The reason for this is that there is currently no
federal requirement that cash benefits be connected to an obligation to
participate. Only a small portion of the overall cash benefit is
affected by non-participation in about half the country. As a result,
individuals who refuse offers to participate cannot be induced to
enroll and remain outside the ability of states to help them move to
self-sufficiency.
As an example from New York City, as of December 2001, there were
literally no more individuals left that the welfare agency had not
called into its welfare-to-work program. Yet tens of thousands of
individuals were at home having refused to cooperate, and were
therefore outside the ability of the program to help.
It is essential that a true work program include a connection
between the receipt of benefits and positive participation. Those
without a work history need to practice work-like habits such as
routine and reliability. The connection between benefits and work
effort is an essential part of the learning process. If we don't have
it, states are running a voluntary program without the name. The
solution is to adopt a version of a full check sanction for non-
participation.
A TEN PERCENT REDUCTION IN THE BUDGET ALLOCATED TO THE TANF BLOCK GRANT
CAN EASILY BE ACCOMMODATED WITHOUT CONSTRAINING THE PROGRAM'S
EFFECTIVENESS
There is far more money available for welfare-to-work expenditures
than ever before because about half of the prior expenditures on
benefits are no longer required as a result of case load reductions.
This of course is a good development overall, and accommodates
increased spending per remaining adult recipient, as well as permitting
more funds to be dedicated to child care for working families, and
other such supports.
However, we may be reaching a point where the plentiful
availability of resources may begin to be counterproductive. The excess
liquidity in the TANF system can result in programs being less
efficient and effective than they otherwise might be if careful use of
resources remains a budget necessity. For example, in New York City we
now spend about ten times the amount per remaining recipient on
welfare-to-work services (of all kinds, including child care and
substance abuse treatment) as compared to prior to the passage of TANF,
even though case loads are about 60% lower (not ten times lower). This
anomaly occurs because benefit payments represented the overwhelming
proportion of total welfare spending in the pre-TANF era.
The significant increase in available funds has resulted in
enormous pressure for states to find ways to spend or obligate funds.
In a ten-state study published about six months ago, the General
Accounting Office found that of ten states studied, five had used
between fifteen and twenty five percent of their TANF funds to supplant
state spending.\2\ Moreover, even with the pressure to expend funds, as
recently as the first half of fiscal 2001 states as a group were
spending at a rate equal to only 91% of their available block and
supplemental TANF grants \3\ (states have now caught up and are
spending at a rate slightly higher than that available through annual
grants).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GAO-01-828, Welfare Revorm--Challenges in Maintaining a
federal-State Fiscal Partnership; 9/01; p.13.
\3\ Analysis of TANF Spending through the Middle of Federal Fiscal
Year 2001; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; 9/01; p.13.
\4\ TANF Spending in Federal Fiscal Year 2001; Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities; 3/27/02; p.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another way to see the increase in available resources as a result
of the case load decline is to consider that from FY 1998 to FY2001,
spending on cash assistance declined from 61% of total TANF
expenditures to 38%. As a result, significant amounts of funds have
been freed up for other uses. However, even counting all the 2001
spending on basic TANF related functions--i.e. for cash assistance; for
welfare and working family child care; for education, training and work
experience; for state supplements to the EITC; for computers and
administration; and for all other direct work supports--there still
remained 23% of the TANF block grant which was available and re-
programmed for other uses, according to calculations made by the Center
for Budget and Policy Priorities.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ TANF Spending in Federal Fiscal Year 2001; Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities; 3/27/02; p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The result of excess liquidity in the TANF program means, for a
state and local administrator, pressure to spend money in ways they
might not otherwise deem wise. Some state and local administrators have
had difficulty extracting the best value from employment and training
vendors.
As of the end of the last fiscal year 7.4 billion dollars in
federal funds remained as unobligated or unliquidated from the TANF
block grant, or an accumulation rate of about 1.5 billion per year
(unliquidated funds may have been committed, see footnote). A ten
percent reduction would take out about 1.7 billion dollars per year in
the amount of federal funds otherwise available, or an amount not much
greater than the excess which has accumulated each year.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Not all the funds designated as unliquidated are available for
reprogramming. As the term is used by states, unliquidated funds may
mean funds committed (e.g. per a contract) but not yet spent, or it may
mean funds designated for future use by the state or its counties, but
not yet programmed. Of the $7.4 billion in federal funds not used by
states and accumulated as of the end of the fiscal year, states
characterized $4.9 billion of that amount as unliquidated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nor is there a shortage of child care funding. For FY 2002 the
total federal share of child care funds through the CCDF, TANF and SSBG
equals a very generous $8.7 billion. To this add the state shares under
TANF and CCDF for a combined total of $11.7 billion. This amount does
not account for children being cared for while participating in Head
Start (another $6.5 billion)\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Source: HHS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But even these figures underestimate the amount of federal
resources devoted to supporting children in care arrangements. The
dependent care tax credit subsidizes child care in an amount in excess
of $2.6 billion (1998) per year.\8\ Moreover the two largest tax
programs which help support children, the Earned Income Tax Credit and
the Child Tax Credit, dwarf all other programs combined. The refundable
EITC, originally conceived as one way to help low-income working
families better manage the expenses of working (including the expense
of child care), contributes over $30 billion to families per year.
Finally, the child tax credit contributes over $20 billion to families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Source: 2000 Green Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The two systems, the direct subsidy system and the tax system, work
together, with welfare parents and entry level employed adults relying
more on direct subsidies, and low and middle income working families
utilizing the tax subsidies to a greater extent.
Thirty-two states have no waiting lists for CCDF child care. Of
those remaining that do, these states tend to have state criteria which
extends eligibility way up into the middle class (e.g. California with
a maximum income limit of $35,100, New Jersey at $36,570 and No.
Carolina at $34,224).\9\ For those well into the middle class, states
may wish to assure parents are utilizing the tax subsidy system while
reserving its direct subsidies for its lower income families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Information based on state child care plans submitted to and
compiled by HHS, 3/19/02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, experience shows that child care waiting lists,
particularly in large cities, are not always accurate. Maintaining
lists is often complicated and bureaucratic. When New York City
carefully went through its extensive waiting list, it found far fewer
families actually needing child care than was implied by the size of
the list. Reasons for this included the following:
Many families on the waiting list or receiving child
care subsidies no longer needed them because the child was no
longer living with the family.
Some previously eligible for care for reasons of work
or program participation were no longer engaged in the activity
which provided their eligibility.
Some families were receiving one kind of child care
subsidy, but were looking for another kind of care, e.g. a
particular center.
Some families had placed their names several times on
one or more lists.
Child care vendors receiving fixed amounts to make
available a certain numbers of slots had turnover vacancies
unknown and not listed in the city inventory, thereby
undercounting the amount of child care available and paid for.
In conclusion, the tremendous success of PWRORA at helping families
achieve self-sufficiency has reduced the level of state and local funds
necessary to provide benefit payments. The federal taxpayer should
participate in at least some of this success in the form of reduced
contributions to the TANF block grant.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Turner. Now we will turn to
questioning, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania will inquire.
Mr. ENGLISH. I want to thank all of you for testifying.
This is really an extraordinary panel and one which distills a
great deal of experience and, I think, a very broad perspective
across the political spectrum.
Starting with you, Mr. Turner, I am struck by the emphasis
in your testimony on the importance of full check sanctions.
Now in your practical experience, what kind of impact has full
check sanctions had on welfare rolls?
Mr. TURNER. Well, thank you for asking that question. In
Wisconsin, where Governor Thompson instituted a program in
which the only way to get benefits was to participate in a
constructive activity, what we found was that many individuals
seeing that by enrolling in the Wisconsin work program, they
would be participating in what amounted to a full work week,
ended up making the decision themselves to go right into
private employment. Much of the constructive case load
reduction activity and increases in employment had to do with
people making their own decisions to go right to work.
In fact, it is almost always easier to help someone get a
job before they enter the welfare system than it is once they
become dependent for an extended period of time. So, having the
full check sanction provision, a provision that can enforce,
require, and make constructive activity an integral part of
being on welfare, that is an essential aspect of an effective
program which will continue to move people to employment.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Primus, you are here testifying today as
an advocate of State flexibility, which I find refreshing. Let
me just say, you have always been a very principal advocate on
these issues. From the standpoint of State flexibility, very
briefly, do you feel that full check sanction is something that
intrudes on State flexibility?
Mr. PRIMUS. In our comments to the administration about
welfare reform, we did not suggest that the ability of States
to do full sanctions be taken away or limited. However,
mandatory full check sanctions would be an intrusion on State
flexibility. What we were primarily concerned about is that
recipients understand the requirements that are expected of
them and know why they are being sanctioned. That is why we
basically advocated for something that was being done by
Governor Sundquist, a former Member of this Committee, and by
no means a liberal, and would mandate other States follow what
is a very good conciliation process in the State of Tennessee.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Rector, I know your foundation has done a
great deal of research on this subject. Looking from a broader
perspective, have you seen evidence that full check sanction
works significantly in providing incentives that reduce the
rolls and bring people back into the workforce?
Mr. RECTOR. Yes. Full check sanction is the strongest
variable that you can find in determining the level of case
load reduction in a State. A State that has a full check
sanction system will have a rate of case load reduction three
times higher than the States that do not. What you are finding
is an increasing share of the national TANF case load is now
clustered in the 12 or so States that do not have a full check
sanction because they simply have people sitting there doing
nothing. Those 12 States now comprise over half of the TANF
case load.
Now a critic would say, well, of course, you can get
greater case load reduction when you throw people off the
rolls. That is not what a sanction does. What a full check
sanction does is it communicates that this a real work
requirement, it is not a work suggestion. This is for real. The
recipient does have to come in to the welfare office. I sat in
welfare offices in many different States, and before the 1996
reform, and before full check sanction, the typical experience
would be that you would send out letter after letter after
letter asking people to come in and engage in job search, in
training, anything, and they would never respond. Once you have
a full check sanction in place, then you get their attention,
then they come in. Then you are simulating a real work
environment. This is actually--and I don't mean this
facetiously--this is the most compassionate thing to do,
because creating a pseudo reality where they continue to get
payments even if they are not behaving in a constructive manner
only delays their path toward self-sufficiency.
Mr. ENGLISH. Finally, Mr. Mead, I read your testimony as
also being supportive of this kind of a policy. What has your
research found? What can you add, listening to the testimony of
some of the other panelists?
Mr. MEAD. I did an analysis like the one Bob Rector
described. Actually, I used some of his data to do it and
introduced additional variables. I also found that the full
check sanction was a very powerful determinant of the rate of
case load fall for a State in the recent period. That was not
true earlier when sanctions were not as strong. Under TANF, it
is very clear that the sanction power is a major determinant of
whether States are driving the rolls down.
I also would concur in the idea that often recipients
misunderstand a partial sanction. They do not understand what
is occurring. They often think their grant has simply been
recalculated. They do not understand that they are violating an
obligation. When you turn off the entire grant, they call up
their case worker and ask what is going on, and then they find
out. Then some leave. So, it gets the message across.
Chairman HERGER. The gentleman's time has expired. Now the
gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, to inquire.
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Williams, I
appreciate in your written statement pointing out the fact that
the Congressional Budget Office has indicated that TANF
expenditures have exceeded authorized funding levels by $2
billion. You cite that in support of the provision that is in
my bill that allows for an annual inflationary increase, and I
appreciate that.
I notice also in your testimony you point out the concern
on the case load credit and would ask us to move toward an
employment credit and other things you are suggesting in the
legislation. So, Mr. Chairman, we now have the American Public
Human Services Association, the Conference of Mayors, NCSL,
NGA, all asking that we make changes in the legislation that
has been filed. I hope we will listen to their concerns because
these are the people that have to implement the laws that we
are going to be passing here. They all disagree with Mr. Turner
in his assessment that not only is everything fine but the
funding could actually be reduced. I think that is something
that we need to really take into consideration.
Mr. Rector, I very much appreciate your direct
justification for federal mandates and regulations since it is
our money. It is a very direct point and one that has been
rejected by the Bush administration and been rejected by both
the Republicans and Democrats here in our commitment to give
the States the flexibility that they need in order to
accomplish the objective.
I think Democrats and Republicans both trust the States to
do the right thing, which leads me to a question to Mr. Primus,
and that is that Secretary Thompson testified earlier today in
response to a question from the Chair that the Administration's
bill gives additional flexibility to the States, that they have
more opportunities and less restrictions than under current
law. Do you agree with that assessment?
Mr. PRIMUS. No, I do not agree at all with that assessment.
I think I heard Secretary Thompson many times and when he talks
about increased flexibility, he is really talking about the
last 16 hours. For a mother to count at all in terms of meeting
the 70-percent requirement, as you know, a mother can only be
engaged in a very narrow and a more narrow set of activities
than under current law. Yet, there is one 3-month stint when
basically anything the State does would count, assuming again
the recipient is engaged in something that is at least 24
hours, but beyond that, this is clearly reduced flexibility.
Mr. CARDIN. There has also been testimony that--certainly
NCSL pointed out that they are concerned that the requirements
in the administration's bill is going to require States to
divert funds from programs such as English proficiencies or
classroom vocational education, which now will not count toward
the work requirement, but also from daycare for government
workfare type jobs. There has been some testimony that that is
more important to a person succeeding in the workplace to have
that job, be it a subsidized public job, rather than getting
the vocational training or the English proficiencies or the
other services or job search that currently count toward the
work participation requirements. Do you have a view on that?
Mr. PRIMUS. I can submit for the record a recent study done
in the State of Washington which shows that paid work
experience ranked last in terms of moving recipients into
unsubsidized jobs in the private sector. Job search and other
Welfare-to-Work models fared much better than the work
experience model in terms of moving recipients into work.
[The study follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
September 2001
This report uses results from the WorkFirst Study (WFS). The sample
of 3000 families was drawn from the statewide list of adults receiving
welfare assistance in March 1999. Respondents completed a telephone
survey that gathered information on work, education, family, and
economic well-being.
This report estimates the impact of job preparation activities in
WorkFirst on employment and earnings in early 2000. For this report,
only adult women in one-parent families are included in the analysis.
The impact of the job Search Workshop, Work Experience, Job Skills
Training, Pre-Employment Training, and Community jobs were estimated
using multivariate analysis.
Employment information came from state Unemployment Insurance
files. State administrative files provided information on client
activities. Personal and family characteristics were gathered from the
WFS telephone survey.
FINDINGS
About a third of respondents were referred to Job
Search, half were referred to the job Search Workshop, 17
percent were referred to Work Experience and less than 10
percent were referred to Community Jobs, Pre-Employment
Training, and Job Skills Training.
About half of those referred completed each of the
activities, with the exception of job Search and the Job Search
Workshop which had much higher completion rates.
Each of the activities had positive effects on
employment or earnings or both.
The Job Search Workshop, Community Jobs, Work
Experience, and Job Skills Training increased the chances of
employment. Job Search by itself may also have increased
employment though the evidence is weaker.
Average earnings increased for people who completed
Community Jobs, Pre-Employment Training, and perhaps job Skills
Training
WorkFirst Activities
This report estimates the effects of selected WorkFirst job
preparation activities on employment and earnings in later quarters.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
We chose six activities, Job Search, Job Search Workshop, Work
Experience, Job Skills Training, Pre-Employment Training, and Community
Jobs because they focus on job readiness and were used by enough WFS
respondents to adequately assess their impact. The activities ranged
from a 1-week workshop (the Job Search Workshop) to a 9-month intensive
work program (Community Jobs).
Figure 1 shows the percentage of WFS respondents referred to and
completing each of the activities prior to January 2000.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
About a third of respondents were referred to Job Search, half were
referred to the job Search Workshop, 17 percent were referred to Work
Experience and less than 10 percent were referred to Community Jobs,
Pre-Employment Training, and Job Skills Training.
About half of those referred completed each of the activities, with
the exception of job Search and the Job Search Workshop which had much
higher completion rates.
Effects of WorkFirst Activities
We used multivariate analysis to account for the selection of
clients into activities based on their jobreadiness, the effects of
multiple activities, and changes in the effects of activities over
time.' The analysis controls for differences in past employment and
earnings, demographic and personal characteristics, length of time on
welfare, participation in other activities, and geographic location.
Table 2 shows the estimated impact of activities completed in the
last 3 quarters 1999 (``recent'' activities) as well as the impact of
all WorkFirst activities completed prior to January 2000. The impacts
show the estimated change in employment and earnings in the first
quarter of 2000 attributable to completing the activity. Impacts in
bold are statistically discernable from no change (p<.10).
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Job Search Workshop, Community Jobs, Work Experience, and Job
Skills Training increased the chances of employment. Job Search alone
may also have increased employment, though evidence of that effect is
weaker. There is some evidence that the effects of the job Search
Workshop, Job Search alone, and Work Experience may be underestimated.
Average earnings increased for people who completed Community Jobs,
Pre-Employment Training, and perhaps job Skills Training and the Job
Search Workshop.
Effects of Activities on Employment
Figure 2 shows the estimated employment rate and impact of each
activity. The characteristics of clients who completed each activity
were used to estimate employment rates with and without completion of
the activity.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Job Search Workshop, Job Search alone, and Pre-Employment
Training drew clients who were more job-ready. About half of those
clients would have been employed in absence of those activities and the
activities had small, if any, effects on the chances of employment.
Community Jobs, Work Experience, and Job Skills Training, all drew
clients who were less job-ready. Without the activity, the employment
rate for clients would have been about a third for clients for jobs
Skills Training and Work Experience and only 14 percent for Community
jobs clients. Job Skills Training and Community jobs both increased
employment rates by about 30 percentage points; Work Experience
increased employment by less (13 percentage points).
Effects of Activities on Quarterly Earnings
Figure 3 shows similar comparisons for Earnings. Clients in Pre-
Employment Training had the highest expected wages ($1845 for the
quarter) and Community jobs clients had the lowest ($1040).
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Completing Community jobs added an estimated $792 to quarterly
earnings, Pre-Employment Training added $864. Job Skills Training added
$456, though its effect was only statistically significant when older
activities were included. The Job Search Workshop, Job Search only, and
Work Experience did not increase earnings significantly.
Mr. PRIMUS. I want to add just one other thing on the
question you asked a minute ago and that is your bill also
provides the flexibility to serve immigrant families. Your
proposal also allows States to stop the clock so that it gives
the flexibility for mothers who are working 30 hours a week and
who receive a small welfare check to continue that welfare
check and help them escape poverty. So, there are many other
reasons besides the one I noted where your bill gives more
flexibility than the administration's bill.
Mr. CARDIN. I thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you.
Mr. MEAD. I wanted to add one comment, if I might, on this
last point.
Chairman HERGER. Matter of fact, I would like to ask you a
question, and why don't you at the same time make that comment
if you like. On page three of your testimony, Mr. Mead, you
made a statement, ``Congress should remember that much of the
transitional child care offered by States to families leaving
welfare has not been claimed.'' I would like to ask you what
you meant by that and then you are certainly welcome to
respond.
Mr. MEAD. What I meant is that people leaving welfare rolls
are entitled to have at least a year of transitional child
care. Yet, many do not claim that benefit, as they also do not
claim food stamps, Medicaid, and so on. The fact that they do
not claim it should cause us to question those who say that
lack of child care is the main reason why people have trouble
taking jobs, keeping jobs, and so on. It looks as if the
clients typically can arrange child care informally, and they
do not need the government subsidy. Also until very recently,
the amount of money the States had to spend for TANF was more
than they needed. Recently they have begun to accelerate their
spending, but it is questionable to me, in light of the backlog
which many States had, to say that funding is inadequate. The
extent of actual need for care is in fact in doubt. You can
spend a lot of money in child care if you specify that it is,
``high quality child care,'' and you insist that it have all
those attributes. The child care we have is sufficient for
people to go to work. So, the idea that there is a shortage,
that we need to spend more on this, has to be questioned.
The other point I wanted to make, that it is unfair to
assess work experience jobs simply on whether they produce
measurable transitions into jobs. For that, some other
activities like job search would be more effective. The real
purpose of government jobs is not to generate job entries by
themselves. It is rather to generate diversion, that is, to
cause people who would go on welfare to question that and go
out and get a job, as Jason Turner has said. The purpose of
public jobs is more to act as an enforcement device. It is to
cause more people to go out and get their own jobs off welfare
than would be the case if you did not have that requirement.
What it does is certify that you cannot escape work by failing
to find a job in the private sector. You are going to go to
work in some job, in any event.
So, the evaluation findings that say this is less effective
than some other things are really not conclusive. It is not so
much the effect on case load that counts but the effect off
case load, the effect it produces on the entire environment
surrounding peoples' expectation about welfare and employment.
Chairman HERGER. I want to thank each of you for your
outstanding testimony and, without objection, the report named
by Mr. Primus will be made part of the record. Again, thank
you, gentlemen, for your testimonies.
With that, we would like to call on panel 5 to come
forward, please. Mary-Louise Kurey, National Speaker, Author,
and Spokeswoman, Project Reality. Isabel Sawhill, a Senior
Fellow at the Brookings Institute. David Levy, President,
Children's Rights Council. John Crouch, Executive Director,
Americans for Divorce Reform. Geraldine Jensen, President,
Association for Children for Enforcement of Support,
Incorporated. Finally, Stuart Miller, Senior Legislative
Analyst, American Fathers Coalition. Ms. Kurey will testify.
STATEMENT OF MARY-LOUISE KUREY, NATIONAL SPEAKER, AUTHOR, AND
SPOKESWOMAN, PROJECT REALITY, GOLF, ILLINOIS
Ms. KUREY. Thank you. I am here today to share with you
from personal experiences the outstanding success of abstinence
education programs across the country. It has been my privilege
to speak with more than 125,000 teens and young adults in 19
States about postponing sexual activity until marriage and
making a new beginning for those who have been sexually active.
From African American students in the Washington, DC, public
schools to Native American teens in Pine Ridge, South Dakota, I
have been honored to address young people from a wide variety
of socioeconomic, religious, and ethnic backgrounds, from
diverse family and cultural experiences. I also serve as a
spokeswoman for Project Reality, an abstinence education
organization serving public schools nationally with an emphasis
in Chicago and the State of Illinois, and also work with many
abstinence programs across the country, including the Best
Friends Program. Abstinence education works, and it is a
crucial component of achieving the goals of the TANF block
grant in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. It is critical to
reauthorize Title V funding for abstinence education programs
at current levels while keeping the current definition of
abstinence that was signed into law by President Clinton in
1996. These programs make a real difference in the lives of
American teens. Studies show since the release of abstinence
funding, teen sexual activity has decreased.
According to a report by the Centers for Disease Control
put out in 1998, the majority of high school students are
virgins and this percentage is increasing. Of teens who have
been sexually active, approximately 25 percent are currently
abstinent and 93 percent of teens say that teens should be
given a strong message that abstinence is the best choice. That
last statistic coming from the National Campaign to Prevent
Teen Pregnancy.
Abstinence education goes beyond realistic into reality.
During my presentations I have seen young men stand up in front
of hundreds of their classmates and yell, yeah, virgin and
proud. I saw a young woman stand up in front of her classmates
and say I have done things I regret but today I am making a new
beginning. Once when I was signing T-shirts and baseball caps
after a presentation, a young man asked me to write virgin and
studly on the back of his T-shirt. Over a year later I returned
to that area and when students saw his picture in my book, they
said he is still wearing that T-shirt, and he is in college
now.
It shows that these programs have a lasting effect, not
only on the participants, but on the students who they may
associate with as well. In seventh grade I attended a school
that was rampant with teen sexual activity and drug use. My
locker was next to a locker of a student who sold cocaine. That
year I made the commitment that I would not have sex until I
was married, and here I am 27 years old, a former Miss
Wisconsin, Miss America finalist, and I am a virgin. Choosing
abstinence is the best choice that I have ever made in my life.
It is very empowering for a young woman in today's sex-
saturated society. I was not always so outspoken. In high
school many of my friends were sexually active, and I felt this
was none of my business.
In addition, they were using condoms so I thought, okay,
they are safe. Then at age 15 one of my friends got pregnant
while engaging in so-called safe sex with her boyfriend. No one
had told us the medical facts that had been published in the
New England Journal of Medicine that year. Fourteen to
seventeen percent of couples who use condoms to avoid pregnancy
get pregnant within 12 months. I saw my friend's life transform
from a college-bound, carefree teenager to a single mother
living from one welfare check to the next.
Teens today are also denied information about sexually
transmitted diseases. Last year a report was released by the
National Institute of Health, titled Scientific Evidence on
Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease
Prevention. This report indicates that condoms provide no
protection against diseases passed through skin contact,
including human papilloma virus, the most prevalent sexually
transmitted disease (STD) in the United States, which infects
more than 5 million Americans each year and is the leading
cause of cervical cancer. This disease takes more women's lives
every year than HIV and yet it has only been cited three times
by the media since its release in July 2001. Why isn't this
information being made available? Abstinence programs give
young people this vital information, providing the whole
picture about the limits of safe sex, built on the fundamental
truth that abstinence is the only 100 percent effective way to
avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancies, STDs, and emotional scars.
Teens whom adults say are going to do it anyway, in my
experience, need the abstinence message even more because I
have learned that the primary causes of teens' sexual activity
are not uncontrollable urges, but these teens usually searching
for something, love, acceptance, identity, manliness, or
purpose to their lives. Abstinence education goes to the heart
of these issues, addressing identity, self-esteem, healthy
relationships, character, and creating a positive vision for
the future. Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify
and I welcome any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kurey follows:]
Statement of Mary-Louise Kurey, National Spokeswoman, Best Friends
Foundation, and Spokesperson, Project Reality, Golf, Illinois
Chairman Herger, Congressman Cardin, and Members of the
Subcommittee on Human Resources of the House Committee on Ways and
Means:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on the
reauthorization of welfare reform, specifically as it relates to Title
V funding for abstinence programs. It has been my privilege to speak
with more than 125,000 teens and young adults across the United States
about postponing sexual activity until marriage and ``making a new
beginning'' for those who have been sexually active. From African-
American students in the Washington, D.C. public schools to Native-
American teens in Pine Ridge, South Dakota; from Hmong adolescents in
the Milwaukee Public Schools to Caucasian and Hispanic teens at a youth
rally in Little Rock, Arkansas, I've been honored to address young
people from a wide variety of socioeconomic, religious, and ethnic
backgrounds, from diverse family and cultural experiences.
I have also spoken about this issue on many TV and radio programs,
including ``Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher,'' ``Sally Jessy
Raphael'' and ``Life on the Rock.'' My newly-published book for teens
is Standing With Courage: Confronting Tough Decisions about Sex.
I serve as a spokeswoman for Project Reality, an abstinence
education organization serving public schools nationally, with an
emphasis in Chicago and the State of Illinois. Project Reality recently
launched its new curriculum Game Plan featuring former NBA athlete A.C.
Green. I have also worked with many other abstinence organizations
across the county, bringing this message of hope and encouragement to
youth in 19 states and the District of Columbia.
Every day, I battle on the front lines of the war against teen
pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, the emotional and
psychological trauma that stem from teen sexual activity, and the
feelings of hopelessness and indifference that pervade the lives of so
many of America's youth.
Abstinence Education Works
Abstinence education works, and is a crucial component of achieving
the goals of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block
grant in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. In particular, abstinence is the
only 100% effective way to prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancies, sexually
transmitted diseases, and the other negative individual and societal
consequences that arise from premarital sex. Adolescents who are
emotionally as well as physically healthy are far more able to function
as they mature and to benefit from employment opportunities at every
level. Undoubtedly, they are also able to benefit far more from the
education process, whether it would be at the secondary or college
level.
Abstinence education provides teenagers and others with critical
information and encouragement that helps them to wait for marriage. The
reauthorization of the funding for abstinence programs in the 1996
Welfare Reform Act will be instrumental in furthering these educational
efforts. This will help make a real difference in the lives of
individual American teenagers today. Long-term, the continued adoption
of abstinence until marriage will be a core element that benefits
society by supporting and encouraging the formation and maintenance of
healthy two-parent families.
The New Sexual Revolution
In spite of the sex-saturated culture we live in today, studies
show most teens in the United States are choosing abstinence. When I
was in high school, most American teens were sexually active. Today,
the reverse is true.
The majority of high school students are virgins, and
this percentage is increasing. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. (1998). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance-United
States, 1997. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 47(SS-3).
Among teens who have been sexually active, many have chosen to
embrace a ``secondary virginity'' and refrain from subsequent sexual
activity:
Of teens who are sexually experienced--have had
intercourse at least one time--approximately 25% are currently
abstinent (which means they've had no sexual involvement within
the prior three months). Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. (1998). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance-United
States, 1997. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 47(SS-3).
Perhaps most telling is that American teens today want to hear that
they are ``worth waiting for'':
93% of teens feel that teens should be given a strong
message that abstinence is the best choice. National Campaign
to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. The Cautious Generation? Teens Tell
Us about Sex, Virginity and ``The Talk.'' April 27, 2000
During my presentations, I have seen young men spontaneously stand
up in front of hundreds of their classmates and yell, ``Virgin and
proud!'' I've seen young women say to their peers, ``I've done things
that I regret, but today I'm making a new beginning.''
A New Sexual Revolution is sweeping the country. The abstinence
movement is not being led by adults, but by young people. They are
searching for truth and meaning in all aspects of their lives,
including relationships and sexuality.
Abstinence, Marriage and Welfare
Teens who choose abstinence until marriage understand that this
isn't about saying no to sex. Abstinence is not a ``Just say no''
message. It's about teens saying ``YES'': ``Yes'' to their future,
``yes'' to their dreams, ``yes'' to making a difference in the world,
``yes'' to becoming the best people they can be, and ``yes'' to a
joyful, lasting marriage.
The divorce rate in the U.S. today is approximately 50%. But
studies show that the divorce rate is significantly less for marriages
between two virgins as well as among marriages between secondary
virgins--individuals who were initially sexually-active with others but
practiced abstinence until marriage with the person who ultimately
became their spouse.
Abstinence builds a firm foundation for a successful marriage. It
is a critical ingredient for increasing the number of happy families in
America, and reducing the number of women and children living on
welfare.
The Promise of One
My grandfather used to say, ``Every child is born into the world
with a message--a light--clutched in his hand. But if that child is
lost, then that message, that light, is lost to the world forever.''
I firmly believe that every teen and young adult has something
special to bring to the world. But too often in our society, young
people are prevented from fulfilling their potential by the serious
consequences of teen sexual activity. I've witnessed first-hand in the
lives of close friends the devastating and permanent consequences of
premarital sex.
Their experiences reflect the ``silent suffering'' of my
generation:
Most teens who have been sexually-active regret that
choice. National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. Not Just
Another Thing to Do: Teens Talk about Sex, Regret, and the
Influence of their Parents. June 30, 2000.
1 out of 5 sexually-active teen girls in the U.S.
gets pregnant. Alan Guttmacher Institute. Teenage Pregnancy:
Overall Trends and State-by-State Information, 1999.
3 million teens contract a sexually transmitted
disease in the U.S. each year. American Social Health
Association. Sexually Transmitted Disease in America: How Many
Cases and at What Cost? Menlo Park, Calif.: Kaiser Family
Foundation; 1998.
1 out of 4 sexually-active American teens has--or
will contract--an STD. Alan Guttmacher Institute. Sex and
America's Teenagers, 1994.
``Safe'' Sex: Pregnancy and Disease
In 7th grade, I attended a public school rampant with drinking,
drug use and sexual activity. My locker was next to the locker of a
student who sold cocaine. I experienced tremendous peer pressure to use
drugs, drink, and become sexually active.
That year, I made the commitment to not use drugs, drink underage,
smoke, or have sex outside of marriage. And today, I am grateful to be
able to tell you that I have stayed true to each one of those
commitments, while enjoying a healthy and fulfilling life--including an
active social life. I'm 27 years old, a former Miss Wisconsin, and a
virgin. Choosing abstinence until marriage is the best choice I've ever
made, and continue to make, in my life.
The tremendous benefits I have received from abstinence go far
beyond avoiding negative consequences. I've gained courage, self-
respect, integrity, personal strength, character, and a happy and
active dating life. This choice is the essence of who I am, and its
rewards far outweigh its sacrifices.
But I wasn't always so outspoken about the benefits of abstinence.
In high school, many of my friends were sexually active, but I felt
that this was none of my business. ``Who am I to tell them what to
do?'' I thought.
Then at age 15, one of my friends got pregnant while engaging in
so-called ``safe'' sex with her boyfriend. No one had told us the
medical facts that had been published in the New England Journal of
Medicine that year:
14-17% of couples who use condoms to avoid pregnancy
get pregnant within 12 months. Mishell, D.R. (1989).
``Contraception.'' New England Journal of Medicine, 320(12),
777-787.
I saw my friend transform from a college-bound, carefree teenager
to a single mother living from one welfare check to the next. Today, my
friend can barely make ends meet, and her life is filled with regrets.
``I love my little girl,'' she told me. ``But I wonder what my life
would be like today if I had waited.''
In college, a close friend suffered from a nervous breakdown. In
her room in the mental health unit at Sacred Heart Hospital in Eau
Claire, Wisconsin, she told me that her eating disorder and her mental
collapse were the result of an abortion she was pressured into three
years earlier. ``Every night as I lie in bed, I hear that little baby's
voice crying out to me,'' she said through her tears. These are the
faces behind the statistics of teen pregnancy.
As teens, we also hadn't been informed about the ineffectiveness of
condoms against certain prevalent diseases:
Condoms provide no protection against diseases passed
through skin contact, including Human Papilloma Virus, the most
prevalent STD in the United States, which infects more than 5
million Americans each year and is the leading cause of
cervical cancer. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health
and Human Services. Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness
for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention, 2001.
Teens still suffer from this lack of information. After a
presentation at a school in a small town, a freshman girl approached
me, choking back tears. ``I'm a virgin, but I have genital herpes,''
she confided. ``No one told me that you can get it just by touch.''
Because she didn't have intercourse, she thought that she was ``safe.''
She was unaware that some of the most common sexually transmitted
diseases like herpes and HPV are passed through skin contact, which is
how she contracted genital herpes. She said to me, ``I'd be doing what
you're doing if I could. But I can't. So I want you to tell my story
wherever you go, so that others don't make the same mistake I did.''
I often think about what would have happened if these young women
had been given the complete facts before they engaged in premarital sex
or other supposedly ``safe'' behaviors. Even if some of them would have
made the same choices, shouldn't they have been told the complete
truth?
Their experiences compel me to speak out so that others don't
suffer the same pain and regret.
Giving the Facts; Opening Communication
Abstinence programs give young people the whole picture about the
limits of ``safe'' sex, built upon this fundamental truth:
Abstinence is the only 100% effective way to avoid
out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and
emotional scars from premarital sex.
Effective abstinence programs also foster more open communication
about the true issues behind sexuality and relationships. In my work, I
have received questions on a wide range of issues, from how to say no
to sex to why condoms are ineffective against genital herpes. Because
of my openness in discussing abstinence, teens and college students
respond with their personal stories and questions relating to issues
such as sexual abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, unhealthy
relationships, and emotional and psychological trauma from premarital
sex.
The Far-Reaching Causes of Teen Sexual Activity
I have learned that the primary causes of teen sexual activity
aren't raging hormones or uncontrollable urges, as the media frequently
portrays. Teens who are sexually active are usually searching for
something--love, acceptance, identity, manliness, or a purpose to their
lives.
One young woman told me, ``Guys are my life. I know who I am based
on how much they like me.''
A teen mother confided, ``I wanted to get pregnant, because then I
thought I'd be somebody, and there would always be someone there to
love me.''
Abstinence goes to the heart of these issues, addressing identity,
self-esteem, healthy relationships, character, and creating a positive
vision for the future.
This is why programs like Project Reality's Game Plan are so
successful.
Game Plan, an eight-unit sports-themed abstinence program, helps
teens to make healthy choices by addressing issues like peer pressure,
self-worth, dating, drug and alcohol use, sexually transmitted
diseases, marriage, and goal-setting in the context of creating a
``game plan'' for life. Students are taught that their choices today
can have significant implications for their future, particularly as to
whether and to what extent they will accomplish their goals and dreams
in life. Game Plan replaces neediness with empowerment. Programs such
as Game Plan arm students with life skills, courage and character, and
give them the strength to make the right choices and make a positive
difference in the world.
Premarital Sex: A Gateway to Other High-Risk Behaviors
The complex motivations for teen sexual activity are manifested in
the link between sex and other high-risk behaviors:
Teens who are sexually-active are more likely to
participate in other high-risk behaviors, like drug use,
alcohol abuse, tobacco use and violence. Whitaker DJ, Miller
KS, Clark LF. ``Reconceptualizing adolescent sexual behavior:
Beyond did they or didn't they?'' Family Planning Perspectives.
2000;32:111-117.
Conversely, teens who are abstinent are less likely to engage in
these high-risk behaviors. Abstinence is a key link to combating the
high-risk behaviors that plague our country's teens.
After one presentation, a high school junior told me, ``I've had
sex with a lot of guys. But I've always been drunk, so I didn't think
it mattered.'' She said, ``Now I realize I gave each of them a
beautiful part of myself. I'm not going to drink anymore, so I'm in
control. I'm going to make a new beginning.''
Abstinence and the Beauty of Sex
Abstinence is not a rejection of sexuality as something bad.
Rather, abstinence affirms that sexuality is something beautiful and
precious, so beautiful that it is worth saving for the person who makes
the public commitment to love you unconditionally for a lifetime in
marriage.
The abstinence approach recognizes that human sexuality is not
merely something physical, but involves a person emotionally,
psychologically, spiritually, and socially. Abstinence treats sex for
what it is--part of the entire person. It is a holistic approach to
human sexuality.
Making a New Beginning
Although the majority of American teens are virgins, many are not,
and most of these non-virgins are dealing with regrets. (National
Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. Not Just Another Thing to Do: Teens
Talk about Sex, Regret, and the Influence of their Parents. June 30,
2000.) These students frequently appear to be the most resistant to the
abstinence message, and many adults describe them as being teens who
will ``do it anyway.'' In truth, these are young people crying out for
help, and they are the ones most in need of the abstinence message.
During one presentation, a young woman sitting in the front row
glared at me with her arms crossed. When I told the students at the
beginning that I was there to share the facts with them but I couldn't
tell them what to do, she called out, ``That's right!'' But when I
began to speak about the emotional consequences of premarital sex, she
started to cry. At the end of my presentation, she hugged me and
thanked me for helping her ``to take back her virginity.''
A young man approached me after one of my presentations for a
program for troubled high school students. He said to me, ``Your talk
made me look at my life again. I need to stop having sex. I need to
wait until marriage starting today.''
I've seen countless teens and young adults turn their lives around
and embrace a secondary virginity. Regardless of their past choices,
they need to know that their sexuality is still a beautiful gift, and
that they are not trapped by the past. It's never too late to make a
new beginning.
A Message Desperately Needed
The empowering message of abstinence until marriage is not just for
teens and young adults who are virgins; it is a message for all
singles, regardless of past choices. Abstinence not only prevents teen
pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and the emotional trauma that
comes with premarital sex. Abstinence also gives young people greater
self-worth, courage, and the life skills they need to succeed.
Abstinence programs don't ask, ``What's merely good enough for
America's youth?'' But instead, ``What is the best we can give them?''
Your support for these programs will continue a message that is
desperately needed. Your vote says to our youth, ``Yes, I believe that
you are worth waiting for, and that you can choose the best in your
life.''
Let's fan the flames of the New Sexual Revolution by giving teens
and young adults the facts and the relationship skills they need to be
abstinent until marriage. Their futures hold tremendous promise. In
doing so, we empower all of America's youth to live free of regrets and
bring their special light to the world.
Conclusion
Your reauthorization of the funding for abstinence programs under
the 1996 Welfare Reform Act will play a critical role in ensuring the
continued education and encouragement of the youth of America to remain
abstinent until marriage, attain self-sufficiency, and make a positive
contribution to our society. The continued adoption of abstinence until
marriage will serve as a critical means of helping to reduce out-of-
wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and the other
negative individual and societal consequences of premarital sex. It
will also be a critical element that benefits society in the long run
by helping to encourage the formation and maintenance of healthy
marriages and two-parent families. Please let me know if you would like
any further information about any of the points raised in my testimony
today or if you have any other questions about this important issue.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Ms. Kurey. Ms. Sawhill to
testify.
STATEMENT OF ISABEL V. SAWHILL, SENIOR FELLOW, BROOKINGS
INSTITUTION, AND PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT TEEN
PREGNANCY
Ms. SAWHILL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify. I think that welfare
reform has been far more successful than many people
anticipated back in 1996 and that we should build on that
success. In our work at the Brookings Institution where we have
been reviewing the research and information available for about
the past year, I have become convinced of the importance of
four priorities.
One is continuing to move people into unsubsidized jobs and
giving States the incentives they need to remain focused on
that particular goal. The second is supporting working families
in helping them move up the ladder. Third is breaking the cycle
of poverty by investing in child care and early childhood
education. The fourth is increasing the proportion of children
being born and raised in married parent families. Due to the
limited amount of time, I am going to focus on that last point,
and I would like to make six points about that.
First, half of first non-marital births are to teenagers.
Also, roughly half of mothers on welfare had their first baby
as a teenager.
Second, marriage is an important goal, but not so much for
teenagers. Teenage marriages are twice as likely to end in
divorce as other marriages. So, if we care about child well-
being, the key behavior is not just marriage but childbearing
outside of marriage.
Third, the reduction in teen pregnancy and birth rates in
the 1990s has contributed substantially to the leveling off of
non-marital childbearing. I have a chart in my prepared
testimony, which I hope can become part of the record, that
shows this relationship quite dramatically.
Chairman HERGER. Without objection.
Ms. SAWHILL. I think we should build on that success.
Fourth, effective programs for preventing teen pregnancy
have been identified. Funds are needed so that good programs
can be replicated in more places around the country. In my
travels to local communities in this country, what I hear more
often than anything else is the need for resources to do some
things that we know are working.
Fifth, in light of all of the above, I urge Congress to
make reducing teenage pregnancy a purpose of the law. This will
signal in an important way, I think, to the States that
Congress cares about this objective. I have been very
impressed, as have many others, about the extent to which the
language in the 1996 law about objectives signaled very much to
the States and to the country what they should be focusing on.
They have been very responsive to those purposes.
Six, I urge that any family formation fund include in
addition to encouraging marriage and supporting fathers
preventing teen pregnancy as a worthwhile and permissible
activity. Let me stop there for now, and I hope to be able to
have more conversation with you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sawhill follows:]
Statement of Isabel V. Sawhill, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution,
and President, National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy
Chairman Herger, Ranking Member Cardin, and Members of the
Committee:
I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify today on proposals
to reauthorize the 1996 welfare reform law. I serve as a Co-Director of
the Brookings Institution's Welfare Reform and Beyond Initiative, and
as part of that effort we have carefully reviewed and synthesized a
very large volume of research, have talked with many state and local
officials as well as other interested ``stakeholders,'' and have done
some analysis of different proposals to encourage work or strengthen
families. I also serve (part-time and on a volunteer basis) as
President of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, a
nongovernmental organization chaired by former Governor Tom Kean. I
should emphasize, however, that my testimony today reflects my own
views and not the views of any organization with which I am affiliated.
Our work at Brookings has convinced me that welfare reform has been
much more successful than many people anticipated. Some of this success
is the result of the robust economy that prevailed in the late 1990s
and to the expansion of work supports such as the Earned Income Tax
Credit. But much of the success we have had in reducing case loads,
increasing employment among single mothers, and lowering child poverty
must be attributed to the 1996 law. In reauthorizing the law, I believe
we can build on that success. In doing so, I want to suggest that
Congress give particular attention to the following: keeping the focus
on moving people into unsubsidized jobs rather than placing them in
government-funded work slots, making work pay, breaking the cycle of
poverty by investing in child care and early childhood education, and
increasing the proportion of children being born to, and raised by,
two-parent, married families. Since my time is limited, and these are
large topics, I will focus the remainder of my testimony on the last
objective.
Strategies for Reducing the Growth of Single Parent Families
Most people would agree that the ultimate goal is to increase the
number of children growing up with two involved parents. Three
strategies for doing so are currently under discussion: reducing
divorce (or improving relationships) by providing marriage counseling
or education to existing couples or those contemplating marriage,
helping unwed fathers to support their children and/or to marry their
child's mother, and reducing out-of-wedlock childbearing, especially
among teens. These agendas are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but
they involve different strategies and different target groups (the
already married or about-to-be married, the unmarried who have
children, and the unmarried who don't have children). In what follows,
I want to argue that marriage is a good thing but that preventing early
childbearing among those who are young and unmarried but at high risk
of becoming unwed mothers and ending up on welfare is likely to be a
particularly effective strategy for achieving this goal. (Note that
roughly half of all mothers on welfare had their first baby as an
unmarried teenager.)
Reducing divorce rates can contribute to fewer children being
raised in single parent families. However, after increasing sharply in
the 1960s and 1970s, divorce rates have leveled off or even declined
modestly since the early 1980s. Moreover, children in divorced families
more often retain a relationship with both parents, are more likely to
receive support from a nonresident father, are less likely to need, and
receive, welfare or other government assistance, and are generally much
better off than those born to never-married mothers. Finally, virtually
all of the increase in child poverty between 1980 and 1996 was related
to the increase in nonmarital childbearing over this period, not to
greater divorce. In short, efforts to strengthen marriages in ways that
reduce the likelihood of divorce should be welcomed but divorce rates,
though high, are not the crux of the problem and thus arguably should
not be the focus of any new effort.
The much bigger problem is too many unmarried women having babies.
Most of these women are very young when they have their first child.
While only 30 percent of all nonmarital births are to women under the
age of 20, half of first nonmarital births are to teenagers and most of
the rest are to women in their early twenties.[i] So, the
pattern typically begins in the teenage years or just beyond, but once
begun often leads to additional births outside of marriage. There are
two solutions to this problem. One is to encourage these young women to
marry the fathers of their children (assuming the fathers are willing).
The other is to get them to delay childbearing until they are older and
married.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[i]\ National Center for Health Statistics, ``Births: Final Data
for 1999,'' National Vital Statistics Report 49-1 (Hyattsville, MD:
National Center for Health Statistics, 2001) 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Chart 1 shows, most women eventually do marry (90 percent by age
45). The problem is one of timing. Up until their mid-twenties, more
women have had babies than have ever been married. But after that age,
the reverse is true: the number of women who have ever married exceeds
the number who have ever had a child. So those calling for more
marriage are really calling for earlier marriages. The drawback of this
solution is that it requires reversing a strong and generally healthy
trend toward later age at first marriage among both men and women.
Between 1960 and 1999, age at first marriage increased from 20 to 25
for women and from 23 to 27 for men. Age at first marriage is one of
the strongest predictors of marital stability and this trend toward
later marriage is a very important--probably the single most
important--reason for recent declines in the incidence of divorce. One
recent study by Tim Heaton at Brigham Young University based on data
from the National Survey of Family Growth finds that all of the decline
in divorce rates since 1975 is related to the increase in age at first
marriage.[ii] Not only is this trend good for marriage, it
is good for children as well. Younger mothers often lack the maturity,
patience, and education that have been shown to produce better outcomes
for children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[ii]\ Tim Heaton, ``Factors Contributing to Increasing Marital
Stability in the United States'' Brigham Young University, July 2000,
12-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument will be made that in earlier times it was common for
women to marry young. But our economy now demands much more education
than in earlier periods and provides women as well as men an
opportunity to pursue both education and a career beyond high school.
To be sure, some women may want to forego such opportunities in order
to become full-time wives and mothers at an early age; but a social
policy that actively encourages such early marriage would be
inconsistent with one that also sees investments in education and in
stable long-term marriages as socially beneficial.
Perhaps what is really intended by marriage advocates is not a set
of policies that would encourage earlier marriages across the board but
only in cases where a woman is already pregnant or has had a child.
Such ``shotgun'' or ``after-the-fact'' marriages to the biological
father were common in the past but have virtually disappeared in recent
years. Their modern counterpart is what is often called fragile family
initiatives--efforts to work with young couples, many of whom are
romantically involved or cohabiting at the time of the baby's birth, to
help them form more stable ties and where appropriate, marry. These
efforts often involve education, training, counseling, and peer support
for the fathers. An evaluation of one such effort, Parents Fair Share,
produced somewhat disappointing results.[iii] But it would
be premature to write off such efforts. About two-fifths of all out-of-
wedlock births are to cohabiting couples and cohabitation seems to be
rapidly replacing marriage as a preferred living arrangement among the
younger generation. These cohabiting families are much less stable than
married families. Less than half of them stay together for five years
or more.[iv] Whether such couples can be persuaded to marry
and whether these marriages would endure if they did is not entirely
clear, but some research suggests that marriages preceded by
cohabitation are less stable than those that are not.[v] In
the meantime, any program that provides special supports, such as
education and training, to unwed parents, whether mothers or fathers,
runs the risk of rewarding a behavior that society presumably would
like to discourage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[iii]\ Virginia Knox and Cindy Redcross, Parenting and Providing:
The Impact of Parents' Fair Share on Paternal Involvement (New York:
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2000).
\[iv]\ Elizabeth Terry-Humen, Jennifer Manlove and Kristin A.
Moore, ``Births Outside of Marriage: Perceptions vs. Reality,'' Child
Trends Research Brief (April 2001) 4.
\[v]\ The National Marriage Project, ``Social Indicators of Marital
Health and Wellbeing,'' The State of Our Unions 2001 (Piscataway, NJ:
Rutgers University, 2001) 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many unwed mothers cohabit not with the biological father of their
children but with another man and some of these relationships may also
end in marriage. But, surprising as it may seem, such stepfamilies seem
to be no better for children than being raised in a single parent home.
More importantly, once a woman has had a child outside of marriage,
her chances of marrying plummet. Daniel Lichter of the Ohio State
University finds that the likelihood that a woman of a given age, race,
and socioeconomic status will be married is almost 40% lower for those
who first had a child out of wedlock (and 51% lower if we exclude women
who marry the biological father within the first 6 months after the
birth). By age 35, only 70 percent of all unwed mothers are married in
contrast to 88 percent among those who have not had a child. He
compares women who had a premarital pregnancy terminated by a
miscarriage to those who carried to term, and finds that these
differences in marriage rates persist.[vi] This suggests
that having a baby out of wedlock causes women to marry less rather
than simply reflecting the pre-existing characteristics of this group
of women. The reasons unwed mothers are less likely to marry are
unclear. They may be less desirable marriage partners, may be less
likely to spend time at work or in school where they can meet
marriageable men, or may simply lose interest in marriage once they
have children. Moreover, having had one child out of wedlock, they
appear to be relatively uninhibited about having additional children in
the same way. In short, early unwed childbearing leads to less marriage
and more illegitimacy. Thus, one clear strategy for bringing back
marriage is to prevent the initial birth that makes a single woman less
marriageable throughout her adult years. Most young women aspire to
marry and publicizing their much reduced chances of marrying once they
have a baby might make them think twice about becoming unwed mothers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[vi]\ Daniel T. Lichter and Deborah Roempke Graefe, ``Finding a
Mate? The Marital and Cohabitation Histories of Unwed Mothers,'' Out of
Wedlock: Trends, Causes and Consequences of Nonmarital Fertility, eds.
Lawrence L. Wu and Barbara Wolfe (New York: Russell Sage Foundation,
2001) 329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only are unwed mothers less likely to marry than those without
children but when they do marry, they do not marry as well. Their
partners are more likely to be high school dropouts or unemployed than
the partners of women who have similarly disadvantaged backgrounds but
no children. Although marriage improves on unwed mothers' chances of
escaping from poverty, it does not offset the negative effects
associated with an unwed birth, according to Daniel Lichter and his
colleagues.[vii]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[vii]\ Daniel T. Lichter, Deborah Roempke Graefe and J. Brian
Brown, ``Is Marriage a Panacea? Union Formation Among Economically-
Disadvantaged Unwed Mothers,'' The Ohio State University, April 2001,
18-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My conclusion is that efforts to promote marriage and reduce
divorce hold little promise for curbing the growth of single parent
families and that what is needed instead is a serious effort to reduce
early, out-of-wedlock childbearing. Moreover, as I will argue shortly,
unlike encouraging marriage, this is something we actually know how to
do. And finally, although some of what needs to be done is
controversial, it is no more so than the promarriage agenda that some
now tout. According to the Pew Research Center for the People and the
Press, the American public is not in favor of the government developing
programs that encourage people to get and stay married. Indeed, 79%
prefer that the government ``stay out'' of such activities. Only 18%
favor the idea. The group most in favor of this agenda is highly
committed white evangelicals but only 35% of this subgroup favors
government involvement in encouraging marriage while 60% remain
opposed.
Let me be clear that I am not arguing against marriage as a social
goal. I am arguing that the most effective and least controversial way
to accomplish this goal is to insure that more young women reach the
normal age of marriage having finished school, established themselves
in the workplace, and done both without having borne a child. The
chances that they will then have children within marriage, that the
marriage will be a lasting one, and that their children will receive
good parenting will be much greater. The chances of achieving this goal
will be enhanced if the message young people receive from society is
not just that delaying parenthood is important, but also that children
belong within marriage. As Wade Horn notes, too many teen pregnancy
prevention programs have left the impression that it's fine to have a
baby without being married as long as you wait until you're age
20.[viii] But of course there is nothing magic about leaving
the teen years. What needs to be stressed instead is accomplishing
various life tasks, such as completing one's education and finding a
lifetime partner before becoming a parent. Young people accomplish
these tasks at different ages but few are ready before their early
twenties at best.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[viii]\ Wade F. Horn, ``Confronting the `M' Word,'' American
Experiment Quarterly 4 (2001): 85
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of this is meant to imply that it is not worthwhile to use the
bully pulpit to restore a marriage culture, provide pre-marital
education and counseling, and engage faith-based communities, schools,
and parents in sending different messages to young people about the
benefits of marriage. In addition, attention should be given to some of
the financial disincentives to marriage, especially in low-income
communities. Congress acted in 2001 to reduce the marriage penalty in
the tax code, including the large marriage penalty associated with the
EITC. And many states have liberalized welfare eligibility standards
for two parent families. More could be done but any meaningful
reduction of marriage penalties in income-tested programs carries
enormous budgetary costs and is unlikely to have more than small
effects on behavior. So, without a strong effort to prevent early
childbearing, I very much doubt that these efforts alone will
significantly reduce the growth of single parent families and improve
economic and social environments for children.
Reducing Early Childbearing
After climbing steadily at almost 1 percentage point per year for
over twenty years, the proportion of all children born outside of
marriage (``the nonmarital birth ratio'') leveled off after 1994. Much
of the good news is related to a decline since 1991 in the teenage
birth rate. (Almost four out of every five teen births is out-of-
wedlock.). In fact, as Chart 2 shows, if there had been no decline in
the teen birth rate, the nonmarital birth ratio would have continued to
climb in the late 1990s, albeit not as rapidly as in the prior decade.
More specifically, if teen birth rates had held at the levels reached
in the early 1990s, by 1999 the nonmarital birth ratio would have been
more than a percentage point higher. This suggests that a focus on
teenagers (although not to the exclusion of women in their early
twenties who also contribute disproportionately to these trends) has a
major role to play in reducing both out-of-wedlock childbearing and the
growth of single parent families.
This conclusion is reinforced when one recalls that teens who avoid
a first nonmarital birth are more likely to marry and less likely to
have additional children outside of marriage. These indirect effects
are not included in Chart 2, but as noted above, they are likely to be
substantial.
Since the decline in the teenage birth rate has contributed
significantly to the leveling off of the nonmarital birth ratio, it is
worth asking what caused the decline and whether further steps can be
taken to lower the rate (and ratio) further.
Teen births are down because teen pregnancies are down. (The
difference between them depends on how many teens have an abortion, and
after increasing in the decade immediately following Roe v. Wade,
abortion rates for teens, as for all women, have now leveled off or
declined.) The decline in teen pregnancy rates has been driven, in
turn, by both declining rates of sexual activity among teens and better
contraception. Proponents of abstinence like to think that the former
has been most important while proponents of birth control give greater
weight to changes in contraceptive behavior. With existing data, it's
not possible to determine the precise role of each, but almost everyone
agrees that both have played a role.[ix] That said, there is
a growing public consensus that abstinence is preferable, especially
for school-age youth, but that contraception should be available.
Polling by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy has
consistently found majority support for this view with 73 percent of
adults agreeing with the proposition that teens should not be sexually
active but that teens who are should have access to contraception.
Support for this moderate position has increased 14 percent since
1996.[x]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[ix]\ Christine Flanigan, What's Behind the Good News (Washington:
The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2001) 7.
\[x]\ The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, With One
Voice (Washington: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy,
2001) 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These data on reduced sexual activity suggest that the emphasis on
abstinence, including new funding for abstinence education in the 1996
welfare reform bill, is working to reduce teen pregnancies and out-of-
wedlock births. Yet evaluations of abstinence education programs have
thus far failed to show much evidence of success. My conclusion is that
new messages about abstinence are having an impact but less because
they are embedded in so-called ``abstinence only'' education programs
and more because they have infected the entire culture including
traditional sex education programs, the media, faith-based efforts, and
the way in which parents communicate with their children. The
abstinence message is no longer the exclusive province of a small band
of conservative activists; it is now being promoted by many organized
groups (including the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy) and
is widely endorsed by most ordinary Americans including parents,
teachers, many political leaders, and to a lesser degree, by teens
themselves. This shift in both attitudes and behavior during the 1990s
is significant and has clearly contributed to the decline in teen and
out of wedlock childbearing.[xi]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xi]\ Leighton Ku, Freya L. Sonenstein, Laura D. Lindberg, Carolyn
H. Bradner, Scott Boggess, and Joseph H. Pleck, ``Understanding Changes
in Sexual Activity among Young Metropolitan Men: 1979-1995,'' Family
Planning Perspectives Vol. 30 (November-December 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other factors that may have played a role include fear of AIDS and
other sexually transmitted diseases in combination with more, or more
effective, sex education programs (discussed in more detail below).
Finally, welfare reform itself in combination with a strong economy may
have had an impact. Although the decline in teen pregnancy and birth
rates predates welfare reform, most of the decline prior to 1996 was
the result of a drop in second or higher order births to teens who were
already mothers and appears to have been caused by the availability for
the first time of longer-lasting, more effective forms of contraception
such as Depo Provera. These methods are not widely used but have caught
on particularly among the subgroup of young women who have already had
a baby. It was not until the latter half of the 1990s that first births
to teens began to decline significantly.[xii] Whether this
decline in first births is the result of welfare reform or not is
uncertain; but it needs to be emphasized that the 1996 law sent a new
message not only to young women but also to young men. The message to
young women was financial support for you and your baby is going to be
time limited and require that you work. The message to young men was if
you father a child, you will be responsible for its support. And
several studies have found that tougher child support enforcement
reduces out-of-wedlock childbearing.[xiii] Thus, the
evidence is at least consistent with the view that welfare reform has
played a role in producing the observed trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xii]\ The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, Just the
Facts (Washington: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy,
2000) 100-102.
\[xiii]\ Irwin Garfinkel, Theresa Heintze, and Chien-Chung Huang,
``Child Support Enforcement: Incentives and Well-Being,'' The
Incentives of Government Programs and the Well-Being of Families, eds.
Bruce Meyer and Greg Duncan (Chicago: Joint Center for Poverty
Research, 2000) 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building on Success
Other data reinforces the view that welfare reform may be affecting
family formation. Not only has the teen birth rate declined and the
nonmarital birth ratio leveled off, but in the late 1990s the
proportion of children living in a single parent family stabilized or
even declined modestly for the first time in many
decades.[xiv] This reversal of trend was most notable for
low-income families, and those with less education or very young
children, just as one would expect if welfare reform were the cause.
Looking at data for 1997 and 1999, for example, Gregory Acs and Sandi
Nelson of the Urban Institute find that the share of families composed
of single mothers living independently declined almost 3 percentage
points more among families in the bottom income quartile than among
those in the second quartile.[xv]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xiv]\ Richard Bavier, ``Recent Increases in the Share of Young
Children Living with Married Mothers,'' Washington: Office of
Management and Budget, September 2001, 3.
\[xv]\ Gregory Acs and Sandi Nelson, `` `Honey, I'm Home.' Changes
in Living Arrangements in the Late 1990s,'' New Federalism Urban
Institute Policy Brief B-38 (June 2001) 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in such behaviors as divorce and out-of-wedlock
childbearing are likely to respond only slowly to a shift in the policy
environment and it would be premature to attribute all or even most of
these changes to the 1996 law. But it would also be wrong, in my view,
to say that it has not had an effect simply because evaluations of some
of the specific provisions such as family caps or the illegitimacy
bonus or abstinence education programs have not shown clear
impacts.[xvi] Arguably, much more important than any of
these are new messages about time limits, about work, and about
abstinence. Young women who decide to have children outside of marriage
now know that they will receive much more limited assistance from the
government and that they will be expected to become self-supporting.
Young men are getting the message that if you father a child you will
be expected to pay child support. Teenagers who choose to remain
abstinent now feel much more support from program operators, advocates,
and peers. If I am right about this, then one important recommendation
for policy makers is that they maintain the current thrust of the law.
However, programmatic micromanagement of various family behaviors at
the federal level is another matter. Detailed prescriptions about how
funds can be used at the local level are likely to be neither effective
nor widely supported. Broader messages about work, about family
formation, about abstinence, and about the need for fathers to support
their children should be sufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xvi]\ Charles Murray, ``Family Formation,'' New World of Welfare
eds. Rebecca Blank and Ron Haskins (Washington: Brookings Press, 2001)
145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The main actors in this story are not the Federal Government but
states, communities, and nonprofit (including faith-based)
organizations. And what they need are resources, technical assistance,
and information about what might work to reduce early childbearing
outside of marriage and slow the growth of single parent families.
Current efforts are fragmented, underfunded, and often ineffective. For
all of the reasons stated earlier, the focus needs to be on reaching
young people before they have children. The high-risk group includes
not only teenagers but also those in their early twenties. But
attitudes about sex, relationships, and marriage are formed at an early
age and the intense interest in them that develops during the
adolescent years produces an especially receptive audience at this
time.
The good news is that in the past five years, research on teen
pregnancy prevention programs has found a number that work. Douglas
Kirby's review, Emerging Answers, published in the summer of 2001,
identifies several rigorously evaluated programs that have reduced teen
pregnancy rates by as much as one half.[xvii] Some effective
programs involve teens in community service or afterschool activities
with adult supervision and counseling. Others focus more on sex
education but not necessarily just on teaching reproductive biology.
The most effective sex education programs provide clear messages about
the importance of abstaining from sex or using contraception, teach
teens how to deal with peer pressure, and provide practice in
communicating and negotiating with partners. This research needs to be
aggressively disseminated so that local efforts are based on more
informed judgments. And since there are a variety of different
approaches that can be effective, communities should be allowed to
choose from among them based on their own needs and values.
Simultaneously, much more emphasis needs to be placed on the potential
of sophisticated media campaigns to change the wider culture. Such
campaigns have been used to effectively change a variety of health
behaviors in the past but their full potential has not been tapped in
this arena.[xviii] Some nonprofit groups, such as the
National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy and the National Fatherhood
Initiative, are working in partnership with the media to embed new
messages into the television shows most often watched by teens. And
many states are using the abstinence education funds from the welfare
reform bill for public service announcements, but additional resources,
including some that could be used to design and implement a national
effort, are needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xvii]\ Douglas Kirby, Emerging Answers (Washington: The National
Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2001).
\[xviii]\ Leslie B. Snyder, ``How Effective Are Mediated Health
Campaigns?'' Public Communication Campaign, eds. Ronald E. Rice and
Charles K. Atkin (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The goal of increasing marriage, is, in my view, entirely laudable.
However, it needs to be reconciled with other goals, such as supporting
children who are already born. One extreme option would be to eliminate
benefits entirely for those living in single parent families or for
young women who bear a child out of wedlock. A softer version of this
would be to earmark some portion of existing government benefits for
those who are married or to carve out a portion of the welfare dollars
that go to the states for marriage education or other pro-marriage
activities.
These policies would come on top of the reforms instituted in 1996
which sent a strong message that women who bear a child outside
marriage will no longer be able to raise that child without working and
that the men who father such children will have to contribute to their
support. The early indications are that these messages may be having an
effect: teen birth rates have fallen, the share of children born out of
wedlock has leveled off, and the share of young children living in
married families have all increased in the late 1990s.
These developments suggest that current policies may be working,
and given time for new social norms to evolve, will have larger
effects. Pushing pro-marriage policies to the next level could upset
the fragile political coalition supporting current reforms. Liberal
advocates argue that such proposals effectively divert resources away
from helping single parents raise their children. Whatever mistakes the
parents may have made, few people want to deprive their children of
assistance as a consequence.
The key behavior here is not marriage per se but childbearing
outside of marriage. Divorce rates may be high but they are not
increasing and have played no role in the growth of single parent
families for several decades. Virtually all of that growth, and the
associated growth in child poverty in the 1980s and early 1990s, was
caused by increased childbearing among young, single women. Moreover,
half of that childbearing begins in the teenage years and most of the
rest of it takes place among women in their early twenties. Once such
women have had a child their odds of ever getting married plummet. In
fact, having established a single parent household, these women often
go on to have a second or third child, often with different fathers.
Many point to the shortage of ``marriageable men''--that is, men with
good job prospects--in the communities where these women live; but
there is a shortage of ``marriageable women'' as well. Most men are
going to think twice about taking on the burden of supporting someone
else's child.
There are only two solutions to the problem of childbearing outside
of marriage. One is to encourage young women to marry very young, say
in their teens or their early twenties at the latest, before they start
having children. The other is to persuade them to delay childbearing
until they are in their mid-twenties. Although commonplace as recently
as the 1950s, early marriage is no longer a sensible strategy in an
economy where decent jobs increasingly require a high level of
education and young people need to spend the first few years out of
school getting established in the job market. Moreover, teen marriages
are twice as likely to end in divorce as marriages among adult women in
their mid-twenties.[xix] So if we want to encourage
marriage, prevent divorce, and ensure that more children grow up with
married parents, we must first insure that more women reach adulthood
before they have children. It is a necessary if not sufficient
condition for success. It implies redoubling efforts to prevent teen
pregnancy. These efforts have now been carefully evaluated and many of
them appear to be quite effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xix]\ Matthew D. Bramlett and William D. Mosher, ``First Marriage
Dissolution, Divorce, and Remarriage,'' Center for Disease Control
Advance Data 323 (May 2001) 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So-called fatherhood programs which work directly with young men
may also help but so far such efforts do not have a solid track record
of success and send the wrong message if resources are targeted only on
men who have already fathered a child out of wedlock. A far more
promising strategy is to focus on young men and women who have not yet
had a baby, to convince them there is much to lose if they enter
parenthood prematurely, and much to gain if they wait until they are
married.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Ms. Sawhill. Mr. Levy.
STATEMENT OF DAVID L. LEVY, J.D., PRESIDENT, CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
COUNCIL
Mr. LEVY. Greetings, Chairman Herger and Mr. English. I am
David L. Levy, President of the Children's Rights Council
(CRC), an international child advocacy group with chapters in
32 States, Europe, Asia, and Africa. Our advisers include Dear
Abby, Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, and Senators Fred Thompson, Bob
Graham, and Debbie Stabenow. I would get in real trouble,
though, if I said I necessarily speak for them on every point I
make.
We were delighted that in 1996 Chairman Clay Shaw adopted
CRC's suggestion that family formation and family preservation
be the fourth goal of welfare reform. We have been surprised
why States are having such difficulty in reaching those goals.
The CRC always thought it would be fairly easy to take
publicly-available recognized data on the increases in
marriages or decreases from year to year, increases in divorces
from year to year as an indication of whether the States'
family formulation and preservation policies were working.
Policies such as reducing teen pregnancy, premarital
counseling, compatibility testing, parenting education, all of
these contribute to States being able to meet those goals.
We also favor co-parenting in divorce. The National Center
for Health Statistics found that States with the highest amount
of co-parenting, shared parenting, joint custody, all meaning
the same thing subsequently have the lowest divorce rate.
Apparently knowing that you can't ``X'' your ``ex'' out of your
life sends a signal to other parents perhaps to re-look at
possibly staying married.
We thank four Governors for taking the lead signing laws
that say a judge should first consider joint custody or co-
parenting. They are President Bush, when he was Governor of
Texas; Tommy Thompson, when he was Governor of Wisconsin;
Governor Keating of Oklahoma; Governor Angus King of Maine.
Another point, access funds--visitation funds. Most
divorced parents have done everything Congress has asked them
to do. They completed their education, they got married, they
raised their kids before they got divorced or divorce was asked
of them. Not only fathers but 3 million non-custodial mothers
in this country. They deserve our support even though there are
some bad apples who are clouding the picture. We need to help
those good parents who are doing what we have asked of them. We
urge Congress to help them. Children's Rights Council was a
catalyst behind the $3 million in demonstration grants for
access funding in the 1988 Family Support Act. In 1996 there
was an increase of $10 million a year in access funds for the
States to share in. We need that--it is working well, but there
are millions of kids who cannot get to see a parent because $10
million a year cannot go very far for these programs which
strengthen families and reduce poverty. More money is
available, however.
The Violence Against Women Act has appropriated $15 million
for supervised visitation and supervised transfers of children,
administered by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), to help
victims of domestic violence, and we support that. Seventy-five
percent of parents who use these transfer of children sites on
the weekend are there for other reasons like communication
problems. The CRC uses churches--the faith-based community--to
help bring about these child transfer and parent supervisions.
We also ask Congress to provide that nonprofits, whose mission
statement is to increase contact of children between two non-
custodial parents, get more funding from the States because
those hundreds of groups can do the job better and cheaper than
many groups now performing them.
I would like to introduce Mr. Lonnie Perrin, who is running
a Children's Rights Council Safe Haven Transfer at his church,
Antioch Baptist Church in Clinton, Maryland. Mr. Perrin is a
former football player with the Denver Broncos, Chicago Bears,
and Washington Redskins. If I may, Mr. Perrin.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Levy follows:]
Statement of David L. Levy, J.D., President, Children's Rights Council
Dear Chairman Thomas and Members of the Committee:
I would like to refer to two topics.
1. FAMILY FORMATION AND FAMILY PRESERVATION.
We were grateful that Chairman Clay Shaw adopted the suggestion of
associates of the Children's Rights Council in 1996 to ``encourage
family formation and family preservation.'' as the fourth goal of
welfare reform. The Children's Rights Council (CRC) always thought the
states could use publicly available data, such as the increase or
decline in the number of marriages and divorces in their states, from
one year to the next, to show whether their family formation and family
preservation policies were working.
Programs that will help increase the rate for marriage and staying
married include parenting education, pre-marital counseling, teenagers
speaking at schools as to why it would have been better for them--and
other young people, to wait until they graduate from school and get
married, before they have children--and other programs states are
operating.
In divorce, strong co-parenting or joint custody laws will help,
such as those signed into law by President Bush in 1995 when he was
Texas Governor, Secretary Tommy Thompson when he was Wisconsin
governor, Gov. Frank Keating of Oklahoma, and Maine Gov. Angus King.
The National Center for Health Statistics (Vol. 43, No. 9. 1995),
found that the states with the highest amount of shared parenting have
the lowest divorce rates in subsequent years. It appears that if moms
and dads realize they cannot ``x'' their ``ex'' out of their lives when
they have children, they are less likely to get divorced.
Children and their parents who are never married, separated or
divorced are not living under one roof, but still constitute a family.
They also need more co-parenting. States should document whether family
formation and family preservation policies are working through
increases in marriage and decline in divorces.
2. INCREASE ACCESS (VISITATION) FUNDS.
We urge Congress to increase the access/visitation grants from the
$10 million a year in the 1996 Welfare Reform law to $40 million a year
in the Reauthorization. These grants are designed to connect children
to their non-custodial parents, through such programs as mediation,
counseling, and establishing Safe Haven Transfer and Supervised Access
Sites. Each state receives at least $100,000 under this grant each
year, but it is not enough to assist the millions of children who have
problems getting to see their parents through interference by a parent,
court or legislative inaction.
CRC operates 18 transfer and supervised sites in six states (MD,
MA, CT, NC, OH, IL) and DC. About 40 percent of parents who use these
sites are never-married, and to our surprise, about 35 percent are
mothers who do not have primary care of their children.
The money is available. Just this spring, the Justice Department,
under VAWA grants, is offering $15 million to states to protect victims
of domestic violence through transfer and supervised sites. While such
protections are needed, most children and parents who use neutral drop
off and pick up sites are not domestic violence abusers--at least 75
percent of parents are there for other reasons, sometimes only because
of the communication breakdown by parents who need a neutral site to
transfer their children from one parent to another for the weekend.
We invite Members of Congress and staff to view a brand new site
CRC has just opened at Faith Tabernacle Church to serve Wards 7 and 8,
the most disadvantaged area of Washington, D.C.
In addition to increased funding, we urge that Congress ask the
states to provide at least 25 percent of the funds ``to various non-
profit organizations whose mission statement is to provide greater
contact between children and their non-custodial parents.'' Many non-
profits can provide these services at much lower cost than many current
grantees, because we know the field from long experience.
We also urge evaluations of these programs by the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, which has no money set aside for
evaluations of these access grants in the 1996 law.
Note: Most fathers have done what Congress has asked them to do:
They completed their education, and got married before they had
children. And most parents support their children. It is time to do
right by these dads--and the 3 million non-custodial moms in America,
and not penalize them because of the non-supporting bad apples. Federal
Child Support Commissioner Sherri Heller said publicly said that HHS
will do more for these parents, and we urge Congress to do more, also,
by increasing the access funding and other measures.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF LONNIE PERRIN, COORDINATOR, ANTIOCH BAPTIST
CHURCH, CLINTON, MARYLAND
Mr. PERRIN. As Mr. Levy said, my name is Lonnie Perrin. I
am the coordinator of the access and visitation program at
Antioch Baptist Church in Clinton, Maryland. Many non-custodial
parents do not have access to their children and are not aware
that access services are available. We have noticed in the year
that we have run the program at Antioch Baptist Church, that we
have been able to reunite the child and the parent, get the
parents to understand what their role and responsibility is in
the child's life. I have been involved with families and
fathers in the metropolitan area for the past 10 years, and I
have noticed that access to the child is the key to the
father's involvement in the child's life. So, often when you
have a young man who is not paying child support, that young
man ties child support into access. Sometimes the mother is not
providing access because the father is not paying child support
or the non-custodial parent is not paying child support. So, in
a lot of cases, access ties into a lot of different things that
are involved in the child's life. I just want to end by saying
I would hope that this Committee would consider expanding
funding for access and visitation programs so that we will be
able to provide this service to more people, get the word out
and reunite non-custodial parents with their children. Thank
you.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time
has expired, but Mr. Perrin, thank you very much for your
involvement in the community with your church and to help those
fathers be able to be more involved with the children.
Mr. LEVY. May I ask that report showing the decrease in
divorce in the States with substantial joint custody be made
part of the record?
[The report follows:]
DIVORCE RATE IS PROJECTED TO DROP
The Children's Rights Council, a national child advocacy group,
predicts, based on current trends, that the divorce rate in the U.S.
will be reduced by 5 percent to 10 percent within the next 20 years.
CRC's report will be released at a press conference Friday,
September 24, 9 a.m. at CRC's 12th national conference at Holiday Inn
Hotel and Suites, 625 First Street, Historic District, Alexandria.
The divorce rate, which has dipped slightly in the past few years
from its high of 50 percent of all marriages, will drop further because
of the rapid rise of joint custody (shared parenting), and the greater
involvement of fathers in their children's lives.
Data from the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health
Statistics shows that states with the greatest amount of physical joint
custody in 1989 and 1990 had the lowest divorce rate in subsequent
years 1991 through 1995. Data is only available for 19 states.
``If a parent knows that he or she will have to interact with the
child's other parent while the child is growing up, there is less
incentive to divorce,'' said David L. Levy, Esquire, President of the
Children's Rights Council.
The states with the over-all highest amount of physical joint
custody and highest decline in the divorce rate are Kansas and
Connecticut, but Idaho, Illinois, Montana, Alaska, Rhode Island and
Wyoming, also scored well in at least one of the two categories.
``More children growing up with 2 parents means a greater
likelihood that children will do better academically, and be less
likely to get involved with crime, delinquency and drugs,'' said John
Guidubaldi, E.D., a former president of the National Association of
School Psychologists.
Figure 1
STATES WITH THE HIGHEST AMOUNT OF STATES WITH THE HIGHEST
PHYSICAL JOINT CUSTODY DECLINE IN THE DIVORCE RATE
1. Montana 1. Alaska
2. Kansas 2. Kansas
3. Connecticut 3. Connecticut
4. Idaho 4. Illinois
5. Rhode Island 5. (tie) Wyoming
6. Alaska 5. Montana
7. Vermont 7. (tie) Michigan
8. Illinois 7. Oregon
9. Wyoming 7. Idaho
10. Missouri 7. Utah
11. Oregon 11. Nebraska
12. Michigan 12. (tie) Rhode Island
13. Virginia 12. Tennessee
14. Pennsylvania 14. (tie) New Hampshire
15. Utah 14. Alabama
16. Tennessee 16. Pennsylvania
17. Alabama 17. (tie) Vermont
18. New Hampshire 17. Missouri
19. Nebraska 19. Virginia
Note: Data is only available from the Census Bureau and the National
Center for Health Statistics for these 19 States.
Further note: The District of Columbia has a relatively new (1996),
strong joint custody law, for which data is not yet available. There
are weak joint custody laws in both Maryland and Virginia.
Chairman HERGER. Without objection. Thank you, Mr. Levy.
Now Mr. Crouch to testify.
STATEMENT OF JOHN CROUCH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICANS FOR
DIVORCE REFORM, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
Mr. CROUCH. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak to you today about marriage education. My
name is John Crouch, and I am a divorce lawyer in Arlington,
Virginia. It is that experience which motivates me to be
involved in the marriage movement.
I am the Director of Americans for Divorce Reform, a small
all-volunteer organization that supports a variety of measures
to reduce divorce and improve marriage. We work with people
around the country who get in touch with us because they want
to do something about divorce.
As a divorce lawyer I have witnessed and participated in
many of my profession's attempts to improve the divorce
process. Our ideal of the good divorce faces many obstacles
that are deeply rooted in our culture, our legal system, and in
human nature. For most families, easy divorce is a destructive
and disastrous myth. Once they begin the process, they learn
too late there is not enough money, not enough of the
children's time to go around. The same thing happens when unwed
parents split up. I have come to believe that the most
effective way to minimize the damage of divorce is not to
improve divorce, but reduce it. We must do what we can to
improve it, but marriage education provides a new and better
hope for sustaining marriages.
Marriage education is a proven success. It is no untried
experiment. The leading programs have been around for decades,
like the Maryland-based Relationship Enhancement curriculum, or
the Florida-based PAIRS program which has been adapted by the
American Bar Association for use in the public schools. The
PREP program from the University of Denver has been used in the
public sector for years. It is taught in the Army and has also
been taught since 1994 by Chesterfield County, Virginia's
public mental health center.
These programs and their results are described in my
written materials at smartmarriages.com. There is abundant
evidence of how marriage education programs strengthen
marriages and reduce divorce. I ask that my written materials
with those citations be entered in the record.
Chairman HERGER. Without objection.
Mr. CROUCH. Marriage education does not come from think
tanks or politicians. It comes from social workers, educators,
psychologists, chaplains, pastors, and lay volunteers who are
out there working with couples. They have joined the marriage
movement in response to experience, not theory. Some of us come
to it from our work with families and children of divorce in
the court system. We have resolved to go upstream and try to
prevent the incurable suffering we deal with every day.
Marriage education is a poverty prevention program, so it
should be open to all without means testing. All children are
put at risk by divorce and illegitimacy. Statistics on poverty
and other effects of divorce can be found on Americans for
Divorce Reform's Web site, divorcereform.org.
Marriage education is not marriage promotion, but that too
is appropriate, for people who have already assumed the burdens
of marriage by having a child together. Generally, it is very
wise to delay marriage until you are prepared for all the
responsibilities of parenthood, but it is tragically frivolous
to continue that policy when you already have a child to raise
together.
Marriage education is fiscally responsible. It can be
provided very simply and inexpensively, as the Chesterfield
County program shows. Curriculum development and instructor
accreditation are already being done, so government does not
need to replicate that work, nor politicize it.
Divorce and illegitimacy cause a lot of government spending
and major government involvement in families' lives. Government
already provides parenting classes, divorce classes, sex
education, family life education, and the only thing missing
from that menu is marriage.
Divorce and illegitimacy are not sustainable choices for
most families, or for our society as a whole. Of all the things
the Federal Government might do about these compelling national
problems, providing marriage education through tested, proven
programs is one of the most judicious, effective, non-divisive,
and fiscally responsible steps that it can take.
I would like to thank you for having me to speak to you,
and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. For
more information, you can also go to Americans for Divorce
Reform's Web site at divorcereform.org.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crouch follows:]
Statement of John Crouch, Executive Director, Americans for Divorce
Reform
Introduction
I am the Executive Director of Americans for Divorce Reform, a
small all-volunteer organization that supports a variety of measures to
reduce divorce and strengthen marriage. In my day job, I am a divorce
lawyer, and it is that experience which motivates my involvement in the
marriage movement. I am also trained to teach Relationship Enhancement,
a marriage education curriculum, and am on the Advisory Board of the
DC-based Smart Marriages coalition.
As a divorce lawyer I have witnessed, and participated in, many of
my profession's attempts to improve the divorce process. I have served
as Chair of the Arlington County Bar Association Family Law Section and
as Co-Chair of the American Bar Association Family Law Section Child
Custody Committee, and I currently am starting a DC-area Collaborative
Divorce Lawyers Network (www.co-divorce.com) and chairing an ABA
committee that is drafting standards for lawyers who represent
children. I have been in a position to observe the built-in obstacles
to improving the divorce system, to making the ideal of ``the good
divorce'' a reality for most families. These barriers are mostly side
effects of things we consider good, in fact indispensable, in our legal
system. I have also had to face the fact that for many couples divorce
just is not sustainable no matter how you slice it: there is not enough
money, not enough of the children's time, to satisfy both parents'
basic needs, as long as they insist on going their separate ways.Thus I
have come to believe that the most feasible way to reduce the damage
divorce does is not to improve divorce, but to reduce it. Of course we
must keep doing what we can to improve it, but the rise of marriage
education, and a new openness to changing divorce laws, provide new
hope for reducing divorces and improving marriages.
LMarriage Education is A Proven Success; Reduces Divorce, Improves
Marriages
Marriage education is no untried experiment. The leading programs
have been around for many years. At least one of them, PREP, has been
used in the public sector as well as the private sector for some years
now. PREP is taught in the Army, and has also been taught since 1994 by
a county mental health department in Chesterfield County, Virginia.
(See attached two-page article on that program, and a study of its
effectiveness, Appendix I.)
There is abundant evidence that certain marriage education programs
work, and of exactly what it is they do that is effective in
strengthening marriages and reducing divorce rates. (Citations and
summaries of several studies are attached as Appendix II.)
Even a Libertarian Can See a Role For Government Here
As a libertarian-leaning Republican, I nonetheless support some
government provision of marriage education in the TANF context. (1) It
can be provided very simply and inexpensively, as in the Chesterfield
County program. (2) Divorce and unwed parenthood cause considerable
government spending and entail major government involvement in
families' lives. (3) Curriculum development, instructor training and
accreditation are currently provided or overseen by the private sector.
This avoids the need for layers of bureaucracy to handle those crucial
tasks, and it also keeps them from being politicized. (4) Governments
already provide parenting classes, divorce classes, divorce mediation,
and secondary-school Family Life Education. If the only thing missing
is marriage, what message does that send?
The Poor Aren't the Only Ones In a Marriage Crisis
Putting funds into poverty prevention programs, such as marriage
education, should not be equated with taking money away from the
beneficiaries of other programs. Practically all children of divorce
are at risk of poverty, becoming single parents, etc., so TANF-funded
marriage education programs generally should not have to be means-
tested. However, it is appropriate to develop some programs targeted to
low-income populations.
Marriage Education Is Not Political
It is unfortunate that since the President's inclusion of it in his
budget, recent news coverage has pigeonholed marriage education as a
left-right political issue. It is true that it has received some
valuable support from think tanks and faith-based public policy groups
in recent years, but that is not where marriage education comes from.
Marriage education has been pioneered and sustained by people way
outside the Beltway, most of whom are not involved in politics at all.
They are psychologists, social workers, educators, military chaplains,
pastors, and trained lay volunteers, working with actual couples, not
political abstractions.
The marriage movement, of which the marriage education movement is
a leading part, does indeed arise in large part from think tanks,
academics and politicians, but they have come to their pro-marriage
position in response to experience, not theory. Some, like me, come to
it from our work with divorcing families in the court system. Others,
from their work with the children of divorce. Some, from years of
academic research that has forced them to change their initial rosy
hypotheses about divorce. And many have had their eyes opened by their
own divorces or those of family members. From the beginning, this
movement has been led by liberals and moderates as well as
conservatives. It has come this far without any of the usual left-right
finger-pointing and drive-by debate, perhaps because conservatives and
evangelicals realize that they have been as fully immersed in the
divorce culture as anyone else.
Conclusion
Of all the things the Federal Government might do about the
compelling national problems of divorce and illegitimacy, providing
marriage education through time-tested, proven programs is one of the
most judicious, effective, non-divisive, fiscally responsible steps it
could take.
______
CAN WE REALLY STEM THE TIDE OF DIVORCE?
Chesterfield Co. Program Trains for Marriage
By Patricia Cullen, M.S.N., Chesterfield
[reprinted from Virginia State Bar Family Law News, Vol. 19 No. 3 (Fall
1999), pp. 3-4]
Family law attorneys live on the front lines of family breakup. On
a daily basis, you observe the toll divorce takes on adults and
children alike. Sometimes you succeed in helping your divorcing clients
reach fair settlements without protracted litigation. In other
situations, this is impossible and court intervention is inevitable.
Particularly when children are involved, you may often wonder if it is
possible, at least in some cases, to prevent the heartache you
frequently witness in your role as legal advocate and counselor.
For the past 20 years, two researchers at the University of Denver
Center for Marital and Family Studies, Drs. Howard Markman and Scott
Stanley, have been working with their associates to find out whether or
not divorce is preventable. During the initial phase of their research,
these two psychologists studied newly married couples over a number of
years to see who would stay married and who would eventually divorce.
They found that the variable most likely to predict marital success was
the ability to manage conflict well. In other words, couples who
somehow knew how to work out their differences effectively were the
couples most likely to remain happily married. Couples who could not
find constructive ways to handle typical marital conflicts were far
more likely to divorce, no matter how happily married they were at
first.
Based on what they had observed in their initial research, the
Denver team then developed a couples' class to teach the communication
skills all couples need to argue effectively and maintain the fun and
friendship which brought them together in the first place. The class is
called ``Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP).'' In a
five-year follow-up study, the researchers found that couples who
attended PREP had a divorce rate 50% lower than control couples who did
not. These findings have been replicated in other studies, both here
and abroad, and give cause for optimism about slowing down the divorce
rate.
In Chesterfield, the local mental health center began offering the
PREP program to county residents in 1994. The class is offered several
times a year to married and engaged couples for a nominal fee. The
response to this seven-session class has been quite favorable. Clients'
written evaluations give the content and instructors high ratings.
The class is education, not therapy. There is no ``sharing'' of
private matters or feelings with other couples. ``Marriage education'',
like other adult education, is designed to teach skills to people who
actually want to learn them and have voluntarily taken the initiative
to improve themselves. Like adult education, it builds on students'
existing skills and life experiences.
In a six-month phone follow-up study conducted last year, 80% of
the couples who had participated in the class were still using the
communication skills they had learned, particularly a communication
skill called the speaker-listener technique. This structured, practical
technique is used when couples confront a difficult conflict that could
easily escalate into a destructive fight. It slows down the
conversation so that each person knows the other is really listening.
It is nearly impossible for conflict to escalate when both parties are
listening carefully, honestly and openly.
In addition to the speaker-listener technique and other methods for
fighting fairly, the Chesterfield class also contains material on
problem solving, how to deepen marital commitment, and enhancing fun
and intimacy. Each week, couples get to practice new skills in breakout
sessions, in which the couples work privately with one of the
instructors, who coaches them as they practice their new skills.
Research at the University of Denver has shown that practicing with an
instructor during class helps couples learn the techniques correctly.
Couples are then much more confident about their ability to use the
techniques where it really counts--at home.
PREP is one of the best-researched marital education programs in
the country. The program is useful to couples who have a good marriage
and simply want to ``make a good thing better,'' as well as for couples
who are struggling.
Although many couples could benefit from the information and skills
presented in the class, unfortunately PREP is not yet widely available.
We now know what makes a marriage successful and how to prevent
divorce. The challenge is how to get this important information out to
the public, so we can begin to reduce our divorce rate. Spread the
word.
For more information contact Pat Cullen or Robin Jones at
Chesterfield Mental Health Center, [email protected], 804-
768-7204.
______
NEW RESEARCH ON EFFECTS OF MARRIAGE TRAINING
The Chesterfield follow-up study's results parallel recent research
by the developers of PREP, which was presented by Dr. Howard Markman at
the Arlington ``Smart Marriages'' conference this past July. An 18-year
follow-up study of PREP showed that six times as many of the people
with standard Pre-Cana counseling divorced as did the couples with
PREP, and this ratio increased over time. This study is one with a
control group and in which there was no ``self-selection effect'': the
couples did not choose which kind of counseling to get; the people
running the study chose for them.
The study showed that people who were trained by their own clergy
and laity using the PREP program improved a lot in how they talk about
problems--but people trained by PREP clinical staff at the University
of Denver only improved a little. People in ``naturally occurring''
church premarital counseling show a sharp decline in how they
communicate, probably because the counseling gets them talking about
tough issues for the first time but does not necessarily give them any
additional skills for doing so. Over the years, the difference in
marriage quality between PREP couples and couples with standard Pre-
Cana counseling increases greatly. ``Negative verbal communication''
increases between the period immediately after marriage and the time
five years into marriage for both groups, but it increases much more
for the non-PREP couples. PREP couples had considerably less negative
verbal communication at five years than they did before marriage.
The study also showed that couples learn the communication skills
permanently and use them. They do not do the ``speaker-listener
technique'' in their daily lives, because that would be ridiculous, but
they use this and other techniques effectively at times of high
conflict. Using the techniques learned together in PREP, even when it
doesn't lead to a solution, helps couples feel that they are working as
a team. Couples in PREP counseling reported that communication skills
were the best part of the training. 78% of males and 75% of females say
this. Wives like the technique because they know their husbands are
listening and understanding. Husbands like it because it breaks up
wives' monologues. The research indicated that men are just as
interested in and good at conversation, intimacy, etc. as women, but
they avoid it because it leads to conflict, which they want to avoid or
solve quickly. They want safety and rules for conversation, and limits
on its length.
______
--John Crouch
APPENDIX II:
RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MARRIAGE EDUCATION
EXCERPTS FROM ``ACTING ON WHAT WE KNOW: THE HOPE OF PREVENTION'',
By Scott M. Stanley and Howard J. Markman, of the University of Denver
Center for Marital and Family Studies; (303) 759-9931; http://
members.aol.com/prepinc
Full article available at http://www.smartmarriages.com/hope.html
Some updated references added by witness. Some marked ``in press'' have
since been published.
[Author Note: Preparation of this brief was supported in part by
National Institute of Mental Health, Prevention Research Grant, Grant
5-RO1-MH35525-12 Long Term Effects Of Premarital Intervention. Requests
for information on the research underlying this chapter can be sent to
the authors at the Center for Marital and Family Studies, Psychology
Department, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado 80208.]
Outcome studies attempt to assess the comparable effects of various
approaches to preventing or reducing marital distress and divorce. Here
is a brief review of findings on three of the most widely used programs
for couples--programs that are used both maritally and premaritally
(from Silliman, et al., in press). These three programs are among the
most commonly researched, used, and recognized in the couples' psycho-
education field:
Relationship Enhancement
RE, an empathy-building social learning program of 16-24 hours, is
one of the most extensively tested skills building programs in
existence. This program based on a Rogerian communication model shows
impressive results for a wide variety of types of couples (DeLong,
1993). While the program has been used for treating a wide array of
problems, it is use with premarital and marital couples is the focus
here. Related to this use, several treatment groups of college-age,
dating couples gained significantly in empathy skills (e.g., Ridley, et
al., 1982) and problem solving skills (Ridley, et al., 1981) from pre
to post-test and relative to control groups.
One six-month follow-up found disclosure and empathy gains for RE
participants relative to a lecture-discussion control group (Avery, et
al., 1980), while another found communication, but not problem solving
skills retention for experiential vs. discussion group couples (Ridley,
et al., 1981). Sustained gains in self-disclosure were not evident at
follow-up in comparisons of participants and non-participants in
another study (Ridley & Bain, 1983). Heitland (1986) observed
significant pre to post-test differences on listening, expression, and
problem solving for college and high-school participants in an eight-
hour RE workshop, relative to control group couples. Meta-analytic
research on many major marital programs (RE, CC, Engaged Encounter;
Giblin, Sprenkle, & Sheehan, 1985) found RE to have the strongest
effect sizes of those tested.
Couple Communication
Like RE, CC is one of the older and best researched skills-based
programs for couples. While the program can be used in a variety of
formats and settings, most of the outcome research on CC has studied
the effects of the 12 hour, structured skills training program, with
most samples being married couples from middle-class backgrounds
(Wampler, 1990). There is evidence suggesting the relevance of the
material for couples at various stages and with various backgrounds
(Wampler, 1990). Studies also show clear gains in communication
behavior post-training (e.g., Russell, et al., 1984).
Wampler (1990) reviewed studies on CC, noting strong gains in
communication quality following training, but also noting that these
effects diminish over time. Gains in individual functioning and
relationship quality are more durable, although the longest term follow
up assessments are well less than a year in duration (Wampler, 1990).
CC is used by clergy, lay leaders, therapists, business personnel, and
chaplains in all branches of the U.S. armed forces. Presenters of CC
can use the approach individually with couples or in group settings.
The program was redesigned and updated in 1991.
Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program
PREP targets changes in attitudes and behavior that are
specifically related to risk and protective factors in a wide array of
marital research. The rationales for PREP and programs like it are
specifically supported by 1) studies that predict marital success and
failure, 2) outcome research on program effects, and 3) survey research
on what couples say are the most relevant topics of prevention. PREP
primarily targets [factors] that are highly predictive of marital
success or failure, and that are amenable to change.
PREP offers a 12-hour sequence of mini-lectures, discussion, and
interpersonal skill practice in week night, weekend, or one-day formats
(Markman et al., 1986; Stanley, et al., 1995). Topics of focus include
communication, conflict management, forgiveness, religious beliefs and
practices, expectations, fun, and friendship (Markman, Stanley, &
Blumberg, 1994). Also, strategies for enhancing and maintaining
commitment have come to play an increasingly larger role in the kinds
of cognitive changes attempted in PREP (e.g., Stanley, Lobitz, &
Dickson, in press). Both secular (or non-sectarian) and Christian
versions of PREP are available (Stanley & Trathen, 1994). As is true of
other programs, PREP is not exclusively focused on skills training.
PREP also includes an extensive assessment focus in the form of in
depth exercises about expectations and beliefs that will affect
marriages.
PREP has been more extensively researched regarding long-term
effects than other programs--with most of the research using premarital
couples. The most recent study on it (Stanley, Markman et al., 2001)
reports on the results of the dissemination of an empirically-based,
premarital education program within religious organizations. The
following major results are discussed with respect to premarital
prevention: (a) Clergy and lay leaders were as effective in the short
run as our university staff; (b) couples taking the more skills-
oriented intervention showed advantages over couples receiving
naturally occurring services on interaction quality; and (c) couples
reported that the communication skills components of premarital
education were the most helpful.
In the long term study in Denver, program effects have been tracked
using both self-report and observational coding of couple interaction
(Markman et al., 1988; Markman et al., 1993). The following are a
sampling of findings from this research project. Three years following
intervention, the PREP couples maintained higher levels of relationship
satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and lower problem intensity than
matched control couples (Markman et al., 1988). PREP participants
demonstrated significantly more positive interaction up to four years
post-intervention, including greater communication skill, support/
validation, positive affect, positive escalation, and overall positive
communication relative to a matched control group. PREP couples also
showed greater communication skill, positive affect, and overall
positive communication than couples who had declined the intervention
years earlier (Markman, et al., 1993). More significantly, clear group
differences were obtained up to four years following intervention on
negative communication patterns (e.g., withdrawal, denial, dominance,
negative affect, etc.), with PREP couples communicating less negatively
than both matched control couples and decliner couples. These kinds of
differences are very important because such patterns are strongly
correlated with marital distress, violence, and breakup (Holtzworth-
Munroe, et al., 1995; Markman, Floyd, Stanley, & Storaasli, 1988;
Gottman & Krokoff, 1989). The follow ups with the Denver sample also
revealed a statistically greater chance of premarital breakup among
control group and decliner couples than PREP couples, with similar,
though non statistically significant, trends for divorce and separation
four to five years after training (Markman, et al., 1993).
In a pre-post design using random assignment, Blumberg found PREP
more effective than Engaged Encounter in building positive
communication, problem solving, and support/validation behaviors at
post-intervention (reported in Renick, Blumberg, & Markman, 1992).
Similar research programs in Germany (Hahlweg & Markman, 1993; Hahlweg
et al., 1997) and Australia (Behrens & Halford, 1994) have demonstrated
significant gains in communication, conflict management, and
satisfaction at post-test, with the former sample showing a maintenance
of communication and satisfaction gains at one and three year follow-
ups. Furthermore, the most recent data from the Germany project show
that, at the five year follow up, PREP couples have a divorce rate of
4% vs 24% for the control couples (Hahlweg, personal communication,
February, 1997). VanWidenfeldt et al., (1996) did not obtain the same
kinds of positive findings. However, interpretations of these results
are problematic because the PREP couples had been together
significantly longer than controls, the PREP couples had been together
an average of nine years prior to intervention (making generalizations
to prevention difficult), and a differential dropout rate led to the
control couples being increasingly select for couples doing well over
time.
On a further encouraging note, Giblin, et al., (1985) conducted a
meta-analysis of marital enrichment outcome research. In general, they
found strong evidence for a positive effect across a number of
programs, with those taking such programs being generally better off
than about 70% of those not taking such programs. Further, they found
that the measures that tended to demonstrate the strongest effects
(those perhaps most sensitive to capturing the effects of such
programs) were behavioral (e.g., objective coding of interaction).
Lastly, they concluded that the programs showing the most promising
effects were those utilizing behavioral rehearsal (e.g., skills
training). . . . Their results suggest a wide variety of couples and
families can benefit from such programs, and in fact, they found some
of the strongest effects for those in greater need.
What Couples Report About Their Satisfaction With Premarital Training
Separate from data on effectiveness from outcome studies, most
couples report high satisfaction with their experience in preventive/
premarital programs. In a nationwide random phone survey, 35% of
couples marrying in the past five years had premarital counseling in a
religious context, and 75% of these couples reported that this
preparation was helpful to them (Stanley and Markman, 1997). The
Creighton University report on premarital preparation in the Catholic
church found that, within the first four years of marriage, 80% of the
individuals surveyed reported the training as valuable (Center for
Marriage and Family, 1995). Sullivan and Bradbury (1997) found that
approximately 90% of couples who taken premarital training would choose
to do so again--though there were no differences between those who did
and did not have some premarital training on marital outcomes. Couple
satisfaction with preventive interventions is an important measure of
outcome. While the studies on program effectiveness are complicated and
open to various interpretations, there can be no doubt that couples who
take part in preventive [training] come away valuing [it].
References
Avery, A.W., Ridley, C.A., Leslie, L.A., & Milholland, T. (1980).
Relationship enhancement with premarital dyads: A six-month follow-up.
American Journal of Family Therapy, 3, (8) 23-30.
Cullen, P. (1999). Can we stem the tide of divorce? Chesterfield
County Program Trains for Marriage. Virginia State Bar Family Law News,
Vol. 19/3, 3-4. (attached).
Fowers, B. J., Montel, K. H., & Olson, D. H. (1996). Predicting
marital success for premarital couple types based on PREPARE. Journal
of Marital and Family Therapy, 22, 103-119.
Giblin, P., Sprenkle, D.H., & Sheehan, R. (1985). Enrichment
outcome research: A meta-analysis of premarital, marital, and family
interventions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 11 (3), 257-271.
Hahlweg, K., Markman, H.J., Thurmaier, F., Engl, J., Eckert, V.
(1996). Prevention of marital distress: Results of a German
prospective-longitudinal study. Manuscript Submitted for Publication.
Larsen, A. S., & Olson, D. H. (1989). Predicting marital
satisfaction using PREPARE: A replication study. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 15, 311-322.
Markman, H. J., Renick, M. J., Floyd, F., Stanley, S., & Clements,
M. (1993). Preventing marital distress through communication and
conflict management training: A four and five year follow-up. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 1-8.
Ridley, C.A., Jorgensen, S.R., Morgan, A.C., & Avery, A.W. (1982).
Relationship enhancement with premarital couples: An assessment of
effects on relationship quality. American Journal of Family Therapy, 10
(3), 41-48.
Russell, C.S., Bagarozzi, D.A., Atilanao, R.B., & Morris, J.E.
(1984). A comparison of two approaches to marital enrichment and
conjugal skills training: Minnesota Couples Communication Program and
structured behavioral exchange contracting. American Journal of Family
Therapy, 12, 13-25.
Stanley, Scott M., Howard J. Markman, Lydia M. Prado, P. Antonio
Olmos-Gallo, Laurie Tonelli, Michelle St. Peters, B. Douglas Leber,
Michelle Bobulinski, Allan Cordova, Sarah W. Whitton, 2001: Community-
Based Premarital Prevention: Clergy and Lay Leaders on the Front Lines.
Family Relations: Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 67-76. (Summarized in sidebar to
attached Cullen article.)
Trathen, D. W. (1995). A comparison of the effectiveness of two
Christian premarital counseling programs (skills and information-based)
utilized by evangelical Protestant churches. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Denver, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56/
06-A, 2277.
VanWidenfelt, B., Hosman, C., Schaap, C., & van der Staak, C.
(1996). The prevention of relationship distress for couples at risk: A
controlled evaluation with nine-month and two-year follow-ups. Family
Relations, 45, 156-165.
Wampler, K.S. (1990). An update of research on the Couple
Communication Program. Family Science Review, 3 (1), 21-40.
Wampler, K.S., & Sprenkle, D.H. (1980). The Minnesota Couple
Communication Program: A follow-up study. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 42, 577-584.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Crouch. Now, Ms. Jensen to
testify.
STATEMENT OF GERALDINE JENSEN, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION FOR
CHILDREN FOR ENFORCEMENT OF SUPPORT, INC., SACRAMENTO,
CALIFORNIA
Ms. JENSEN. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc.
(ACES), is the largest child support organization in the
country. Our 400 chapters with 50,000 members are
representative of the 20 million children who are owed about
$83 billion in unpaid child support. Welfare reform has
assisted many of our families. One of our members recently said
it best when she said, I am finally off of welfare and in the
ranks of the employed. The $400 a month in child support added
to my wages from my job at the restaurant make it possible for
me to support my two children. Now, I can look into my kids'
eyes and stand proud because they know their parents are both
doing their part.
Families entitled to child support have five requests of
Congress in the welfare reform proposal. Our first request is
that you simplify the distribution regulations and ensure that
families receive correct and prompt payments. Thousands have
experienced delays and problems receiving payments. An example
of this was in Ohio who failed to implement the pre-assistance
of arrearage regulation; 160,000 families were shorted $38
million in child support. The State illegally withheld the
child support from Ohio's poorest families. Those who
participate in Ohio's Work First became employed and left the
welfare rolls. The ACES filed a lawsuit. Subsequently, the
Governor issued an executive order and the legislature acted to
give the $38 million with interest back to the families.
Unfortunately, the families are still waiting for their
refunds. Many of them have 5 years of back support due. In this
case, the deadbeat is the State of Ohio. Ohio estimates that it
will cost about $18 million to untangle the records and that it
will take 18 months. Twelve million dollars of this is being
paid by the Federal Government. Complicated distribution
regulations are expensive and harmful to families. The ACES
asks that you end any type of calculations based on pre-
assistance arrears and that all of the child support that is
paid when a family is on welfare is passed through to them. We
would like States to use the same rules they use for earned
income so that they only have one system to program into their
computer, and it will reduce many of the inaccuracies from
workers having to learn complicated systems. We would also like
to see the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) offset program be
extended to families just like the State offset program is and
that families with children who are over age 18 have access to
that program. It would certainly help those families put their
children through college if they could receive back support.
We also ask that child support be moved up in the priority
scheme so that payments are distributed to families before
income tax refunds are attached to pay back taxes and other
benefits due back to the government.
The IRS has a proven track record in this program.
Collections have increased 635 percent since its inception in
1984. We ask that you mandate States to use the IRS full
collection service in cases where arrears are more than
$10,000. Currently this program can be used when arrears are
$750, but it is rarely implemented by the States.
Third, we ask that you do not award States that fail to
meet computerization deadlines. States were given an option of
a rebate if they had a computer online by October 1, 2001.
California continues not to have a child support computer
system and has no plans for one until 2005. Michigan does not
have a system in place, but reports to the Federal Government
that they do, when those of us who live in Michigan know that
the legal module was not even put online until March 31, 2002.
Michigan also appears to believe that federal computer funding
is endless. They have spent $400 million. They have asked for
$647 million more. They are building a $1 billion child support
system. The computer system to put a man on the Moon did not
cost a billion dollars.
We ask that you stop States from illegally withholding
child support payments more than 2 days. There is $634 million
currently being held by the States. Some States even escheat
the money to the State general funds after they cannot find the
parent.
Finally, we would ask that you would improve interstate
child support collections. The collections overall have
improved, but only 6 percent of the money collected is for
interstate families, when 40 percent of the families have
interstate cases. We ask that you have HHS be able to send the
income withholding order directly to the employer rather than
notifying the State who then sends the order over. States are
overwhelmed by the large number of data they receive. New York
reported 177,000 matches; Texas, 166,000. Simplifying this
process will help many families be able to get off of welfare
and stay off. Support is important to our families. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jensen follows:]
Statement of Geraldine Jensen, President, Association for Children for
Enforcement of Support, Inc., Sacramento, California
ACES has 50,000 members and 400 chapters located in 48 states. We
are representative of the families whose 20 million children are owed
over $83 billion in unpaid child support. We have banded together to
work for effective and fair child support enforcement. As one of our
members said,
``I'm finally off of welfare and in the ranks of the employed. The
$400 a month in child support added to my wages from my job at the
restaurant makes it possible for me to support my two children. Now I
can look my kids in the eye and stand proud because they know their
parents are both doing their part.''
Child support payments amount to almost 26% of family income for
low-income families. Single parents leaving the welfare rolls rely on
child support payments to supplement low wages more than ever before
due to welfare reform.
Families owed child support are requesting five things from
Congress as part of welfare reform re-authorization:
1. LSimplify child support distribution regulations to ensure
that families receive correct and prompt payments
2. LThe IRS offset program should be part of ``family first''
distribution and assist families with children owed support who
are over age 18_child support should be listed as the number
one claim when attaching federal tax refunds
3. LDo not reward states that fail to meet computerization
deadlines by suspending penalizes
4. LStop states from holding and/or sending unclaimed child
support payments to state general funds. States are holding
$634 million in undistributed funds.
5. LMake sure states implement and enforce child support
enforcement laws as outlined in PRWORA and improve their
methods for collecting on interstate cases and cases involving
large arrearages
1. Improving and Simplifying Distribution Regulations
Thousands of families have experienced delays and problems
receiving support payment once they left the welfare rolls. The main
cause of the problem is complicated distribution regulations which
state governments have failed to implement or have incorrectly applied
to post-welfare cases:
End the calculation of pre-assistance arrears as part
of the welfare debt even when payments are received when the
family is on assistance.
Pass through all support collected to the family
while on assistance.
Use the same method states use for earned income
monthly reporting so that they have only one process to be
programmed in the computer and implemented by state workers to
reduce administrative costs and increase accuracy.
ACES recently conducted a survey of families affected by the child
support laws in PRWORA. We found that there are serious problems with
the distribution of child support. Many families report that child
support is being collected but they are not receiving payments. Others
state that payments to them are sporadic or that they are uncertain how
much is being collected because child support received is of varying
amounts.
In Ohio, the Department of Jobs and Family Services failed to
implement changes in the Welfare Reform law, which reduced the amount
of welfare benefits the state was allowed to recoup from pre-assistance
arrears. This caused 160,000 families to receive less child support
than they were due. About $38 million was illegally withheld from
Ohio's poorest families, those who participated in Ohio Works First,
became employed, and left the welfare rolls An ACES investigation
discovered that the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services (ODJFS)
knowingly brought online a computer system in October 2000 that
miscalculated distribution of child support payments owed families.
In February 2001, ACES filed a Writ of Mandamus in State Appeals
Court against ODJFS for putting the interests of the State ahead of
those of affected children. As a result, Governor Taft has issued an
Executive Order and the Ohio legislature has acted to release state
funds to the 160,000 affected families, those who left the welfare
rolls after October 1997. Ohio is supposed to be returning $44.6
million ($38 million plus interest) but families have yet to receive a
payment, eight months after the Governor announced the refunds. ODJFS
did not correct the records. In fact, they were unable to untangle the
pre-assistance arrears from legitimately owed welfare arrears so they
just changed the arrears to all be owed to the family. Now, when
payments are received, even if there is a legitimate debt owed to the
state, it cannot be collected. The state has told us that if they ever
get the records corrected they will not pursue families to return
overpayments. We have asked the Federal Office of Child Support if they
are willing to give up their 50% of the welfare debt on these cases.
They report that federal law would not allow this. Please act to help
these families. They are caught up in a complicated distribution system
that the state cannot seem to implement. They did all that Congress
asked--they got a job, and left the welfare rolls. All they are asking
is for support legally due to their children.
Families were deprived of $17 million in child support collected
through attachment of state income tax refunds and $21 million in child
support collected through various other methods. ODJFS estimates that
review and recalculation of the 160,000 cases will cost $18 million and
take 18 months. About $12 million of this is being charged by Ohio to
the Federal Government as an administrative cost. In fact, the $18
million it is costing to correct the records is the same amount that
Ohio received last year in federal incentive payments.
The process to refund the money includes:
Case-by-case review by county child support
enforcement agencies to identify affected families and gather
payment data
Calculations by ODJFS to determine amount of refund
due
Payment of the refund by the Ohio Treasurer
Separate payment by Ohio Auditor's Office for 6.5%
interest due.
ODJFS readily admits it knew that the computer was improperly
withholding money from families but did not wish to face a $25 million
fine for not having its computer system online, so it made the choice
of saving the state money to the detriment hundreds of thousands of
children.
2. IRS Offset Collections Show Highest Rate of Increase
The IRS Offset program has a proven track record in collecting
child support. Collection under this program has increased from $205
million in 1984 to $1.33 billion in 1998, a 635% increase. (See Chart
1)
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PRWORA required states to implement laws which provided for family-
first distribution of state tax offsets. The same requirement should be
in place for the IRS Offset Program. Children need child support
payments for food, clothing, health care and educational opportunities
now. The government can wait but children's needs can't. Also, allowing
the offset to be used to collect back support due for children over age
18 will position many families to better afford college expenses and
will reduce the need for some student loans. This important enforcement
tool should be used to send a strong signal to those who fail to
support their children. They should not be exempted from their federal
income tax refunds being attached just because their children are over
age 18.
Also due to the proven IRS collection record, ACES requests that
language be added to the welfare re-authorization bill which requires
states to refer cases to the IRS for full collection services when
arrears total more than $10,000. And language requiring the IRS to
report annually to Congress concerning collection rates for these
cases. Currently, cases with an arrearage of $750 or more can be
referred to the IRS. States do not take advantage of this extra
enforcement tool at rates that significantly assists families.
3. Automation Problems
Since the 1984 Child Support Amendment passed, Congress has been
giving states incentives and funding to develop statewide computer
systems. Many deadlines have passed or have been extended. In the 1988
Family Support Act, states were told to have computers in place by Oct.
1, 1995 in order to receive 90% federal funding. When only 1 state met
this deadline, it was extended to October 1, 1997. When only 21 states
met this deadline, penalties were changed so that states could get
waivers to penalties if they were making sufficient progress on
computerization.
The Federal Office of Child Support reports the following \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Certification Reviews of Child Support Enforcement Systems,
Division of Child Support Information Systems, January 6, 2000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montana was the only state to the meet the October 1, 1995
deadline. The October 1, 1997 deadline was met by Delaware
(conditional), Georgia (conditional), Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia (conditional), Arizona (conditional), Utah, Connecticut
(conditional), Wyoming, Mississippi, Louisiana (conditional), New
Hampshire, Idaho, Colorado, Oklahoma (conditional), Wisconsin, Rhode
Island (conditional), Guam, New York (conditional), Iowa, and Alabama
(conditional).
Certified in 1998: Texas (conditional), Arizona (conditional),
North Carolina (conditional), New Jersey (conditional), Vermont
(conditional), Puerto Rico (conditional), Maine, Tennessee
(conditional), Minnesota (conditional), Kentucky, South Dakota,
Arkansas, Massachusetts, Florida, Missouri, and Hawaii. Certified in
1999: New Mexico (conditional), Illinois (conditional), Oregon
(conditional), Maryland, Pennsylvania (conditional), and Arkansas.
Certified in 2000: Washington, D.C., Indiana, Kansas, North Dakota, and
Nevada. States NOT Certified: California, Michigan, Nebraska (report
pending), Ohio (report pending), South Carolina, and the Virgin
Islands. Conditional Certification for many states is due to the
inability of their computer systems to process referrals.
States were provided with federal funding in PRWORA to update
existing child support computer systems. Penalties for states that had
not yet computerized were given an opportunity to get a penalty rebate
if they met a deadline of October 1, 2001. California remains without a
statewide computer and reports that they will not be computerized until
2005, Michigan states they have a statewide computer as of October 1,
2001, even though everyone knows that they did not put the legal module
on line until March 31, 2002, just days before the Federal Government
inspectors were due to arrive in Michigan to test the computer system.
Michigan appears to believe federal computer funding is endless.
They have designed a system which, after already having spent $400
million, needs another $647 million to be fully functional. The Office
of Child Support Enforcement is supporting Michigan's $1 billion child
support computer system, stating in a letter to ACES that since
Michigan collects $1 billion a year in child support, it is cost
effective to have a $1 billion computer system. The computer system to
put a man on the moon did not cost $1 billion. After spending hundreds
of millions of dollars, Michigan officials stated they are only
expecting a conditional certification because the system is not
completely up to federal requirements. Please do not let states that
have failed to computerize child support after 16 years, with federal
funding at 80-90%, exempt out of penalties for failure to have systems
in place. Michigan spent $90 million in the first three months of 2002
alone of which 80%, or $72 million, was from federal funds. The penalty
for not having a system in place by October 1, 2001 was less than that,
$50 million.
4. Undistributed Funds
States report an undistributed funds pool of over $634 million at
the end of 2000 in collected but undistributed child support. Most
states cannot explain the existence of the fund pools nor do they know
to whom the money rightfully belongs. For example, in California, there
is an unexplainable $192 million or so that is reported to the Federal
Office of Child Support as net undistributed funds, but only $45
million in actual cash. The other approximately $148 million cannot be
accounted for. It is quite possible that money has been diverted to
general fund accounts. In Michigan, the amount of undistributed funds
doubled from about $20 million in 2000 to $40 million in 2001 and
Tennessee has the highest rate/case of undistributed funds at $71
million at the end of 2001. (See Chart 2)
Chart 2
COLLECTED BY STATE, UNDISTRIBUTED CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS
[In dollars]
STATE DEC. 31, 2000 DEC. 31, 1999
ALABAMA 3,702,988.00 3,264,610.00
ALASKA 3,631,382.00 1,747,989.00
ARIZONA Not available 9,506,700.00
ARKANSAS 3,593,031.00 3,990,073.00
CALIFORNIA 176,270,539.00 127,951,700.00
COLORADO 4,282,615.00 629,475.00
CONNECTICUT 1,718,800.00 1,381,554.00
DELAWARE 4,551,948.00 3,509,654.00
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 1,734,501.00 1,361,607.00
FLORIDA 41,704,057.00 45,637,093.00
GEORGIA 317,413.00 2,518,115.00
GUAM 3,365,040.00 1,721,121.00
HAWAII 3,785,481.00 1,220,932.00
IDAHO 129,504.00 16,940.00
ILLINOIS 1,316,851.00 261,935.00
INDIANA 14,000,594.00 14,934,035.00
IOWA 4,499,764.00 989,989.00
KANSAS 4,047,695.00 327,474.00
KENTUCKY 11,276,489.00 11,072,597.00
LOUISIANA 826,468.00 387,290.00
MAINE 4,254,567.00 4,464,573.00
MARYLAND 10,786,404.00 7,828,829.00
MASSACHUSETTS 11,252,358.00 7,220,855.00
MICHIGAN 26,663,060.00 28,818,050.00
MINNESOTA 7,513,981.00 770,348.00
MISSISSIPPI 3,222,524.00 2,800,100.00
MISSOURI 18,820,049.00 14,273,822.00
MONTANA 933,690.00 262,725.00
NEBRASKA 3,907,814.00 98,217.00
NEVADA Not Available 1,555,070.00
NEW HAMPSHIRE Not Available 1,401,062.00
NEW JERSEY 8,258,611.00 4,058,470.00
NEW MEXICO 2,356,732.00 123,011.00
NEW YORK 57,464,975.00 52,860,921.00
NORTH CAROLINA 8,952,542.00 10,097,638.00
NORTH DAKOTA 2,196,554.00 1,288,608.00
OHIO 19,703,191.00 19,070,984.00
OKLAHOMA 1,404,426.00 2,277,525.00
OREGON 1,552,068.00 1,796,673.00
PENNSYLVANIA 17,140,468.00 18,971,240.00
PUERTO RICO 4,275,058.00 5,013,990.00
RHODE IS. 2, 555,282.00 1,488,480.00
SOUTH CAROLINA 6,122,065.00 5,013,990.00
SOUTH DAKOTA 998,649.00 715,738.00
TENNESSEE 71,123,844.00 72,480,009.00
TEXAS 28,301,977.00 34,935,212.00
UTAH 763,059.00 926,179.00
VERMONT 1,770,454.00 1,622,436.00
VIRGIN ISLANDS 396,784.00 254,396.00
VIRGINIA 5,074,764.00 4,714,466.00
WASHINGTON 2,770,568.00 3,099,927.00
WEST VIRGINIA 10,424,260.00 4,278,930.00
WISCONSIN 6,527,459.00 7,179,526.00
WYOMING 2,638,832.00 1,000,698.00
TOTAL UNITED STATES: 634,890,229.00 560,713,864.00
States have had many problems implementing State Disbursement
Units. For example, in Illinois, the Clerk of Courts in some counties
bundled checks, money orders, and cash brought in by non-resident
parents and mailed them to the state without identifying information
attached. Employers did not use the new case numbers assigned to them
for income-withholding purposes. Each case was given a new number in
the distribution unit system. The number was neither the parent's
social security number nor the court docket number. Rather than
obtaining a list of names and addresses from employers for whom the
payments had been sent, the money was returned to the employers. Other
families report massive problems because the statewide computer system
cannot adequately interlink with the state distribution computer system
to determine payment distribution in multi-family situations.
Many states have systems where undistributed and unidentified funds
are deposited into state unclaimed funds accounts. Michigan has
deposited $1.5 million into the state general fund account in the past
two years. Families are not told about this process and there is no
requirement for it to be publicized.
Federal law requires states to do an annual self-assessment in 42
USC Section 654(15)(A). The Secretary has the authority to issue
regulations on what the self-assessment will cover. Those regulations
have been issued, but the distribution section does not require reports
on undistributed funds or what efforts states are making to reduce this
problem (45 CFR Section 308.2(d)). The regulations should be amended to
require such reporting. It would at least get states to address the
problem and make some plan for dealing with it.
The Federal law which gives OCSE authority to audit state programs
to determine whether ``collections and disbursements of support
payments are carried out correctly and are fully accounted for'' in 42
USC Section 652(a)(4)(C)(ii)(II). Health and Human Services should be
required to issue a regulation saying that this power would be
exercised whenever a state reported undistributed funds in excess
of.03% of its total yearly collections. The auditors could then
determine the source of the problem and require the state to correct
problems that can be corrected.
There is currently a performance standard for state paternity
establishment programs. If a state fails to meet this standard, it is
not in substantial compliance with its IV-D obligations and that
triggers financial penalties (42 USC Section 652(g)). Using this model,
a similar penalty provision for states that have large amounts of
undistributed collections should be developed.
In addition, states could be required to place all undistributed
funds in an interest-bearing account. They should also be required to
pay the interest to the custodial parent (when identified) or the non-
custodial parent (if not found, the money should be returned to the
obligor). If neither the custodial parent nor the non-custodial parent
can be identified, the state could keep the interest but would have to
report it as program income.
If the State Disbursement Unit (SDU) receives any information with
a payment that indicates that the payment might be for one or more
identifiable families, but the SDU holds the payment while it is trying
to determine for which family the payment was intended, it should be
obligated to notify all families potentially involved and give them a
chance to come forward with information or claim the money.
OCSE should make it clear that SDUs, IV-D programs, and absent
parent employers are legally required to send copies of their payment
and collection records on request to the family and its
representatives. This must be true even for out-of-state SDUs, IV-D
programs, and absent parent employers. It must also include records of
an out-of-state SDU, IV-D program, or employer of child support being
sent to the SDU, clerk of courts, or IV-D program in the family's
state. This change would better enable families to identify where in
the process money is disappearing.
OCSE should make SDUs and IV-D agencies create publicly searchable
databases containing the known information on all undistributed child
support payments, so families and their representatives can look for,
and claim, their money. OCSE regulations should require states to
complete data entry setting up a new SDU account within three days of
the first child support order in a case, regardless of whether data
entry is done on the state level by SDU or the IV-D unit, or at the
local level by IV-D staff or clerks of courts.
OCSE regulations should require states to have quality assurance
programs to ensure that data entry creating new SDU accounts is
performed accurately and within time deadlines.
OCSE regulations should require both IV-D and SDU customer service
programs to be able to promptly resolve payee family complaints
regarding non-processing or mis-processing by the SDU of child support
it has received. This should include:
a. Lrequirement that payee families receive toll-free customer
service numbers at the time of the first child support order on
their case
b. LLimits on the percentage of calls that can result in a busy
signal or no answer
c. LRequire that the customer service program be able to
electronically access court orders; IV-D, SDU, and court
payment ledgers; and SDU and IV-D account data for each
complaining payee family
d. LRequire that the customer service program be accessible by
telephone to legal counsel for the payee family pursuant to
specified confidentiality protocols;
e. LRequire that the customer service program begin research
regarding the payee family's complaint within one business day
and have sufficient staff to do so
f. LMore generally, states should be required to send monthly
payment and balance notices to all cases for both payee
families and payors. States should no longer be permitted to
obtain waivers of the monthly notice requirement.
5. Effective Child Support Enforcement
Children who receive child support:
Are more likely to have contact with their fathers \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Argys, Peter, Brooks-Gunn, and Smith, ``Contributions of Absent
Fathers to Child Well-Being: The Impact of Child Support Dollars and
Father-Child Contact'', University of Colorado (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have better grade point averages and significantly better test
scores \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Graham, Beller, and Hernandez, ``The Relationship between Child
Support Payments and Offspring Educational Attainment'' in Child
Support and Child Well-Being (Garfinkel, MacLanahan, and Robbins (eds),
Washington, DC (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have fewer behavior problems \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ H. McLanahan, et al, National Survey of Families and Households
(1994)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remain in school longer \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Nixon, Lucia, The Journal of Human Resources, XXXII-1, Winter
1997,Vol. 32, No. 1 and Barnow, Burt S., et alK, ``The Potential of the
Child Support Enforcement Program to Avoid Costs to Public Programs: A
Review and Synthesis of the Literature'', U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, HHS 100-97-007 (2000)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Receipt of child support is associated with significantly
higher expenditures on children than any other source of
income.
About 20% of our nation's children have a parent living outside
the household and are entitled to child support. They are four
times more likely to be poor and five times more likely to
receive food stamps than children who live with two biological
parents. Child support, when received by low-income families,
accounts for 26% of family income.
Strong Child Support Enforcement:
Reduces the divorce rate \5\
Reduces the number of births to never married parents \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Case, Anne, Fathers Under Fire, Chapter 7, ``The Effects of
Stronger Child support Enforcement on Non-marital Fertility'' and
Plotnick, Robert D., et al, ``The Impact of Child Support Enforcement
Policy on Non-marital Childbearing,'' University of Washington (2000)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduces teenage pre-marital childbearing \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Plotnick, Robert D., et al, ``Better Child Support Enforcement:
Can It Reduce Teenage Premarital Childbearing?'', University of
Washington (1998)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New studies show that strong child support enforcement programs
have far-reaching positive social impact that reduces the
number of children living in fatherless households and promotes
marriage. Many recent studies have shown that strict
establishment and enforcement of child support obligations is
leading to lower divorce rates and fewer illegitimate births.
In ``The Effect of Child Support Enforcement on Marital
Dissolution,'' Lucia A. Nixon found that strong child support
enforcement reduces marital breakups, and in ``The Effects of
Stronger Child Support Enforcement on Non-Marital Fertility,''
Anne Case found that anything that increases the cost of
fatherhood reduces the probability of children being born.
``The Impact of Child Support Enforcement Policy on Non-Marital
Child Bearing,'' showed that in states with a strong child
support enforcement programs, non-married women had fewer
children.
State governments alone have been unable to collect sufficient
back-support due. (See Chart 3)
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
State governments have been unable to collect support in interstate
cases. (See Chart 4)
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Families Benefit From Effective Child Support Enforcement
ACES has been monitoring the current child support enforcement
system since 1984. In addition to obtaining information about the child
support enforcement system for our members, ACES operates a national
toll-free Hot Line for families with child support problems, issues,
and questions. We receive up to 100,000 calls per year from parents
throughout the U.S. From these calls and our members, we gather
statistics and data on the status of the current child support
enforcement system.
The average ACES member is a single-parent, and she has two
children. About 50% of ACES members are divorced, and the other half
were never married. Members average income is $15,000 per year as of
the end of 2001, and 85% have, in the past, received some form of
public assistance. At present, about 33% of our membership receives
public assistance. ACES members report that collection of child
support, when joined with available earned income, allows 88% to get
off public assistance. Collection of child support enables our low-
income, working-poor members to stay in the job force long enough to
gain promotions and better pay so that they can move their family out
of poverty, and on to self-sufficiency. The collection of child
support, when joined with earned income, means our members can pay
their rent and utilities, buy food, pay for healthcare, and provide for
their children's educational opportunities. Lack of child support most
often means poverty and welfare dependency. At the very least, it means
having to work two or three jobs to survive. This leaves our children
with literally no parent who spends time providing their children
adequate nurturing, supervision, and the attention they need and
deserve.
LParents Have the Ability to Pay Child Support: 60% Have an Income of
Over $30,000
``Characteristics of Families Using Title IV-D Services in 1995'',
a study by Matthew Lyon shows that 1% of families using IV-D services
had $0 income; 10% had an income of $1-$5,000; 18% had an income of
$5,000-$10,000; 15% had an income of $10,001-$15,000; 10% had an income
of $15,001-$20,000; 7% had an income of $20,001-$25,000; 8% had an
income of $25,001-$30,000 and 30.5% had an income above $30,000. In the
book, ``Fathers Under Fire'', by Irv Garfinkel, data reported on the
income of non-resident parents showed that 20% had an income under
$6,000; 20% had an income of $10,000-$30,000; 10% had an income of
$30,000-$40,000; 40% had an income of $40,000-$55,000 and 10% had an
income in excess of $55,000 (Chart 5).
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Data from the 1997 National Survey of American Families showed that
of the 11 million fathers who weren't living with their children, about
4 million paid formal child support while the other 7 million did not.
Of these 7 million fathers, 4.5 million have sufficient income to pay
support. About 2.5 million were poor and probably unable to contribute
significant child support.
The Federal Office of Child Support, in its preliminary data for
the year 2000, shows that collections rose from $15.4 billion to $18
billion, for families with cases open at a government child support
agency. The 1999 data shows slightly less than 50% of the children
still do not have orders and the collection rate is 37%. This increase
from 23% in 1998 is in part due to new reporting requirements for
states and new regulations which allow states to close old cases where
collections had not been made. U.S. Census Bureau data from the May
1999 Current Population Report, which includes data for families with
and without a government child support case, for the year 1998, shows
that the percentage of single-parent families who receive child support
(some or all support due in 1998) was only 32%. The collection rate
shows no significant improvement.
The most recent data available from the Federal Office of Child
Support (Chart 1) shows that total collections for 2000 are $18
billion, up from $15.8 billion in 1999, up from the $14.3 billion in
1997, which was up from $13.3 billion in 1996. IV-D agencies spend $25
to collect $100, and 55.5% of collections are from payroll deductions.
5. Need Improved Interstate Collections
Chart 2 shows interstate collections. In 2000, interstate
collections of $1.1 billion out of a total $17.9 billion are 6.1% of
total. This is a decrease from $1.08 billion out of $15.9 billion
(6.7%) in total collections in 1999. Interstate child support cases
make up 36% of the case load. UIFSA, the Uniform Interstate Family
Support Act required PRWORA to be adopted verbatim by all states.
PRWORA has not yet shown itself to be of any assistance in processing
interstate cases faster or more effectively. In fact, ACES has been
told by several state IV-D agencies and state courts that it is more
difficult to use than URESA, its complicated predecessor. Problems are
being reported with the provision for direct income-withholding. If a
non-resident parent receives an income-withholding order at their place
of employment, and the order is for the wrong amount, wrong person, or
contains some other mistake of fact, there is no mechanism in place to
resolve problems. The state which sent the order is inaccessible to the
non-resident parent and the state IV-D agency in their state is not
even aware of the order or that a case exists in another state.
To increase the effectiveness on the interstate withholding
process, ACES recommends that HHS be empowered to send income-
withholding notices to employers on cases with existing income-
withholding orders rather than just notifying the state of a new
employer. States should be sent a copy of the income--withholding order
listing the new employer so that, if needed, they can conduct a
mistake-of-fact hearing and credit the case with payments which are
received. This is needed because states often fail to act on data
received from the Federal New Hire Registry. State governments report
being too short-staffed to process the large amount of data received.
For example Alabama received 56,000, Arizona 49,00, Florida 121,00,
Illinois 105,00, Mississippi 50,000, Missouri 67,000, New York 117,000,
Texas 166,00, and VA 199,00 matches.
ACES recent survey of families about the impact of PRWORA child
support laws revealed that, although adopted by local law and policy
regulation, few provisions are being effectively utilized. ACES members
and clients were questioned regarding past welfare enrollment,
existence and amount of arrears, credit bureau reporting, bank account
attachments, driver's license suspensions, professional license
suspensions, income-withholding practices of the state child support
agency, income tax refund seizures, and payment distribution.
Of the families surveyed,
89% said they had received welfare benefits in the past
44% had an order established before they went on welfare
Of those who had been on welfare,
42% said that no support payments were collected while they
were on welfare
L13% said that child support payments were collected and sent
to them while they were on welfare
L44% said that child support payments were collected for them
and kept by the state
When asked about arrears owed:
L89% of those responding to the survey said there were arrears
owed more than the amount of support due in 30 days
LOf the 89% who are owed more than current support, only 12%
affirmed that non-payors in their cases had been reported to
credit bureaus
26% answered negatively
54% were unsure
L18% added comments including reasons given by the local child
support agencies for failing to institute this practice,
including policies of waiting periods before taking action, and
reports of filing grievances with the agencies with a
continuance of inaction even after the grievance was filed
Answers to questions regarding wage withholding provided insight to
reasons the child support program is performing so poorly:
L41% of those polled said that the state or court had not
attached the non-payor's paycheck to collect child support
payments
L41% stated that the income withholding was instituted only
after the custodial parent notified the state or court where
the non-payor was working
LOnly 4% answered that the state New Hire Registry was used to
find the employer
The New Hire Registry was developed to ensure efficient collection
methods by requiring employers to report new hires within 20 days. This
data is to be measured against state and federal case registries and
matches are sent back to the state for institution of income-
withholding procedures. The system is failing because states are not
able to keep pace with the number of matches sent to them and because
some states, including California, still do not have PRWORA compliant
case registries, so they cannot send or deal with appropriate data.
Even more distressing were the results of questions asked regarding
bank account attachments:
LOnly 1% affirmed that bank accounts had been attached to
collect overdue child support payments
56% stated that bank accounts had not been attached
Similar results were found when we asked about driver's license and
professional license suspension:
Only 2% reported professional license suspensions
L9% responded affirmatively to the question of whether driver's
licenses had been suspended
L6% reported that the non-payor was notified of an impending
driver's license suspension, but that the state failed to take
action
Expedited process and federal timeframes are not being followed by
state IV-D agencies. ACES members report a 1-3 year wait to establish
paternity, 2 years to establish an order, 6-9 months for an income-
withholding, 6-9 months for a court hearing, and 1-3 years for
modification, 5 years for medical support establishment and/or
enforcement, 1 year for a Federal Parent Locator results, and 1-2 years
for action on interstate cases.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ACES annual membership survey (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
About 50% of all children in the U.S. will spend part of their life
growing up in a single-parent household. An effective and efficient
child support enforcement system is needed. The only government system
which affects more children is the public school system. Your action to
assist America's children receive the support of both parents is
needed. Please act today to ensue the nation's children the opportunity
to grow and thrive.
Declaration
ACES, The Association For Children For Enforcement of Support, Inc.
receives $15,000 in federal funding from the City of Toledo, Community
Development Block Grant. We do not receive any state government funding
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Now, Mr. Miller to testify.
STATEMENT OF STUART A. MILLER, SENIOR LEGISLATIVE ANALYST,
AMERICAN FATHERS COALITION
Mr. MILLER. Chairman Herger, Mr. English, the American
Fathers Coalition represents about 250 fathers' groups
throughout the country.
While polling the various organizations to ask what issues
I should present here today, I was overwhelmed by the feelings
that were expressed to me by the groups that the entire U.S.
Government is aligned against fathers. While obviously this is
not true, we can understand to a degree where they get this
feeling. It wasn't that long ago that Congress paid people to
drive fathers out of their homes. The ``no man in the house
rule'' was one of the most perverse aspects of the old welfare
system, and in spite of welfare reform, some of the old anti-
father sentiments still exist, particularly among frontline
TANF workers. These attitudes need to be changed if we are
going to take welfare reform to the next level. When a mother
applies for welfare, the first question we need to ask is where
is the father. Let us get him in here now.
We may have a family that doesn't need to be on welfare.
This family may need something as simple as job placement
assistance. Maybe one or both of the parents need substance
abuse counseling, parenting education, job training. We won't
know and can't provide the services if we don't get both
parents in in the very beginning.
Getting both parents involved at the outset is an integral
step in implementing another crucial aspect of welfare reform,
marriage. Just as we support our President in his war against
terrorism, we need to support our President in his war against
poverty. Marriage is one of the most effective tools we have in
fighting poverty. In order for marriage initiatives to work,
marriage needs to be attractive.
Again, we go back to attitudes. How can we ask women to do
what Congress is unwilling to do itself? Look at how we define
families. Women, Infants and Children, what is missing from
this definition? Fathers.
Anti-marriage activists will stereotype all men as
potential abusers in spite of women's slightly higher abuse
rates. Politicians will malign all fathers as deadbeats or,
worse, drive-by dads, and Congress will leave them out of the
definition of family. We can't ask women to commit to marriage
out of one side of our mouth, while on the other side we are
maligning the very person to whom we are asking her to commit.
Children love, want, and need both parents. Getting both
parents involved in the beginning will screen out abuse,
provide a venue for needed services, and, if the children are
lucky, might even lead to marriage. It won't happen unless we
change the way we handle initial in-take procedures.
The several States also need various tools and expansion of
existing tools to implement effective welfare reform. As we all
know, child support is an essential ingredient for welfare
reform, but child support relief is also an essential
ingredient. We must expand child support forgiveness efforts
which have been successfully implemented in some States which
enable many families to become self-sufficient.
There also needs to be mandatory DNA testing. In California
almost 80 percent of all child support orders are entered by
default. In other words, this means the punitive father is not
even there when the order is entered. Under the 1998 Deadbeat
Parents Act, we can turn delinquent obligors into federal
felons, but what if the person we turn into a felon is not the
biological father? Congress should not be in the business of
turning innocent men into federal felons merely to balance our
welfare budget.
More important than turning innocent men into felons,
innocent children are deprived of knowing who their father
really is. Anyone who has been to a doctor lately knows that
family medical history is essential in treating a patient.
Knowledge of this history can literally mean the difference
between life and death.
In 1996, you passed landmark welfare reform legislation
eliminating the ``no man in the house rule'' that was driving
men out of their families. You should all stand up and take a
bow. Now it is time to move to the next level of welfare
reform. Reengage men in the business of parenting not by just
removing the obstacles to father involvement, but by paving the
way and implementing incentives that will encourage men to
fulfill this highest and most rewarding calling. Then I will be
back to ask you to take another bow, which will be even more
deserved. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Statement of Stuart A. Miller, Senior Legislative Analyst, American
Fathers Coalition
Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members:
The American Fathers Coalition represents about 250 father's groups
throughout the country. When polling the various organizations for key
issues to present to this Committee, I was overwhelmed by the fact that
most groups expressed that they felt that the entire United States
Government was aligned against them. While this obviously is not true,
their feelings are, to some degree, understandable. It was not that
long ago that Congress paid people to chase fathers out of their
families.
The ``no man in the house rule'' was one of the most perverse
aspects of the old welfare system. And in spite of welfare reform, some
of the old anti-father sentiments still exist, especially among front-
line TANF workers. These attitudes need to be changed if we are going
to take welfare reform to the next level.
When a mother applies for welfare, the very first question that
needs to be asked is ``where is the father?'' And then let's get him in
there. We may have a family that doesn't need to be on welfare. This
family may need something as simple as job-placement assistance. Maybe
one or both parents need substance abuse counseling, parenting
education, or job-training. We won't know and can't provide the
services if we don't get both parents participating in the very
beginning.
Getting both parents involved at the outset is an integral step in
implementing another crucial aspect of welfare reform: marriage. Just
as we support our President in his war against terrorism, so should we
support the President in his war against poverty. As we all know,
marriage is the most effective tool we have in fighting poverty. But,
in order for marriage initiatives to work, marriage needs to be
attractive.
Again, we go back to attitudes. How can we ask women to do what
Congress is unwilling to do itself: include fathers. Look at how we
define families ``WIC: Women, Infants and Children'' What's missing
from that definition? Fathers.
Anti-marriage activists will stereotype all men as potential
abusers, in spite of women's slightly higher abuse rates. Politicians
will malign all fathers as ``dead-beat-dads'' or worse, ``drive-by
dads,'' and Congress will leave them out of the definition of family.
We can't ask women to commit to marriage out of one side of our mouth,
while on the other side, we are maligning the very person to whom we're
asking the mother to commit.
Children love, want and need both parents. Getting both parents
involved in the beginning will screen out abuse, provide a venue for
needed services and if the children are lucky, might even lead to
marriage. But, it won't happen unless we change the way we handle
initial intake procedures.
The several states also need various tools and expansion of
existing tools to implement effective welfare reform. As we all know,
child support is an essential ingredient for welfare reform. But child
support relief is also an essential ingredient. We must expand child
support forgiveness efforts which have been successfully implemented in
some states which enable many families to become self-sufficient.
There also needs to be mandatory DNA testing. In California, 80% of
all child support orders are entered by default. In other words, the
putative father is not even there! Under the 1998 Deadbeat Parents Act,
we have the ability to make federal felons out of delinquent child
support obligors. But, what if the person we turn into a felon is not
the biological father? In Los Angeles County alone, there are over 300
men per month ordered to pay child support for children that are not
theirs. It should not be the policy of this Congress to turn innocent
men into federal felons merely because we want to balance our welfare
budget.
But, more important than turning innocent men into felons, innocent
children are deprived of knowing who their biological father really is.
Anyone who has been to a doctor lately knows that information regarding
``family medical history'' is essential in treating patients. Knowledge
of this history can literally mean the difference between life and
death.
In 1996, you passed landmark welfare reform legislation eliminating
the ``no man in the house rule'' that was driving men out of their
families. You should all stand up and take a bow. Now it is time to
move to the next level of welfare reform.
Re-engage men in the business of parenting by not just removing the
obstacles to father-involvement, but by paving the way and implementing
incentives that will encourage men to fulfill this highest and most
rewarding calling. Then, I will be back to ask you to take another bow,
which will be even more deserved.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, and I want to thank
each of you again for your outstanding testimony, and thank you
for appearing. With that we will move to panel 6. Jodie Levin-
Epstein, Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Law and Social
Policy; Helen Blank, Director of Child Care Division,
Children's Defense Fund; Martha Davis, Vice President and Legal
Director, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund; Shay Bilchik,
President and Chief Executive Officer of Child Welfare League
of America; Nanine Meiklejohn, Legislative Affairs Specialist,
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
It is also my great pleasure to introduce an individual
from my home district, the chief of police of the city of
Chico. Since becoming the chief of police, he has emerged
himself in the community, taking a lead on many local efforts
to improve Chico. He has met and exceeded the community's
expectations. Chief of police, Michael R. Efford. With that,
chief of police Efford, please, to testify.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL R. EFFORD, CHIEF OF POLICE, CHICO POLICE
DEPARTMENT, CHICO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. EFFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today
about the critical crime prevention issues presented by the
decisions you are about to make on welfare reform and child
care. My name is Michael Efford, and I have spent the past 30
years in law enforcement, serving for the last 3 years as the
chief of the city of Chico. I am here on behalf of more than
1,500 police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, and victims of
violence from across the country who have joined together to
create Fight Crime: Invest in Kids. Our mission is to take a
hard-nosed look at the research about what really works to keep
kids from becoming criminals.
We believe there is no substitute for tough law
enforcement, but those of us on the frontline in the fight
against crime also know that we will never be able to arrest,
try, and imprison our way out of the crime problem. Once a
crime has been committed, neither the police nor prisons can
undo the agony of the crime victim and repair that victim's
shattered life. We can save lives, hardships, and money by
investing in programs that are proven to keep children from
growing up to become criminals.
I have worked in some of the most underprivileged
neighborhoods where children hung out on street corners because
they had no place else to go. I cannot tell you how many times
that I have had to arrest people who might have turned out to
be good neighbors if only we had made the investment they
needed on the front end.
Just last year I came across a young man named Shawn whose
family had sent him from the Los Angeles area to be with
relatives in Chico to get him out of the gang-ridden
neighborhoods in south central Los Angeles. I tried to get
Shawn into a martial arts program, an after-school program, but
his family couldn't afford even those minimal costs for that
program. Subsequently, without a constructive environment for
Shawn to invest his after-school time in, he became involved in
gangs in Chico and eventually ended up getting a 13-year-old
girl pregnant.
I am here today because the right decisions on welfare
reform and child care can help communities and families keep
kids like Shawn from becoming criminals. As President Bush's
new early childhood initiative says, early childhood is a
critical time for children to develop the physical, emotional,
social, and cognitive skills they will need for the rest of
their lives. That is why it is crucial that our Nation's
children are participating in programs that give them the right
start in life. Quality educational child care programs are
proven to dramatically reduce the chances that at-risk children
will grow up to become criminals. When our fight against crime
starts in the highchair, it won't end in the electric chair.
Of course, the opportunity to prevent crime doesn't end
when kids start school. The prime time for violent juvenile
crime is the after-school hours from 3 to 6 p.m. Not
surprisingly, quality after-school programs are also proven to
reduce crime both now and down the road. I have seen that this
works firsthand as an active member on the local board of
directors for our Boys and Girls Club in Chico. Our choice is
simple. We can either send our children to after-school
programs that will teach them good values and skills, or we can
entrust them to the after-school teachings of Jerry Springer,
violent video games, or the streets.
Congress should be congratulated for the overwhelming
success of welfare reform in moving families from welfare
dependency to work, but decent child care and after-school
activities for the children of these working families cost
money, more money than many of these families can afford
without help from the government. The Child Care and
Development Block Grant helps. Unfortunately, it is so
underfunded that it has been able to serve only one out of
seven children eligible for that program. In addition, any
decision to increase welfare reform work requirements will
increase the need for child care funding even more.
Many of the parents who don't receive child care assistance
are forced to make do with child care that no Member of this
Committee would want for their child or grandchild. Law
enforcement believes that we can and we must do better. The
California police chiefs, sheriffs, and district attorneys
associations have all passed resolutions supporting investments
in quality child care and after-school programs. So, have the
National Sheriffs Association, the Major Cities Chiefs, the
Fraternal Order of Police, and the National District Attorneys
Association. Every day we fail to help working families afford
quality educational child care and after-school programs, we
increase the risk that you or someone you love will fall victim
to violence.
I am here to ask you to pay attention to this plea from the
people on the front lines. Congress must substantially increase
funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant. In
other words, invest in America's most vulnerable kids now so
they won't become America's most wanted adults later. I thank
you again for this opportunity to testify before you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Efford follows:]
Statement of Michael R. Efford, Chief of Police, Chico Police
Department, Chico, California
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name
is Michael Efford, and I am the Chief of Police in Chico, California. I
am also a member of the anti-crime group Fight Crime: Invest in Kids,
which is made up of more than 1,500 police chiefs, sheriffs,
prosecutors and victims of violence from across the country who have
come together to take a hard-nosed look at the research about what
really works to keep kids from becoming criminals.
I am very pleased to be here today to share with you what I hope
will be a unique perspective on welfare reform: its impact on crime.
During my 30-year career, I've been involved in virtually every aspect
of law enforcement. I have worked as a front line police officer and
have seen first hand how the lack of properly supervised activities can
lead kids into a crime-laden environment. I have listened to testimony
in our courtrooms by so many of our young people as they were sentenced
to incarceration. I have heard the same account over and over: if there
had only been some positive influence in their lives, their story may
have come out different. Luckily, I have also been fortunate enough to
see and work with programs and activities that provided that badly-
needed positive experience--and today I'd like to tell you about some
of those experiences and the research that relates to them.
Government's most fundamental responsibility is to protect the
public safety. In many cases, this requires capturing, trying and
imprisoning those who have committed a crime. There is no substitute
for tough law enforcement. But once a crime has been committed, lives
have already been shattered. Those of us on the front lines in the
fight against crime understand that we'll never be able to just arrest
and imprison our way out of the crime problem. We can save lives,
hardship--and money--by investing in programs that can keep children
from growing up to become criminals in the first place.
The members of Fight Crime: Invest in Kids have come together to
issue a ``School and Youth Violence Prevention Plan'' that lays out
four types of programs that research proves--and law enforcement
knows--can greatly reduce crime. The violence prevention plan calls for
more investments in:
after-school programs;
quality educational child care programs;
activities that get troubled kids back on track
before it's too late; and
services that can treat and prevent child abuse and
neglect.
These investments are overwhelmingly supported by law enforcement.
A poll of police chiefs nationwide conducted by George Mason University
professors in 1999 showed that 86 percent of chiefs believed that
expanding after-school programs and educational child care would
greatly reduce youth crime and violence. When asked to rate the value
on a scale of 1 to 5 of parent coaching programs for high-risk
families, which are proven to reduce child abuse and neglect, 79
percent gave such programs a 1 or a 2 (with 1 being ``very valuable''
and 3 being ``valuable'').
The chiefs were also asked which of the following strategies they
thought was most effective in reducing youth violence:
providing more after-school programs and educational
child care;
prosecuting more juveniles as adults;
hiring more police officers to investigate juvenile
crime; or
installing more metal detectors and surveillance
cameras in schools.
Expanding after-school and educational child care was picked as the
top choice by more than four to one over any other option. In fact,
more chiefs chose ``expanding after-school programs and educational
child care'' as ``most effective'' in reducing crime than chose the
other three strategies combined. Of course, that doesn't mean they're
against those other strategies. But police chiefs are clear that these
preventive approaches will have a greater impact than the others.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
These chiefs are not alone. Dozens of state and national law
enforcement associations have adopted resolutions highlighting the
crime-fighting importance of quality child care, after-school programs,
and programs that prevent abuse and neglect, including the Fraternal
Order of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs organization, the National
District Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs Association, and
the Police Executive Research Forum. In my own state of California, the
California Police Chiefs Association, the California District Attorneys
Association, the California State Sheriffs' Association and the
California Peace Officers' Association have all adopted similar
resolutions.
I know from first-hand experience that these types of programs
really can make a difference. I spent a large portion of my career
working with youth. I have worked in neighborhoods with strong gang
influences, and in some of the most underprivileged neighborhoods where
children ``hung out'' on street corners and alleyways because they had
no place else to go. I spent several years as a detective, pursuing the
criminal activities of young people whose lives could have been
different if only they had had some structure in their young lives. As
an active member on the board of directors of my local area Boys and
Girls Club, I have also seen first hand how well-organized and
properly-supervised activities provide our youth with the alternatives
that they so desperately need. In 1998, I worked with a large group of
young men and women to build a skate park in their neighborhood. I was
very fortunate to be able to watch these young ``castaways'' of society
work to see their dream come into fruition, and then see the lasting
impact that their success had on their lives. Something as simple as a
skate park changed dozens of young lives forever. Throughout my career,
I have seen it proven time and again that early interventions with our
youth can change a path leading to criminality toward that of being a
productive member of our society.
Based on these experiences, I would now like to discuss a few of
the ways welfare reform legislation can reduce crime. Welfare
dependency is bad for children. The welfare reform legislation passed
by Congress in 1996 has been an extraordinary success at helping
parents leave welfare and enter the workforce--something necessary to
improve the lives of children and make our communities safer.
Welfare reform now offers us the opportunity to fight one of the
most egregious crimes of all--child abuse and neglect. Child abuse and
neglect is a crime that keeps on giving. It hurts innocent kids
immediately. And it too often starts a cycle of violence that leads to
more crime, and sometimes more child abuse. Most kids who are abused or
neglected grow up to become law-abiding citizens despite what they have
gone through. But too many don't. Being abused or neglected multiplies
the risk that a child will grow up to become a criminal--a tragedy for
the child, and also a tragedy for us all. The abuse and neglect
occurring in a single year results in between 45,000 and 135,000 extra
arrests for violence and 1,000 to 3,000 murders ultimately committed by
some of those victimized as children.
The welfare reform legislation passed in 1996 increased funding for
the Social Services Block Grant--a program that is actually the Federal
Government's single largest support for child abuse and neglect-related
services. This block grant helps states and communities fund a variety
of activities--including foster care, adoption and child protective
services. Unfortunately, the level of funding for this important
program has been cut by almost 40 percent from what it was promised in
1996. Welfare reform proposals that restore SSBG to its previously-set
funding level will provide communities with much-needed help for
efforts to prevent and treat child abuse and neglect, and therefore
reduce later crime.
Another child abuse and neglect-related issue in welfare reform is
kinship care. I'm sure we'd all agree that, whenever possible, we want
children to be raised by their parents. But when that either is not
desirable because the parents are abusive or is simply not possible,
the next best scenario is for that child to live with a relative. About
420,000 children who are raised by relatives receive TANF support from
child-only grants, and another 80,000 children receive support because
the relatives who care for them are on TANF. It is critical that these
relatives be able to care for these children. I hope Congress makes
sure that these children are not returned to dangerous settings or
placed in expensive foster care because their relative caregivers--many
of whom are grandparents and are unable to work--have lost their TANF
support due to time-limits or work requirements.
Now I'd like to talk about the program through which I believe
welfare reform legislation can make the biggest impact on crime--the
Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG). As I mentioned earlier,
the success of welfare reform has helped millions of parents into the
workforce. With that success comes the reality that most parents, even
parents of very young children, are working.
While these parents are at work, their kids will be in someone
else's care. As the President pointed out last week, 62 percent of
young children--13 million kids--are in the care of someone other than
their parents during the work-day. The question is: will it be
stimulating, nurturing care that helps kids develop, or ``child
storage'' with too few adults--who have too little training--and too
many kids?
To quote President Bush's new early childhood initiative released
last week, ``early childhood is a critical time for children to develop
the physical, emotional, social, and cognitive skills they will need
for the rest of their lives.'' The good news is that numerous studies
of quality early childhood programs have shown that participants have
better self-esteem, achievement motivation, social behavior, academic
achievements, cognitive development, grade retention and other benefits
than similar children who did not participate in such programs.
What is equally important but less well-known is that quality
educational child care programs can also significantly reduce the
chances of a child growing up to become a criminal. A study published
in the Journal of the American Medical Association last year
demonstrated this fact. Over the last 30 years, Child-Parent Centers
have provided school readiness child care to 100,000 3-and 4-year-olds
in Chicago's toughest neighborhoods. The study published in JAMA
examined outcomes at age 18 for 1,000 of these children, and a matched
group of 500 similar children who had not been enrolled in the Child-
Parent Centers. The study showed that kids who did not receive the
Child-Parent Centers' quality child care were 70 percent more likely to
have been arrested for a violent crime by the time they reached
adulthood. Kids left out of the program were also more likely to be
held back in school, more likely to drop out, and less likely to
graduate.
The researchers estimated that the program will have prevented
33,000 crimes--including 13,000 violent crimes--by the time all 100,000
participants reach age 18. Clearly hundreds of thousands of crimes
would be prevented each year if all families nationwide had access to
programs like this. When our fight against crime starts in the high
chair, it won't end in the electric chair.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In addition to saving lives, these programs also save money.
Counting only savings to government, the Chicago Child-Parent Centers
returned almost three dollars for every dollar invested. Counting those
government savings, savings to crime victims, and benefits to the
participants in the program, the results are $7 saved for every dollar
invested.
Unfortunately, millions of children are being left out of these
types of programs. Without government help, such programs are just too
expensive for low-and moderate-income families. In every state, the
cost for an infant to attend a good child care center is higher than
the cost of tuition at a public university. Adequate care for two
children in a child care center can easily cost over $12,000 a year--
about $2,000 more than a minimum-wage worker earns working full-time.
Many working parents can't possibly pay these costs, any more than
they could pay private school tuition if public schools were
eliminated. Unfortunately, the crime-reduction and other benefits I
described earlier only occur when children are able to participate in
quality programs--not programs that are simply ``child storage.'' We
can no more afford to accept child care that is merely ``custodial''
than we could accept assigning some children to public schools that are
``custodial'' rather than ``instructional.'' Clearly that is not what
Congress or the President desires, given the recent enactment of the No
Child Left Behind Act.
To make sure child care is not simply ``child storage,'' it is
imperative that CCDBG legislation provides for quality improvements to
child care programs. An increase in the CCDBG ``quality set-aside,''
currently at a mere four percent, would help facilitate this
improvement by supporting: scholarships to enhance the levels of
educational attainment for child care providers; training that includes
approaches through which providers can enhance children's cognitive,
social, emotional and physical development; and increased compensation
levels that attract and retain qualified providers. Enhanced standards,
an area that President Bush addressed in his recent early childhood
education proposal, can also help to improve quality. However, all such
quality initiatives require additional resources.
In addition to helping families send their young children to safe
and stimulating environments while the parents work, CCDBG also helps
families send their school-age children to safe and stimulating
settings after school. As you probably know, the prime time for violent
juvenile crime is in the after-school hours, from 3 to 6 p.m. These are
also the peak hours for teens to commit other crimes, have sex, smoke,
drink, use drugs, or become a victim of a crime. As more and more
parents enter the workforce because of welfare reform, many teenagers
are left in unsupervised environments. Already more than 10 million
children and teens--including 7 million 5-14 year-olds--are
unsupervised after school on a regular basis. In fact, 31 percent of
school-age children of recent welfare leavers--and even higher
proportions of school-age children of welfare recipients and other poor
parents--do not participate in extracurricular activities. This rate is
more than three times higher than the non-participation rate of
children in families with incomes greater than 200 percent of the
poverty line.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
After-school programs can cut crime immediately by keeping kids
safe and out of trouble during these dangerous hours. They can also cut
later crime by helping participants develop the values and skills they
need to become good, contributing citizens. In one study, students
whose families were on welfare were randomly divided into two groups
when they started high school. One group was enrolled in the Quantum
Opportunities after-school program, which provided tutoring, mentoring,
recreation, and community service programs and some monetary incentives
to keep attendance up. The second group was left out of the program.
When studied two years after the four-year program ended, the group
of boys left out of the program had six times more convictions for
crimes than those provided with the program. In addition, every dollar
invested in this program produced three dollars in benefits to
government and the recipients. That doesn't even count the savings that
result from a lowered crime rate. Our choice is simple: we can either
send our children to after-school programs that will teach them good
values and skills, or we can entrust them to the after-school teachings
of Jerry Springer, violent video games or the streets.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In conclusion, investing in quality educational child care and
after-school programs are among the most significant steps Congress can
take to stop kids from growing up to become criminals. That is why
substantial increases are needed in the Child Care and Development
Block Grant. Unfortunately, this program is so under-funded that only
one in seven children who are eligible for benefits receive them. If
increased work requirements are added to welfare reform, without a
significant increase in CCDBG, then the unmet need will only increase.
I hope that you will provide a substantial increase in funding for this
program to allow more of the eligible children to participate--and to
improve the quality of programs. Every day we fail to help working
families afford quality educational child care and after-school
programs, we increase the risk that you or someone you love will fall
victim to violence. We need to invest in America's most vulnerable kids
now, so they won't become America's Most Wanted adults later.
Thank you once again for this opportunity to testify before your
subcommittee. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Efford. Now, Ms.
Levin-Epstein to testify.
STATEMENT OF JODIE LEVIN-EPSTEIN, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, CENTER
FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY
Ms. LEVIN-EPSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of
the Subcommittee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to
testify.
My focus today is child well-being. The HHS Assistant
Secretary Wade Horn has said, the principal question to ask of
welfare reform is, are children better off? He urged caution in
order to avoid unintended consequences. Chairman Herger, you
probably summed it up best when you said, no success is a
success unless it works for kids.
My remarks will highlight child well-being issues in
several areas. With respect to the proposed work structure, to
compete for family friendly jobs such as day jobs rather than
night jobs, parents need educational skills. Under current law,
States may count full-time training for up to 12 months. Under
your proposal, sir, that would not be possible. Such training
would count only for 3 months.
Further, your proposed approach is fundamentally
inconsistent with what we know works from the research. The
most successful site in the national evaluation of Welfare-to-
Work strategies was Portland, Oregon, which stressed moving
individuals into the workforce quickly, but emphasized finding
good jobs and allowed the first activity for each person to
vary depending upon skills, work history, and other factors. It
was not a one-size-fits-all approach, and your proposal, sir,
is much more of a one-size-fits-all approach. States under your
proposal would not be able to adopt the Portland model, because
most of the activities provided by Portland could not count
toward the first 24 hours of program activity after the first 3
months.
I suggest, sir, we don't need to be playing in this
sandbox. We need to be outside this sandbox, we need to look at
a whole array of other issues. The States have repeatedly told
us in surveys and we have seen through the recent National
Governors' Association survey that this sandbox would create
problems.
The next area is the superwaiver. Under the proposed
superwaiver, the executive branch would be able to waive
virtually any protection contained in federal child welfare,
child support, child care, or other laws. As written, these
waivers would happen automatically with no requirement for even
cursory review. If the Secretary didn't respond to a State's
request within 90 days, the unintended consequence could be
that children could be harmed.
In the child support distribution area we have already
heard testimony today. What we need to appreciate is that next
to earnings, child support is the second largest income source
for poor, single-female-headed families receiving child
support, which amounts to 26 percent of their budget, about
$2,000 a year. We appreciate that you focused on that issue,
sir, but we think you haven't gone far enough to recognize the
virtues of child support distribution. We commend the
provisions in the bipartisan Johnson-Cardin bill.
In the area of kinship care, when relatives assume
caretaking responsibilities for a child, this kinship care
often enables a child to avoid foster care. Under current TANF
policy, if the relative care giver is included in the grant,
federal limits and work requirements apply, which may make it
difficult or impossible for the relative to provide a stable
home. We recommend that you address these issues.
With respect to non-marital births, in your bill, up to
$300 million is made available to encourage States to increase
their efforts to promote healthy marriages. For many children
the reality is that marriage is not a feasible or even a
desirable option for their parents. Given the overarching
purpose which we share to improve the child well-being of, we
hope, all children, States should be encouraged to help all
parents, whether unmarried, married, separated, divorced, or
remarried, so that they can work together to raise their
children and give them the supports they need to do so.
Despite the role teen pregnancy prevention holds in
decreasing non-marital births as noted by Isabel Sawhill, the
Herger bill does not promote it. Indeed, the $200 million pot
of funds made available in the healthy marriage promotion
grants element of the bill precludes pregnancy prevention
programs from getting grants. Even proven programs such as
school community service programs could not get funded. It
would ironically also preclude replication of strategies that
appear to have a positive marriage outcome. For example, in
Minnesota the Minnesota Family Investment Program, without
mentioning marriage, increased marriage rates among single
parents and marital stability among two-parent families. The
other $100 million dollars for research grants also targeted
primarily at marriage may well also preclude investment in teen
pregnancy prevention. We commend the Cardin approach again.
With respect to TANF teen parents, we urge you to make sure
that TANF teen parents get on the radar screen, and what we are
learning from new research is that too often they are not even
getting applications. They are being shut out at the door. We
think Congress should consider a transitional period for teens
to come into compliance with these rules.
I urge you to consider the child well-being implications of
each of these provisions and others as you deliberate the rest
of the bill. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Levin-Epstein follows:]
Statement of Jodie Levin-Epstein, Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Law
and Social Policy
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify. I am Jodie
Levin-Epstein, a Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for Law and Social
Policy (CLASP). I began my work at CLASP in 1988, the year the Family
Support Act was enacted. 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. We place a
special emphasis on understanding what is actually occurring at the
``ground level'' through on-going dialogue with state officials,
administrators, program providers, and individuals directly affected by
the implementation of welfare reform efforts.[i]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[i]\ This testimony reflects collaborative work with a number of
CLASP colleagues, including Vicki Turetsky, Mark Greenberg, Rutledge
Hutson, Rachel Schumacher, Steve Savner, Jennifer Mezey, John Hutchins,
and Christine Grisham.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My testimony will address a number of reauthorization issues
central to child-well being. The Administration has proposed to
establish that the purpose of the welfare program be an ``Overarching
Purpose to Improve the Well-being of Children.'' HHS Assistant
Secretary Wade Horn has underscored this goal and said, ``The principal
question to ask of welfare reform is--are children better off?'' He
also has urged that generally, one should ``proceed cautiously'' in
order to avoid unintended consequences.[ii] Chairman Herger
has perhaps summed up best the interest in child well-being when he
said ``No success is a success unless it works for kids''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[ii]\ September 5, 2001 HHS Conference On Welfare Reform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its proposal, the Administration puts forward several new
provisions designed to encourage states to increase their efforts to
promote healthy marriages, citing research that establishes marriage as
the ``ideal environment for raising children.'' However, for many
children the reality is that marriage is not a feasible or even a
desirable option for their parents. Given the Administration's
overarching purpose to improve the well-being of (presumably all)
children, states should be encouraged to help all parents--whether
unmarried, married, separated, divorced, or remarried--to work together
to raise their children and give them the supports they need to do so.
The Administration has also proposed to restructure the welfare
program's work requirements. Yet, there is a danger that this work
proposal could generate new risks for children at the same time as it
would diminish resources needed for programs that address child well-
being. There is yet another danger lurking behind this one: important
child well-being issues may be ``crowded out'' from the deliberative
process because of the intense focus on the Administration's proposed
changes to TANF work requirements and to promoting marriage.
It is not yet clear how TANF implementation has affected children,
but research on pre-TANF programs suggests that positive effects may
depend on improved family income, and that there may be negative
effects on adolescent children that result from increased maternal
employment. Recent work by the Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation (MDRC) and other work by Child Trends, looking at pre-TANF
welfare-work programs, found that while many programs raised employment
rates, only some raised income, because gains in employment were often
offset by losses in benefits. In those programs where employment was
associated with increased family income, the research has found
evidence of positive effects on elementary school-age children's school
achievement. By contrast, programs that increased employment but did
not increase incomes had few effects on elementary school-age children.
However, several programs that increased maternal employment had
negative effects on adolescent children's school achievement. At this
point, it is unclear whether this adverse impact is principally a
function of decreased supervision, increased stress on parents, or
increased responsibilities for teens with working parents.
The data suggests that positive child outcomes are tied to
increased income; yet it would be a mistake to ignore something much
less tangible and yet as fundamental: the need for a child to be cared
for by a loving adult. Thus, it is important to appreciate that
underlying child well-being, is family well-being.
Highlighted below are some of the key child well-being issues that
should be addressed during reauthorization.
LThe Administration's Work Requirements May Hinder Its Articulated Goal
To Improve Child Well-Being[iii]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[iii]\ On TANF work participation see: ``At What Price?: A Cost
Analysis of the Administration's Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) Work Participation Proposal,'' and ``Unwise and
Unworkable: Work Participation Requirements in the Administration's
Welfare Plan,'' CLASP, forthcoming; ``Children and Welfare Reform,''
The Future of Children, Vol 12-Number 1., The David and Lucile Packard
Foundation, Winter/Spring 2002; ``Comments Regarding the
Reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Block Grant,'' submitted to the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services by the CLASP, November 30, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administration has proposed to modify the goals of TANF to
articulate that the overarching goal of state TANF efforts should be to
improve child well-being. And, the Administration has suggested that so
long as the 24-hour ``direct work'' requirements were satisfied, states
could count structured activities that furthered child well-being
toward meeting the remaining 16 hours of the 40 hour obligations. What
would count as a structured activity is something outside the home--
like parental participation in a school field trip; what would not
count is parental engagement with school homework.
In many ways, this framework seems unresponsive to the central
issues that states must address in efforts to simultaneously promote
work and advance child well-being. A better approach would be to place
weight on such factors as increasing the income of families who go to
work, broadening access to child care, or improving access to jobs
which have sick and vacation leave and do not require nighttime or
weekend hours. The Administration's framework also restricts stand-
alone education and training; specifically, it only counts 3 months
within any 24-months, making it that much harder for a parent to gain
skills and credentials that could lead to a better quality job (i.e. a
job with flexible hours and benefits). These restrictions on education
and training are proposed despite new research which suggests that
welfare programs which improve a parent's educational attainment, often
improve the child's cognitive and academic levels.
In at least two ways, the 40-hour framework could actually be
contrary to promoting child well-being: first, as noted in the child
impact research above, participation in work-related programs by low-
income parents appears correlated with adverse impacts on teens' school
performance. This counsels for the importance of helping parents find
jobs that are consistent with family responsibilities, and against
simply mandating 40 hours of out-of-home participation. Second, it is
by no means clear that mandating participation in structured out-of-
home activities with children is the best way to promote child well-
being.
Work Requirements and Reauthorization: CLASP recommends that
Congress consider the unintended consequences to child well-being that
could result directly from the proposed 40 hour participation
requirement. We have recommended a number of changes in federal law to
improve TANF's employment outcomes, but we believe that the
participation rate changes proposed by the Administration are not
necessary, and would be costly and potentially counter-productive.
Child Support Distribution Can Enhance Income And
Parenting[iv]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[iv]\ On child support distribution see: ``Reauthorization Issues:
Child Support Distribution,'' CLASP, February 2002; ``W2 Child Support
Demonstration Evaluation: Phase I: Final Report,'' Daniel Meyer and
Maria Cancian, University of Wisconsin, Institute for Research on
Poverty, April 2001; ``Child Support Offers Some Protection Against
Poverty,'' Elaine Sorenson and Chava Zibman, The Urban Institute, March
2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The work-welfare programs with the best outcomes for young children
are those that resulted in increased income. Effective child support is
a valuable way to increase income for low income families. Next to
earnings, child support is the second largest income source for poor,
single female-headed families receiving child support. For poor
families who get child support, the child support amounts to 26 percent
of the family's budget, or $2000 per year. Child support lifts about a
half million children out of poverty, reducing poverty among these
children by 5 percent.
Child support can also translate into increased parental
engagement. For the non-custodial parent, typically the father, making
the payment can represent his basic commitment to his children. For the
custodial parent, usually the mother, receiving the payment means she
can often forego a second or third part-time job, affording her more
time to supervise and engage her children and often allowing her to
work more regular hours.
Child support translates into improved parental engagement most
readily, it appears, the more support the family receives. However,
current child support distribution laws limit the amount of child
support a family actually gets. How much child support the family
actually gets depends on how the government distributes the money it
collects--that is, how much of the money goes directly to the family
and how much is kept by the government. We now operate under an
extraordinarily complex set of distribution rules that few understand.
Indeed, the current system serves as a disincentive for dads to pay
child support because too often they do not see their dollars buying
needed diapers, . . . instead, they see it disappear into state
coffers. States are no happier with the current distribution rules.
Implementation of the current rules are estimated to cost up to $360
million per year, and a number of states are facing lawsuits and audit
problems because they have not accurately implemented the distribution
rules.
A demonstration in Wisconsin--which examined the impact of having
all the current child support go directly home to the family--found
that this led to more dads being willing to pay child support; and,
those dads paying more support. From the perspective of child-well
being there are also intriguing hints in the data that suggest that the
increased income also reduced family tension and eased the way to other
positive benefits for the children. These positive outcomes were
particularly evident for the subgroup where the dads paid enough child
support to make a difference in family budgets. The Wisconsin evidence
suggests that distributing the money directly to the family led to less
conflict between the parents, improved child health outcomes, increased
mothers' satisfaction with the child care arrangements they could
secure, and, for teens, better school performance and less trouble with
the law. Another striking finding is that there was no difference in
overall government costs--the cost of distributing all of the current
support to families was offset by more support paid by fathers and less
welfare used by mothers.
Child support distribution and reauthorization: CLASP urges the
House to adopt the bipartisan distribution reform provisions in
Johnson-Cardin HR 1471 (the ``Child Support Distribution Act of 2001'')
and Cardin HR 3625. In 2000, the House passed nearly identical
provisions by a vote of 405-18.
Kinship Care TANF Policies Should Be Family Friendly[v]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[v]\ On kinship care and TANF see: ``Reauthorization Issues: The
Child Welfare Link,'' CLASP, February 2002; `` Child Welfare and TANF
Reauthorization,'' CLASP, February 2002; ``Red Flags: Research Raises
Concerns About the Impact of Welfare Reform on Child Maltreatment,''
CLASP, October 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When relatives assume caretaking responsibilities for a child, this
kinship care often enables a child to avoid foster care. Some of these
kinship families receive modest support from TANF. However, current
TANF policies are not as ``family friendly'' to these kin caregivers as
they ought to be. Reauthorization is an opportunity to address this
issue as well as improve coordination between TANF and the child
welfare system.
In 1999, approximately 420,000 children living with relatives
received TANF ``child-only'' grants. This means, a grant was given to
support only the child and not the relatives caring for the child.
Nearly 80,000 more children lived in relative headed households that
included the relative caregiver in the grant.
There are a number of issues about whether this manner of
supporting kinship caregivers is ``family friendly.'' Under current
TANF policy, if the relative caregiver is included in the grant,
federal time limits and work requirements apply which may make it
difficult or impossible for the relative to provide a stable home for
the child. While the kin are extending themselves to help out a
relative child, current TANF policy limits the assistance available to
them. For example, if an aunt and uncle take in a two year old nephew
and are included in the grant, they can receive assistance for only
five years. The notion that the child would need to enter foster care
or move to another relative when he turns seven is inconsistent with
the child welfare goal of finding a safe, permanent placement. The work
requirements add another possible tension. For example, if a 65 year
old, retired grandmother on a fixed income takes in her grandchild and
begins to receive TANF, she is subject to her state rules regarding job
search, job training, and employment. While it is possible these state
services might help her, it is also possible that she cannot comply
with these requirements and provide a stable home for the child. A
kinship caregiver could receive a TANF ``child only'' grant without
being subject to the work requirements and time-limits. However, since
the size of these grants are relatively small (averaging $7.00 per
day), a relative caregiver may not be able to adequately care for a
child with a child-only grant. In either case, kinship caregivers face
a unique set of circumstances and needs which raise questions about how
best to serve these special families.
In addition to the kinship care connection, families in the child
welfare system and families in the TANF system often have quite similar
needs. They often face the challenges of poverty, substance abuse,
mental health, and domestic violence. Yet, the services available to
families and the manner in which the services are offered often depend
on which door the families first enter. In some cases families in both
systems have child welfare service plans that conflict with the
requirements of their TANF individual responsibility plans. This raises
issues of coordinated, collaborative service delivery.
Kinship Care and Reauthorization: CLASP recommends that Congress
amend the time limit provision so that the 60 month limit applies only
to birth and adoptive parents, not relative caregivers; allow a state
to exempt relative caregivers from work requirements (and the
participation rate) while encouraging states to assess the kinship
family's needs, design a service plan and offer appropriate services to
meet the family's needs. More generally with respect to the potential
child welfare and TANF intersection, we recommend that Congress expand
the kinds of activities that count as participation and amend the state
plan requirements to require states to describe interagency
coordination, among other new plan elements.
Infant Care Options Are Neded[vi]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[vi]\ On infant care see: ``Investing in Family Well-being, a
Family-Friendly Workplace and a More Stable Workforce: A ``Win-Win''
Approach to Welfare And Low-Wage Policy,'' (Draft) Ellen Bravo, Mark
Greenberg, Cindy Marano, CLASP joint publication, January 2002;
``Testimony of Mark H. Greenberg,'' CLASP, U.S. Senate Committee on
Finance, and, U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions, March 19, 2002; ``Unfinished Agenda Child Care for Low-Income
Families from 1996: Implications for federal and State Policy,'' CLASP,
March 2002; ``The High Cost of Child Care Puts Quality Care Out of
Reach for Many Families,'' Children's Defense Fund, Winter 2002; ``
From Neurons to Neighborhoods The Science of Early Childhood
Development,'' Editors Jack P Shonkoff, Deborah Phillips, National
Research Council, Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences
2000; ``Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program Third
Annual Report to Congress,'' U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning,
Research and Evaluation, August 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reauthorization presents an opportunity to test new approaches to
infant care. Infancy, it is now recognized, is fueled by experiences
that contribute to future development. Research on the significance of
a child's early years (``zero to three'') to brain development
demonstrates that the relationships and experiences formed during this
period can contribute significantly to future functioning. When parents
of infants go to work, however, often the available infant care is of
low quality and/or high cost. Current TANF policies may exacerbate this
dual dilemma; furthermore, the Administration's proposed increased work
requirements could have the effect of mandating that more mothers of
infants leave home for work and thereby, further increase the demand
for and strain the supply of quality infant care.
Under current TANF policy, states decide whether and to what extent
to impose work requirements on parents of infants. The majority of
states categorically exempt parents with children under age one (in
these states, the time-limit clock runs during the exemption; these
families, however, are not included in the calculation of the state's
participation rate). Eighteen states require participation by parents
of children under age one.
Under the Administration's proposal, while states would still get
to choose whether to exempt mothers with infants, the increased work
participation rates could induce states to get more mothers of infants
into the workforce in order to help the state meet the proposed higher
rates. In essence, in the drive to meet a higher work participation
rate, states may find themselves forced to ``throw a wide net'' and
limit exemptions; in practice, a state cannot readily know which of two
comparable mothers is the one that will help it meet its participation
rate so it may, in response to increased rates, abandon its exemption
policy in order to hook a ``countable'' parent--whether there is an
infant in the home or not.
If more mothers of infants are to enter the workforce, the costs
and quality of infant care need to be addressed. The costs of infant
and toddler care are high. One study found that the average annual cost
of child care for infants in center care is about $1,100 a year higher
than the center care costs for a 4 year old. This same study found that
in every state, the cost of child care for an infant in an urban area
center is more than the cost of tuition for a public college in the
same state; in more than half the states, the infant care cost is more
than twice the tuition cost. The Administration's proposal does not
call for an increase in child care funding. This is problematic because
the inadequacy of funding for child care for infants as well as low-
income children of other ages was evident prior to the Administration's
proposal. The proposed work requirements would expand even further the
need for subsidies.
Most mothers of infants are not in the workforce most of the time
and this is useful to remember as policies that target poor, single
mothers are considered. Nationally, half of the mothers of infants are
not employed. Another 17 percent work part-time. Only about one-third
of mothers work full-time according to recent Census data (and, the
Census does not consider full time to be 40 hours; instead it counts
anything more than 35 hours).
The choice to provide in-home infant care should be available to
low and moderate income families as it is to upper income families. At
the same time, the supply of quality infant care needs to be expanded
so that those who wish to (or are required to) return to work can do so
with the assurance that their infant will receive the kind of care that
is developmentally sound.
Several states have recently adopted a potential model that allows
low income families to care for infants at home: Both Minnesota and
Montana have enacted programs under which parents who qualify for child
care subsidies can elect either to have the subsidy pay for out-of-home
care or to stay at home caring for their child and receive the subsidy
as a replacement for lost wages.
Infant care and Reauthorization: There are significant unmet needs
for child care for low income families generally, and particularly,
with respect to quality infant care. In addition to addressing these
unmet needs through increased mandatory CCDF funding, Congress should
provide new funding for a set of demonstration projects drawing on the
Minnesota/Montana model, to test the feasibility and evaluate the
effects of programs that allow parents to choose between rapid return
to work and staying at home to provide care for an infant. Further,
Congress should consider a range of refinements on current policy
related to the parents of a child under age one. For example, states
that impose work requirements might be restricted from mandating full-
time employment or mandating employment without helping the family find
appropriate infant care.
Adolescent-Sensitive TANF Policies and Programs Need to be
Developed[vii]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[vii]\ On adolescents and TANF see: ``Welfare Policies Matter for
Children and Youth: Lessons for TANF Reauthorization,'' Pamela Morris,
Lisa A. Gennetian, and Virginia Knox, The Next Generation, MDRC, March
2002; ``Welfare Reform's Impact on Adolescents: Early Warning Signs,''
Jennifer Brooks, Elizabeth Hair, and Martha Zaslow, Child Trends, July,
2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research on the impact of welfare on children typically has focused
on elementary school age children and not the impact on adolescents.
This research focus parallels TANF operational practice in which
attention is directed to younger children, largely in terms of their
child care needs and little attention is directed towards adolescent
needs (except for teen pregnancy prevention). Yet, there are at least
1.3 million youth (ages 12-19) who are ``recipient children'' in the
TANF program.
New research reports from MDRC and Child Trends, however, suggests
that the teen population appears to be particularly vulnerable to poor
outcomes when their mothers participate in work programs. The initial
wave of research suggests that even when mothers do well (i.e. their
participation increases family income) for some adolescents this
improvement does not ``inoculate'' them from a set of poor outcomes.
Specifically, the research found that adolescents whose mothers
participated in work programs were (1) less likely to be perform above
average in school and (2) more likely to repeat a grade or be enrolled
in special education (10% higher than adolescents whose mothers did not
participate in such a program).
While the research has been able to pinpoint some negative
schooling outcomes, what is less clear is what factors are contributing
to these outcomes. Child Trends posits several possibilities including
that mothers' stress may lead them to parent harshly; parental
participation in the work program may lead to less supervision of
adolescents; and, parental participation may change the role of the
adolescent in the household into one in which the adolescent takes on
adult responsibilities such as primary child care provider for a
sibling or bringing income into the household through outside
employment. MDRC found in a review of three programs with data on
adolescents with ``adult responsibilities'' that there were adverse
consequences: two programs increased the likelihood of the adolescent
being responsible for a sibling's care, a third increased the
likelihood of more than 20 hours of work per week (see, as well, the
earlier discussion of the Administration's proposed work requirements).
Adolescents and Reauthorization: CLASP recommends that Congress
take a set of steps which can foster adolescent-sensitivity in the TANF
context. First, we urge that Secretary's TANF research agenda on child
impacts address questions directed at outcomes for adolescents. Second,
state plans should be required to describe the steps the state expects
to take to consider whether its polices and programs might positively
or negatively influence adolescent well-being.
LProven Teen Pregnancy Prevention Programs Should Be Funded And
Promising Programs Evaluated[viii]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[viii]\ On teen pregnancy prevention see: ``Emerging Answers:
Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy,'' Douglas
Kirby, National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, May 2001;
``Reauthorization Issues: Reproductive Health,'' CLASP, January 2002;
``Comments to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Regarding Teen Pregnancy Prevention and Teens Parents Provisions in the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant,'' CLASP
November 30, 2001; ``Is Teen Marriage a Solution?'' CLASP, April 2002
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While public attention in reauthorization has been drawn to
proposals related to marriage and couples and the child impacts of such
initiatives, the role of teen pregnancy prevention in decreasing non-
marital births is little recognized. Teen pregnancy rates in the U.S.
have dropped significantly in the last decade: there has been a 22%
decline between 1991 and 2000. That good news is tempered by the fact
that this nation still retains the distinction of having the highest
birthrate among the developed countries. And while it is useful to
avert teen pregnancy because of the social and economic consequences
typically attendant to teen parenting, it is also a vital way to
address non-marital births.
One way to avert non-marital births is for couples to be married.
The other way to reduce such births is for unmarried couples to avoid
pregnancy. One third of all births in the country are non-marital. This
is one of the underlying reasons behind the current movement to foster
marriages. While there is uncertainty around the question of how
government can best foster healthy marriages, there is sound scientific
research regarding teen pregnancy prevention programs that can
effectively address the problem by helping to prevent a non-marital
birth. These proven programs should be replicated at the same time as
emerging, promising approaches are evaluated.
While most non-marital births are to older women, many of these
women started as teenage mothers. Of all non-marital births, more than
half (57%) were teen births or births by older women who first were
teen mothers (1992-95 average). About 80% of teen births (400,000 per
year) are non-marital. Thus, a focus on teens in efforts to address
non-marital births makes particular sense.
In sum, a reauthorization strategy that focuses on investments in
teen pregnancy is compelling for several reasons. First, teen births
are a substantial part of the overall picture of non-marital births.
Second, we know of programs that have been proven to help reduce
pregnancy and sexual risk-taking. Finally, encouraging marriage by
teenagers might result in a ``premature'' marriage; the earlier the
marriage, the more unstable and likely to dissolve.
Teen Pregnancy, Couples & Marriage and Reauthorization: CLASP
recommends that Congress re-direct the current ``illegitimacy bonus''
and use those monies in the manner proposed in H.R. 3625. In that
measure, the $100 million is devoted to research, technical assistance,
and demonstrations and is split three ways: for replication and
adaptation of proven best practices related to teen pregnancy
prevention (first and subsequent births); for programs that increase
the ability of non-custodial parents to financially support and be
involved with their children; and for programs that promote two parent
families.
Abstinence Education Should Devolve Program Content To the
State[ix]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[ix]\ On abstinence see: ``Reauthorization Issues Abstinence
Education,'' CLASP, January 2002; ``Reproductive Roulette,'' American
Prospect, Fall Issue, 2001; ``Teen Pregnancy Prevention Hearing
Submission, House Human Resources Subcommittee,'' CLASP, November 15,
2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child-well being is enhanced when premature sexual activity is
averted. Promotion of abstinence can be an important tool in helping
avoid unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted illnesses. However,
programs that exclusively teach abstinence and do not provide
participants with information about how to contracept can lead to
increased health risks for some participants over time. Republican and
Democratic Members of the Subcommittee (Representatives Nancy Johnson,
(R-CA), Benjamin Cardin, (D-MD), and Jim McDermott, (D-WA) at a
November, 2001 hearing, noted the value of flexibility in allowing
states to determine what they consider the best approach to utilizing
federal abstinence education funds.
The abstinence education program established in 1996 (often called
``Section 510'') is designed to teach that individuals should abstain
unless they are married--whether they marry at 16 or 60 or whether they
are divorced and between marriages. Under current law, programs funded
through Section 510 are not to use these funds to provide participants
with education about how to avoid sexually transmitted disease and
pregnancy if they fail to abstain.
Some have worried that contraceptive education might have the
unintended consequence of increasing sexual activity and that is why
young people should not receive such education; multiple studies now
show, however, that such concerns are unfounded. In contrast,
evaluations of programs that combine abstinence education with
contraceptive information find that they can help delay the onset of
intercourse without a concomitant concern regarding health risk.
Significantly, recent research regarding particular abstinence
strategies raises some hopes but at the same time, also health
concerns. Notably, research on a ``virginity'' pledge--to abstain from
sex until marriage--delayed intercourse on average by nearly 18 months,
but pledging had no effect among older teens (18 and older). Further,
pledgers were less likely than a comparison group to use contraceptives
once they had intercourse, and thereby were at greater risk for
sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy.
While there is very strong support for abstinence education, most
parents want abstinence education taught along with contraceptive
information. Nearly 100% of parents of 7th-12th graders want their
children's sexuality education program to cover abstinence, according
to a national study in 2000 by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Notably,
these parents also want lessons on how to use condoms (85%) and on
general birth control topics (90%). State and local surveys also have
found strong support for information about both abstinence and birth
control.
Medical experts also find problematic those abstinence programs
that only teach abstinence (``abstinence-only'') and preclude
contraceptive education. The National Academy of Sciences' Institute of
Medicine, the National Institutes of Health, and the Academy of
Pediatrics have all commented on the importance of including
contraceptive information in education programs.
Since 1996, at least $533 million in federal and state matching
funds have been earmarked for abstinence-unless-married programs. These
include the $50 million in annual federal ``Section 510'' funds which
require a state match of $3 for every $4 federal dollars. In addition,
since the passage of TANF, millions more in abstinence-unless-married
education funding has been made available through two other federal
funding sources (the Adolescent Family Life Act and a grants program
called SPRANS-CBAE). All three of these funding sources are subject to
the eight-point definition laid out in the welfare law, which includes
provisions that require any abstinence-unless-married program have as
its ``exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological and health
gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity'' and that the
program teach that ``sexual activity outside of the context of marriage
is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.''
The Administration, in addition to seeking reauthorization of
Section 510, wants to increase funding for SPRANS-CBAE to $73 million,
a $33 million increase. Proponents of increased funding argue that
funding ``parity'' is needed between abstinence-unless-married
education and family planning available to teens. This comparison,
however, contrasts expenditures for education against costs for medical
services. Thus, this is a comparison of ``apples'' and ``oranges'' and
creates even greater misunderstanding in the public debate.
The request for additional funding for SPRANS-CBAE appears to be
inconsistent with the Administration's own call for accountability in
government spending. In its FY 2003 budget, the Administration promotes
accountability and asserts ``the assumption that more government
spending gets more results is not generally true and is seldom
tested.'' Yet more government spending on unproven abstinence unless
married education is specifically sought.
Abstinence Education and Reauthorization: CLASP recommends that
Congress devolve to states the decision about what to include and not
include in a ``medically accurate'' abstinence education program. Some
states may decide to maintain the current program as is. Other states
should be free to decide that, in light of available research, age-
appropriate information about contraception should be included. In some
states, the state may decide to devolve the content decision to
localities so that programs may be most appropriately tailored to local
interests. CLASP also urges Congress not to expand funding for SPRANS-
CBAE.
Teen Parents' Special Needs Meeting Requirements Should Be
Addressed[x]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[x]\ On Teen Parents see: ``Reauthorization Issues: Reproductive
Health,'' CLASP, January 2002; ``Comments to the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services Regarding Teen Pregnancy Prevention and Teens
Parents Provisions in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) Block Grant,'' CLASP November 30, 2001.
Note: all published CLASP publications are available online at:
www.clasp.org and list authors
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1996, teen parents received particular attention in the creation
of TANF. In part, this is because historically about 40-50% of older
women receiving AFDC became a parent as a teenager. In the 2002
reauthorization, little attention is being paid to the experiences of
teen parents in TANF. Yet, it appears that too often needy teen parents
and their very young children are not receiving TANF.
Participation in TANF requires minor teen parents to meet two
important eligibility requirements that reflect goals specific to
teens--participation in school and living in an approved setting (teen
parents are also subject to other eligibility rules that are not
limited to teens such as child support cooperation). Generally, the
TANF time-limit clock does not tick on minor teens if they are engaged
in meeting education requirement (this can include 18 year olds who are
in schooling full-time). Once teen parents participate in TANF, these
goals remain central to effective implementation. Thus, if implemented
well, the TANF requirements should help teens ``stay on track'' towards
economic self-sufficiency. However, new research suggests that some
teen parents who are in need of assistance are too often ``turned away
at the door''--not even given a chance to meet the requirements.
Research undertaken by the Center for Impact Research (CIR) in
Chicago and replicated in Atlanta and Boston indicates that some teen
mothers are wrongly denied TANF, in some measure due to caseworker
misunderstandings about the TANF teen parent rules. CIR trained teen
parents to conduct interviews of other teen parents and the results of
these 1500 interviews indicate the current law may have important
unintended and negative consequences. Depending on the site, somewhere
between 35-58% of those teen parents who sought but did not receive
TANF were either not given an application to complete or not contacted
after submitting an application. (Those who did get to a submit an
application also were on occasion denied due the teen rules, sometimes
it appeared, inappropriately). While more research is needed to fully
understand this ``turned away at the door'' phenomenon, to some extent
it results from local caseworker misapprehension that a teen parent
must already meet the teen parent requirements when she comes to apply.
This is often out of sync with state policy, which allows for
caseworker flexibility to permit such teens to receive TANF. Indeed,
already in Illinois, the state agency is moving to improve the
application process and the engagement of needy teen parents in TANF.
The 1996 focus on teen parents reflected a concern that teen
parents need help to get on or stay on a path that will lead to
economic self-sufficiency. For teen parents to ``stay on track'' more
readily, help may be needed to avoid a rapid repeat birth. About 20% of
the roughly 500,000 teen births each year are not the first child to a
teen mother; about 100,000 teenagers gave birth to a second or higher
order child in 2000. When teen mothers have more than one child,
problems compound for both the mother and child. Teen mothers who have
more than one child are less likely to complete high school or to get a
GED; babies born to a teen who already has one child are more likely to
be born premature or at low-weight. While it is not evident how much of
a contribution, if any, the specific TANF teen parent requirements make
to the goal of reducing subsequent births, in an effective program a
case manager working with an at-risk teen mother might engage this
mother in a set of activities that could ameliorate this problem.
Certainly, if the teen mother is not engaged in meeting TANF program
requirements or served by other social service programs, she may miss
essential case management.
Teen Parents and Reauthorization: CLASP urges Congress to establish
a ``transitional compliance'' provision, a period of up to 180 days for
teen parents who at application do not meet program requirements. This
allows the state to provide customized case management to help the teen
come into compliance. The purpose of the transitional eligibility
period would be to ``signal'' to states that time is available to
provide supports and services for teen parents, enabling teen parents
to come into compliance with federal requirements. CLASP further urges
Congress to ``start the clock'' on teen parents (through age 19) once
they have completed education/training requirements.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding
issues of child well-being.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Ms. Levin-Epstein. Now, Ms.
Blank to testify.
STATEMENT OF HELEN BLANK, DIRECTOR, CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION, CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND
Ms. BLANK. Thank you. Children's Defense Fund (CDF)
welcomes this hearing and the Subcommittee's focus on
legislation to renew the TANF and child care programs. We ask
that a new report that we have written be put in the record on
low-income women's employment.
Chairman HERGER. Without objection.
[The report is being retained in Committee files.]
Ms. BLANK. We urge you to build on the progress made over
the past years and renew these programs so they will better
help low-income families get and keep permanent, stable jobs,
improve child well-being and readiness, and reduce child
poverty, and help families with severe barriers to employment.
We applaud Representative Cardin for his leadership in
developing H.R. 3625, the Next Step in Reforming Welfare Act.
It is an important first step, and a number of improvements are
needed in TANF to meet these objectives.
The first is more resources focused on work supports,
especially education and training, as well as initiatives that
will get benefits to the families who need them. States must
have the option to enroll more parents in a range of education
and training programs and to have these activities count toward
the federal work requirement. If parents are going to get the
real jobs they need to adequately support their children, they
have to have the skills that will secure them these jobs, and
parents with postsecondary education are more likely to get
higher-paying and more permanent jobs.
Once work supports are in place, it is essential to ensure
that families have access to the services and benefits they
need to make ends meet and keep their jobs. H.R. 3625 includes
a competitive grant fund to help States reopen gateways to work
supports for which many low-income working families are
eligible and still need even if they are not receiving TANF.
Finally, if low-income families are going to be able to get
and keep a job and stay off welfare, we must significantly
increase resources for child care. The discussion about child
care cannot focus just on the needs of welfare families. All
low-income families are just one unstable child care
arrangement away from welfare. There is not much difference
between a low-income family struggling to stay off welfare and
a family that is on welfare.
There has been much discussion and debate about the need
for child care and whether new investments are necessary. I ask
you to speak to parents and providers. There is no doubt that
millions of families aren't receiving the child care help they
need to go to work with the knowledge that their children are
in safe and supportive environments that will help them go to
school ready to learn. Child care costs are high, $4,000 to
$10,000 a year. They cost more than college tuition in almost
every State, yet only one in seven children eligible for
federal child care help is receiving it. Over one-third of the
States have waiting lists or have closed intake. These waiting
lists are long: 37,000 in Texas, 47,000 in Florida, 18,000 in
Massachusetts, 12,000 in Indiana, and over 200,000 in
California.
Some say, well, if these families find child care, that is
fine. We need to look at where these children are and the
hardships these families are facing. Many of these families end
up turning back to welfare. In a 1998 survey of parents on the
waiting list in Santa Clara County, California, over a third of
the parents were earning less than $10,000 a year. About 40
percent of the families say they have given up searching for
work. They couldn't find affordable child care. Forty-two
percent had problems with their children's care. In a Houston
survey, families were spending 25 to 30 percent of their income
on child care. In Minnesota over 70 percent of families on
waiting lists were in bankruptcy or faced severe economic
distress. In several surveys, about a quarter of the families
turned to welfare.
I know this Committee is very concerned about good
parenting. What waiting list surveys also tell us is that
parents are under extraordinary stress because they can't make
ends meet, and that affects how they treat their children. As
we go home from a tough day at work, we know how it affects how
we treat our own children.
Anyone who believes that child care funding is not an issue
should listen to parents. Listen to this Florida mother who
testified 2 weeks ago: ``I am a 30-year-old single mother of a
beautiful 2-year-old girl. I am a hard worker, and I have
always prided myself on my ability to be self-sufficient. I am
confronted with new obstacles for which there seems to be no
way around. As a single mother, I make only enough to pay my
bills. My income is $13,500 a year, including my food stamp
benefit. Until recently I received transitional child care
assistance. However, I lost assistance, and now I am on the
waiting list with the 47,000 other families in Florida. I pay
half my income for child care.''
Waiting lists only tell part of the story. They don't
include the families who don't apply because they know it is
futile or the millions of families, including welfare families,
who don't know that child care help exists because it is a
well-kept secret in many States.
The signals from States are that this problem is getting
worse. Connecticut in a few months will no longer provide child
care help to families leaving welfare. Six thousand low-income
working families are scheduled to lose help in Texas.
Families who receive help still face hurdles because they
often don't get enough help to access the quality of care their
children--and these are our poorest children--need to start
school ready to learn. If TANF and CCDBG money is frozen,
approximately 114,000 children will lose help in 2007. More
families will be on waiting lists, and providers who are low-
wage women themselves aren't even going to be able to get
increases in their rents.
We urge you to increase TANF for inflation and to increase
the Child Care and Development Block Grant by $20 billion over
5 years. If you increase CCDBG by $20 billion, 2 million more
children can get child care help, and we can improve the
quality of care that children get. We would urge you to look at
the need for child care and look at what families are facing
every day and how hard it is to provide good child care in this
country.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Blank follows:]
Statement of Helen Blank, Director, Child Care and Development
Division, Children's Defense Fund
The mission of the Children's Defense Fund is to Leave No Child
Behind and to ensure every child a Healthy Start, a Head
Start, a Fair Start, a Safe Start and a Moral Start in life and
successful passage to adulthood with the help of caring families and
communities. CDF provides a strong, effective voice for all the
children of America who cannot vote, lobby or speak for themselves. We
pay particular attention to the needs of poor and minority children and
those with disabilities. CDF educates the nation about the needs of
children and encourages preventive investments before they get sick,
into trouble, drop out of school, or suffer family breakdown. CDF began
in 1973 and is a private, nonprofit organization supported by
foundation and corporate grants and individual donations. We have never
taken government funds. The Act to Leave No Child Behind (H.R. 1990/S.
940) is comprehensive legislation that reflects our vision for
America's children and families.
CDF welcomes this hearing and the Subcommittee's focus on
legislation to renew the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
and Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) programs and other
programs of crucial importance to low income children and families.
We urge you to build upon the progress made over the past years and
renew these programs so that they will better:
Help low income families get--and keep--stable,
permanent jobs;
Improve child well-being and school readiness, and
reduce child poverty; and
Help families with severe barriers to employment.
Your legislation must provide states and families with the
resources, supports and flexibility needed to build upon what we have
learned so far. The research evidence is strong: when welfare-to-work
programs succeed in raising family income, the well-being of children
improves. They do better in school and have fewer behavior or mental
health problems. Quality child care helps children enter school ready
to learn and helps parents find jobs and maintain steady employment. It
is also true that when these programs fail and family income declines,
children have more behavior and mental health problems.
We applaud Representative Cardin for his leadership in developing
the Next Step in Reforming Welfare Act (H.R. 3625), comprehensive
reauthorization legislation that provides the resources and supports
that will improve TANF and CCDBG for low income parents and children.
We urge the Subcommittee to incorporate the provisions of Rep. Cardin's
bill, as well as other provisions from the Act to Leave No Child Behind
(H.R. 1990) into your final legislation.
The reauthorizations of TANF and CCDBG have come at a critical time
for low income families with children. During the 1990s, the strong
economy, the increasing value and availability of work supports such as
the Earned Income Tax Credit and subsidized child care, and the work
requirements of the 1996 welfare law have all contributed to the
increase in employment among low income parents. The number of children
in families with one or more unemployed parents dropped by 1.4 million
from 1995 to 2000. Single mothers dramatically increased their labor
force participation--73.9 percent were employed in 2000, up from 62.8
percent in 1995. Even among women who have not completed high school,
employment increased from 33 percent to 53 percent from 1994 to
2001.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Isabel Sawhill and Ron Haskins, ``Welfare Reform and the Work
Support System,'' Policy Brief No. 17 (Washington, DC: The Brookings
Institution, March 2002), citing Urban Institute data. Available online
at http://www.brookings.edu/wrb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the economic boom and the work supports now in place have not
been enough to provide stable jobs with above-poverty pay for
substantial numbers of families with children. Three-quarters of all
poor children in the U.S. live in families where someone works.
According to the Urban Institute, half of those leaving welfare for
work had below-poverty family earnings in 1999.\2\ Various state
surveys have shown that two-thirds or more of parents have worked at
some point after leaving welfare. When families were working, they
tended to work full-time or close to full-time hours, according to most
reports about families that left TANF. Yet one of the few long-term
surveys of welfare-to-work evaluations found that parents were working
only about half the time over a four-year period.\3\ Other data show
that only a little more than a third of families leaving welfare work
four quarters in a row.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Urban Institute.
\3\ National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (4 year
evaluation); available online at http://www.mdrc.aa__psiweb.com/
Reports2001/NEWWS__PE__Impacts/NEWWS__PE__Impact.htm.
\4\ Robert A. Moffitt, ``From welfare-to-work: What the Evidence
Shows,'' Policy Brief No. 13 (Washington, DC: The Brookings
Institution, January 2002). Available online at http://
www.brookings.edu/wrb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The experience of the past decade has shown both the benefits and
limits of a strong economy for low income families. In the past year,
we have also seen the precariousness of employment when the economy
falters. Most of the employment gains of 1995 to 2000 were wiped out in
the recession of the following year. The number of children with at
least one unemployed parent jumped more than 40 percent, from 2.8
million in 4th quarter 2000 to 4.0 million in 4th quarter 2001 (almost
as much as the 1.4 million drop of the previous 5 years). Single
mothers, who accounted for more than half of the total increase in
working parents from 1995 to 2000, were disproportionately affected by
the downturn in employment in 2001.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Arloc Sherman, ``The Recession Hits Children: 4 Million Had an
Unemployed Parent in October-December, 2001'' (Washington, DC: The
Children's Defense Fund, April 2002). Available online at http://
www.childrensdefense.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even in an economic boom, it would be impossible to improve child
well-being while freezing child care and TANF funding for another five
years. Rep. Cardin's bill takes an important step forward in raising
the TANF block grant for inflation, substantially increasing the
funding for Child Care and Development Block Grant, and establishing
funds targeted to carry out TANF's goals. These investments will allow
and encourage states to help low income families move forward and to
make more secure the gains achieved by families thus far.
Help Low Income Families Get and Keep Stable, Permanent Jobs
Low income families all around the country are struggling to find
steady jobs that will allow them to support their children and escape
poverty. The key to their success is the availability of and access to
essential work supports--child care, education and training, health
care and transportation assistance. Without these supports, an
unreliable child care arrangement, a car breakdown, a health crisis can
make the difference between welfare or work for too many families.
Congress has an opportunity to ensure the availability of work supports
that are essential to help these families become productive workers and
lift their children out of poverty.
Increase Child Care Funding
Studies show that when child care is available, and when families
can get help paying for care, they are more likely to work. Without
help, they may not be able to secure a job and stay employed and may
end up turning to welfare.
In a survey of Minnesota families with children, one
out of five said that child care problems had interfered with
getting or keeping a job in the previous year.
In a study of families who were potential recipients
of child care assistance in Illinois, nearly half said that the
cost of child care had negatively impacted their opportunities
for employment.
The welfare law created a new urgency to meet families' need for
child care help while offering states new opportunities and resources
to accomplish this task. The number of children and families receiving
assistance has increased significantly over the past five years as a
result of significant increases in federal and state funding for child
care. However, the goal of providing adequate supports for all children
and families who need them remains far out of reach. Only one out of
seven children eligible for child care assistance through the Child
Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) program is currently receiving
it.
Child care costs can be a staggering burden for these working
parents and consume a large portion of their paycheck. Child care costs
can easily average $4,000 to $10,000 a year--more than the cost of
college tuition at a public university. Yet 77 percent of higher
education costs are covered by public and private dollars. In contrast,
parents pay the bulk of child care costs. Spending by parents accounts
for 60 percent of the cost, compared to 39 percent for government and
just 1 percent for businesses.
A Fragile Foundation: State Child Care Assistance Policies, a
recent report by the Children's Defense Fund covering the 50 states and
the District of Columbia (and which we request be included in the
hearing record), reveals that inadequate federal and state funding
prevents millions of children in low income working families from being
able to get the help they need.
Many hard-working low income families are not even eligible for
help due to low state income eligibility cutoffs for child care
assistance. Many who are eligible cannot get it--either because they
are put on waiting lists or turned away due to inadequate funds, or
because no effort has been made to let them know they are eligible to
get help. Those fortunate enough to actually qualify for child care
assistance face additional hurdles. In some cases, the amount the state
will pay for care is so low that parents cannot find good quality
providers who can afford to serve their children, and in other cases
parents have to pay so much in parent fees or co-payments that child
care expenses still are a staggering financial burden.
As of March 2000, only four states allowed families with incomes up
to the maximum level allowed under federal law (85 percent of state
median income) to qualify for assistance. In two-fifths of the states,
a family of three earning $25,000 could not qualify for help. Even if a
family is eligible for child care help, they may not necessarily
receive it.
As of December 2001, more than one-third of the
states had waiting lists or frozen intake--meaning they turned
families away without even taking their names--because they
were unable to serve all eligible families who applied.
Some of these waiting lists were extremely long:
nearly 47,000 children in Florida, more than 36,000 children in
Texas, 18,000 children in Massachusetts, and 12,000 children in
Indiana.
Studies and interviews with parents highlight the
challenges that families on waiting lists face--many must
choose between paying the rent or paying for child care, going
into debt or settling for inadequate care because they cannot
afford better options.
In a 1998 survey of parents on the waiting list for
child care assistance in Santa Clara County, California, over
one-third of parents reported earning less than $10,000
annually. About 40 percent of the families said they had given
up on searching for work because they could not find affordable
care for their children.
In a 1999 survey of families on the waiting list in
Houston, most families reported that they spent 25 to 30
percent of their income on child care. Nearly one-third of the
parents said that they had to put off paying other bills in
order to pay child care expenses first, and 17 percent had to
do without certain necessities. Nearly two-fifths of the
families had to work fewer hours or miss work because of
inconsistent child care.
Waiting lists tell only part of the story. They do not include
families who do not bother applying for assistance because they know it
is futile to expect to get help. The waiting lists would be even longer
and many additional states would have to turn to them if more families
knew they could get help. States report that many eligible families are
not sufficiently informed about child care assistance. Two-fifths of
the states acknowledge that eligible families are often unaware that
they could receive help paying for care. If more families were informed
about the availability of child care assistance and applied for it, it
is highly unlikely the demand could be met, even in states that
currently have no waiting lists. Only four states indicate that they
could serve all eligible families.
Families that are fortunate enough to receive assistance may still
find child care unaffordable due to burdensome co-payment policies. All
states require families receiving assistance to contribute toward the
cost of care based on a sliding fee scale and many states require
families at the poverty level or below to pay a fee. Thirty-five states
charge fees to families earning half the poverty level ($7,075 a year
for a family of three in 2000), even though there is scarcely room in
their budgets for the most minimal charge.
Clearly, there are numerous gaps in state child care assistance
policies. These gaps are now growing wider in a number of states. For
example, Connecticut plans to eliminate child care assistance for
families transitioning off welfare.
The impact of inadequate investments on the number of families who
can receive child care assistance is illustrated by the situation in
Texas, which already has a long waiting list. In 2001, the state failed
to provide a sufficient funding increase to maintain even the current
level of support for low income working families. In order to meet
strict welfare-to-work requirements, the state will devote a larger
proportion of its funds to serving families trying to move from
welfare-to-work, which will cut back help for low income families
working to stay off welfare. An estimated 6,000 fewer children in low
income (non-welfare) families are expected to receive child care
assistance in 2003, as compared to 2001.
Despite the urgent need for additional child care, the
Administration has proposed to freeze funding for the Child Care and
Development Block Grant for the next five years. Under the
Administration's plan, at least 114,000 fewer children will receive
child care assistance. We urge you to firmly reject this short-sighted
proposal.
In order to truly help parents work and help children learn, we
urge the Subcommittee to increase the Child Care and Development Block
Grant by $20 billion over the next five years. These funds will allow
states to double the number of children provided with child care
assistance and erase their long waiting lists. Further, it will allow
states to make improvements in child care quality that are so important
to preparing children to enter school ready to learn.
Allow States to Offer More Education and Training
States must have the option to enroll more parents in a range of
education and training programs and to have those activities count
towards the federal work requirement. The Next Step in Reforming
Welfare Act (H.R. 3625) allows 2 years of vocational education. H.R.
3625 also includes an Employment Advancement Fund, which can be used to
provide more resources to states that wish to utilize more education as
part of a strategy to help parents who have entered the labor force to
advance in it. In addition, states intent on securing the Poverty
Reduction Bonus in H.R. 3625 might choose to invest in more education
and training as a means of increasing the earnings of parents leaving
TANF. Parents with post-secondary training are more likely to get
higher-paying, more permanent jobs.
The Administration's TANF plan would make it more difficult for
states to invest in post-secondary education. Under current law, a year
of vocational education counts towards the first 20 hours of work per
week for a limited number of TANF participants. The Administration's
plan expands the number of hours that must be spent in more narrowly-
defined work activities to 24 per week, but excludes vocational
education from these hours. Although parents would be allowed to enroll
in education for the remaining hours, states will have few resources to
put towards such activities. To increase the odds of meeting the
steeper work participation rates, states will try to require more than
24 hours of paid or unpaid work. Most states have not created work
experience jobs (working off benefits in community placements) because
they are costly and do not have a good track record for leading to
permanent employment. In the recent National Governors' Association/
American Public Human Services Association survey, one state noted that
it was in the process of ending contracts for a work experience program
because ``it has not been as effective as other services in helping
clients find employment.'' Nevertheless, the pressure to drastically
increase participation rates and hours is likely to force states to
fund work experience programs. With no additional TANF block grant
funding over 5 years, there will be little left for education or
training.
Help families receive the benefits for which they are eligible
H.R. 3625 assists states in improving access to the services and
benefits that serve as work supports through a $100 million a year
competitive grant fund. These grants would help states re-open gateways
to work supports for which many working families are eligible--even if
they no longer receive TANF. The Children's Defense Fund's Community
Monitoring Project found that only half of those who left TANF were
receiving food stamps; less than one-third were getting child care
help; and three-fifths had health insurance of any kind, despite low
incomes.\6\ Under the grant fund in H.R. 3625, states could seek funds
to streamline eligibility procedures, co-locate eligibility workers in
convenient locations, and/or improve outreach to families. This is a
constructive approach that will stabilize work and help families to
make ends meet by improving access to help including food stamps, the
Earned Income and Child Tax credits, child support enforcement, child
care, and health coverage (and sometimes housing or other subsidies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Children's Defense Fund, Families Struggling to Make It in the
Workforce: a Post Welfare Report (Washington, DC: 2000). Available
online at http://www.childrensdefense.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve Child Well-Being and School Readiness and Reduce Poverty
Poor children should not suffer from the combined effects of rising
unemployment and a weakened safety net. But in 2001, even though the
number of children with unemployed parents surged, TANF spending on
cash assistance was $546 million less than in the previous year.\7\ The
likelihood that even the poorest children would be helped by cash
assistance plunged from 1994 to 2000. In 1994, 61 percent of children
in families' whose non-welfare income was below half the federal
poverty line received welfare assistance. In 2000, only one-third of
children this poor were in families that received TANF.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Zoe Neuberger, ``TANF Spending in Federal Fiscal Year 2001''
(Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, revised March
27, 2002). Available online at http://www.cbpp.org.
\8\ Calculations by the Children's Defense Fund, U.S. Census Bureau
Current Population Survey data, 1994-2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make Poverty Reduction a Purpose of TANF
Rep. Cardin's bill sets forth the goal of reducing child poverty
and gives states funding and incentives to achieve the goal. Reducing
the extent and severity of child poverty is added as an explicit
purpose of TANF. This language directs states to take steps to help
families who are extremely poor, and not to limit their attention to
those families just below the poverty line.
Provide funding to enable states to develop anti-poverty strategies
States must have the resources to help families secure permanent
jobs and to provide a range of supports to stabilize employment and
reduce poverty. H.R. 3625 provides resources through the Poverty
Reduction Bonus, the Employment Advancement Fund, and the Family
Formation Fund to enable states to try the anti-poverty strategies most
targeted to their own economic conditions. In marked contrast, the
Administration's plan is explicit in stating that improving child well-
being underlies all the TANF purposes, but does not recognize that
reducing poverty is central to improvements in child well-being, and
provides no new funds to help states develop anti-poverty approaches.
The Administration's plan does divert at least $200 million in
existing TANF funds towards marriage promotion and reduction of out-of-
wedlock births (with another $100 million to be supplied through a
state matching requirement, which states can satisfy by using federal
TANF funds). Encouraging two-parent families can certainly be an anti-
poverty strategy. Redirecting the $100 million in Bonus to Reward
Decrease in Illegitimacy funds towards research and demonstration
projects for family formation is a valid idea, but states should be
allowed to pursue multiple strategies towards reducing poverty.
Provide Wage Supplements
H.R. 3625 also provides that wage supplements given to families
with low earnings do not count as assistance, and therefore fall
outside the federal time limit. Currently, a few states (Illinois,
Delaware, Maine, and Rhode Island) use their own funds to continue cash
supplements for families that work and/or participate in post-secondary
education. Because findings from welfare-to-work evaluations strongly
show that increased family income helps children, states should be able
to use federal TANF funds to continue wage supplements as long as
earnings are low enough that families remain eligible.
Improve the Quality of Child Care
Quality child care is also critical to improving child well-being
and helping children enter school ready to succeed. The nation cannot
proceed successfully on its track towards improving educational
outcomes unless it focuses on the developmental needs of young
children. The process of learning to read begins well before a child
enters elementary school.
States need more resources devoted to improving the quality of
child care. They are currently required to spend a minimum of 4 percent
of their CCDBG funds on quality efforts. They have used these funds for
vital supports and creative initiatives, ranging from hiring more
inspectors to ensuring facilities are safe, to housing infant and
toddler, health, and early literacy specialists in resource and
referral programs to work with their communities' child care providers.
However, a 4 percent set-aside is not nearly enough considering the
numerous components that need to be in place for children to receive
the quality of care they need, including well-trained and well-
compensated staff, low child-staff ratios, safe, roomy facilities
designed to meet the needs of young children, basic equipment such as
books and toys, regular monitoring and inspection of providers, and
resource and referral programs to help families find care and support
providers. We urge you to support an increase in the quality set-aside
to 12 percent, as proposed in Rep. Cardin's bill.
Help families to receive the child support they are owed
Getting more child support to families is an important anti-poverty
measure. The poverty rate for custodial families who receive all the
child support they are owed is 15.2 percent, compared with the 35.7
percent poverty rate for families that do not receive any of the child
support they are due.\9\ When poor children do receive support, it adds
an average of $2,000 a year to their family's budget, increasing their
total income by 26 percent.\10\ The child support distribution
improvements passed by the House in 2000, many of which have been
included in the Administration plan and H.R. 3625, should be part of
TANF reauthorization legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ U.S. Census Bureau, Child Support for Custodial Mothers and
Fathers, P60-212 (Washington, DC: October 2000). Available online at
http:/www.census.gov/hhes/www.chldsupt.html.
\10\ Vicki Turetsky, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Social
Security and Family Policy, Senate Finance Committee (Washington, DC:
Center for Law and Social Policy, submitted for the record October 11,
2001). Available online at http://www.clasp.org.
Restore TANF to legal immigrants: Many legal immigrant families--many
of whom were working--experienced severe hardships after being denied
benefits in 1996 such as food stamps, Medicaid and TANF. More than one-
fifth of all poor children in America live in immigrant families.
Thirty-seven percent of children of immigrants lived in families
reporting trouble affording food, compared with 27 percent of children
of non-immigrants. Children of immigrants are also more than two times
as likely as children of natives to live in families that pay more than
half their income for housing. Restoring TANF eligibility to legal
immigrants would be an important anti-poverty strategy.\11\ The
Administration plan restores food stamps to some legal immigrants, but
fails to restore TANF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Food Research and Action Center, ``Research on Hunger Impacts
of Food Stamp Cuts to Legal Immigrants'' (Washington, DC: 2001).
Available online at http://www.frac.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help Families with Severe Barriers to Employment
Require Screening and Assessments to Identify Barriers to Employment
Forty-four percent of TANF adults reported one or more serious
physical or mental impairments in 1999, compared with 16 percent of
other U.S. adults. Research found that one-fifth of parents receiving
TANF reported that one or more children had a health problem. Domestic
violence, substance abuse, illiteracy, or inability to speak or write
English are also prevalent. Without treatment, families with one or
more problems are more likely to be sanctioned and lose assistance than
are other recipients.
TANF can be improved by requiring screening and assessments, with
an individualized Personal Responsibility Plan developed for each
family. If mental health or substance abuse services are identified as
necessary steps, those services should be considered part of the plan,
and families should get participation credit when they undertake such
treatment. Any family about to lose assistance because of a failure to
comply with program rules should receive a further in-person evaluation
and a compliance plan devised to address the barriers to employment. In
Tennessee, where a similar approach has been taken, the number of
families losing assistance through sanctions has been considerably
reduced.
Set Appropriate Work Participation Requirements
The 40-hour work requirement should be rejected in favor of
individualized plans based on screening and assessments by trained
caseworkers and appropriate professionals. The 70 percent participation
rate should be rejected in favor of the employment credit (included in
the Making Work Pay Act, H.R. 4057 and H.R. 3625). The employment
credit replaces the case load reduction credit by reducing the required
work participation rates only when states succeed in placing people in
jobs--not simply because they leave the TANF rolls. The Levin credit
sends all the right messages to states--they are rewarded when families
leave TANF for real jobs, and rewarded further when the jobs pay at
least one-third of the state's average wage. In addition, states are
given credit when they provide child care or transportation help to low
income working families that are not receiving cash assistance.
Protect Families During an Economic Downturn
Many welfare recipients transitioning into work are ineligible for
Unemployment Insurance. Congress should make improvements in
Unemployment Insurance so that new entrants into the labor force could
count their most recent quarters of work and they would be more likely
to qualify for UI. Similarly, parents seeking part-time work ought to
be eligible for UI benefits. Because only one in five single mothers
with work experience ever qualifies for UI, TANF has become the de
facto unemployment insurance system for many low income mothers.
Working families should have better access to unemployment
compensation.
Additional investments in TANF and child care will help more low
income parents get into stable employment and help ready their children
for school. We should not miss an opportunity this year with
reauthorization to expand investments in programs that are so crucial
to the success of children and families and to truly ensure that no
child is left behind.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Blank. Now, Ms.
Davis.
STATEMENT OF MARTHA F. DAVIS, VICE PRESIDENT AND LEGAL
DIRECTOR, NOW LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, NEW YORK, NEW
YORK
Ms. DAVIS. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
As you consider TANF reauthorization, I want to emphasize three
specific proposals that we believe must be incorporated if
welfare is going to truly move women and their families out of
poverty.
First, any TANF reauthorization bill should expand
opportunities for education and training. This is particularly
important precisely because federal welfare primarily assists
single-female-headed families. Due to workplace discrimination,
job segregation, and other factors, women can compete in the
marketplace only if they have access to education and training.
Consider these remarkable statistics. A woman with a high
school degree makes an average of $9,000 a year less than a man
with the same very modest qualifications. Without additional
education, women's wages lag behind men's. This gap is most
significant for women of color. African-American women are paid
65 percent of the salaries averaged by white men, while Latinos
receive a mere 52 percent. In short, education and training are
key to women's economic security.
The Administration's bill, the Herger bill, proposes to
thwart additional educational opportunities while instead using
precious TANF dollars to promote marriage, a combination that
gives women no choice but dependency while intruding on one of
their most private decisions. There is little public support
for this approach. Indeed the Pew Research Center recently
reported that 79 percent of those surveyed favored governments
staying out of marriage promotion.
Instead of diverting precious TANF dollars to this unproven
and unpopular program, TANF reauthorization should focus on an
approach that we know works, education. The TANF
reauthorization should expand the definition of work activities
to include a range of educational opportunities. The arbitrary
12-month limit on training should be removed rather than
constricted, as the current pending bill suggests. An
individual should be allowed access to a full range of training
for jobs with living wages. Ensuring adequate funding for child
care, as you have just heard, is also an important aspect of
supporting any effort to move families out of poverty.
Second, civil rights laws must apply to TANF recipients. We
at the National Organization for Women (NOW) Legal Defense have
firsthand experience with this since we represent two women who
are suing New York City because they were sexually harassed in
their welfare-to-work placements. We have been joined with the
U.S. Government, the U.S. Department of Justice, in this suit,
who are also suing New York City. One of our clients was
stalked by her city supervisor in her workfare placement.
Another plaintiff was racially harassed when she found a noose
hanging above her desk along with racist caricatures. New York
City has taken the position that civil rights laws do not
protect these workers. We think there should be a limit, that
the line should be drawn for State flexibility far before you
get to the point that a State can take the position that
workers are not eligible for civil rights protections.
The TANF reauthorization should require evaluation of the
extent to which States have complied with civil rights
protections as related to TANF and should require that
recommendations be made for improving such compliance. Further,
TANF reauthorization should ensure application of workplace
protections, such as the Fair Labor Standards Act, OSHA, Title
VII and IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Americans
with Disabilities Act to TANF recipients in the same manner as
such laws apply to other workers.
Third, TANF reauthorization should recognize that welfare
recipients face multiple work and life barriers to economic
security. Forty-four percent of TANF recipients face more than
one barrier to employment. As many as 60 percent of women
receiving welfare have been victims of domestic violence as
adults, and as many as 30 percent report abuse within the last
year. Long-term welfare recipients are 75 percent more likely
than those on welfare for less than 2 years to have extremely
low basic skills. Long-term recipients are also significantly
more likely to have mental health problems, to have abused
alcohol, and to have medical problems. To address this, TANF
reauthorization must ensure that trained caseworkers screen
individuals for barriers to economic security, refer those in
need to qualified professionals for assessment and service
provision, and recognize participation and counseling or other
activities that address these barriers as work activities.
Further, the family violence option, which is the ground-
breaking initiative from the 1996 law that has now been adopted
by 43 States, should be mandatory in every State. This is
really a model for the sort of process of identifying barriers
that I am talking about. The NOW Legal Defense worked closely
with Members of Congress in crafting this option in 1996.
A proposal like that set out by the administration's bill
and by the Herger bill that fails to adjust TANF dollars for
inflation, that diverts TANF funds away from effective
education and training programs to fund experimental marriage
promotion programs, and imposes unreasonable work requirements
will undermine efforts to reduce poverty.
To learn from the past 6 years and improve the current
system, Congress must pay careful attention to the data that
demonstrates that welfare reform cannot be done on the cheap,
and that education, training, and child care are critical
components of successful poverty reduction. We look forward to
working with you to improve the lives of low-income women as
this legislation moves forward. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Davis follows:]
Statement of Martha F. Davis, Vice President and Legal Director, NOW
Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York, New York
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
By way of introduction, my name is Martha F. Davis and I am the
Vice President and Legal Director of NOW Legal Defense and Education
Fund. I also teach welfare law at New York University School of Law.
For more than thirty years, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund has
used the power of the law to define and defend women's rights. Working
in Congress, the courts and the media, NOW Legal Defense acts
strategically to secure equality for women across the country. We
currently chair a large coalition of groups--called the Building
Opportunities Beyond Welfare Reform coalition--that is committed to
shaping the welfare system to improve women's lives and opportunities.
As this House approaches welfare reform reauthorization, we believe
that there are five specific proposals that must be incorporated if
welfare is to going to truly move women and their families out of
poverty. There are also three proposals on the table, described below,
that we believe would be harmful to the goals that we all share of
assisting those in poverty to improve their lives.
First, any TANF reauthorization bill should expand opportunities
for education and training. This is particularly important precisely
because federal welfare primarily assists single female-headed
families. Women can compete in the marketplace only if they have access
to education and training. Consider these remarkable statistics:
according to the National Committee on Pay Equity, a woman with a high
school degree makes an average of $9000 a year less than a man with the
same modest qualifications. Without additional education, women's wages
lag behind men's; for example, in 1999 median weekly earnings for full-
time wage and salary workers were $473 for women and $618 for men.\1\
This gap is even more significant for women of color; African-American
women are paid 65% of the salaries averaged by white men, while Latinas
receive a mere 52%.\2\ Significantly, however, 44% of adults (read
women) on welfare report education less than high school.\3\ In short,
education and training are key to women's economic security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Dep't of Labor, Women's Bureau, ``20 Facts on Women
Workers'' (Mar. 2000), available at http://www.dol.gov/dol/wb/public/
wb__pubs/20fact00.htm.
\2\ Nat'l Comm. on Pay Equity, ``Advocates Take Action for Fair
Pay,'' press release (Mar. 13, 2001).
\3\ Zedlewski, Shelia. ``Do Families on Welfare in the Post TANF
Era Differ from Their Pre TANF Counterparts?'' Urban Institute New
Federalism. (Washington: February 2001). Online access 10/09/01 http://
newfederalism.urban.org/pdf/discussion01-03.pdf at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush Administration proposes to thwart additional educational
opportunities while instead using precious TANF dollars to promote
marriage--a combination that gives women no choice but dependency,
while intruding on one of their most private decisions. In contrast,
our specific proposals for reform would promote women's opportunities
and abilities to compete for good jobs. Proposed legislative language
is attached as Appendix A. In particular, TANF Reauthorization should
expand the definition of work activity to include: elementary and
secondary education, literacy, ESL, GED and higher education;
participation in a work-study program; and 6 hours per week of study
time. The arbitrary 12-month limit on training should be removed and
individuals should be allowed access to a full range of training for
jobs with living wages. Finally, the 30% cap on the percentage of a
state's case load that can be counted toward federal work participation
rates for individuals participating in vocational training or teens
pursuing a high school diploma should be removed.
Second, civil rights laws must apply to TANF recipients. This is
something that we at NOW Legal Defense have first hand experience with,
since we represent two women who are suing New York City because they
were sexually harassed in their welfare-to-work placements. Indeed, one
of them was stalked by her City supervisor. Another plaintiff in the
case was racially harassed when she found a noose hanging above her
desk along with racist caricatures. New York City has taken the
position that these women have no protections and no recourse, a
position that has been upheld by a federal district court but that will
almost certainly be appealed. This is plainly inconsistent with our
national values. It undermines the legal and human rights of all
workers when TANF recipients are denied basic protections. TANF
Reauthorization should require evaluation of the extent to which states
have complied with civil rights protections as related to TANF and
recommendations for improving such compliance. Further, TANF
Reauthorization should ensure application of workplace protections such
as the Fair Labor Standards Act, OSHA, Titles VII and IX of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, and the ADA to TANF recipients in the same manner
as such laws apply to other workers. Proposed legislative language is
attached hereto as Appendix B.
Third, TANF Reauthorization should recognize that welfare
recipients face multiple work/life barriers to economic security.
Forty-four percent of TANF recipients face more than one barrier to
employment.\4\ As many as 60% of women receiving welfare have been
victims of domestic violence as adults and as many as 30% report abuse
within the last year.\5\ Long-term welfare recipients are 75% more
likely than those on welfare for less than two years to have extremely
low basic skills. Long-term recipients are also 39% more likely to have
a mental health problem, 69% more likely to have abused alcohol, and
56% more likely to have a medical problem.\6\ To address this, TANF
Reauthorization must ensure that trained caseworkers screen individuals
for barriers to economic security, refer those in need to qualified
professionals for assessment and service provision, and recognize
participation in counseling or other activities that address these
barriers as work activities. Further, the Family Violence Option, the
groundbreaking initiative from the 1996 law that has been adopted by 43
states, should be mandatory in every state. NOW Legal Defense worked
closely with Members of Congress in crafting the option. Proposed
legislative language to extend the Family Violence Option to all states
is attached as Appendix C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ GAO, More Coordinated Federal Effort Could Help States and
Localities Move TANF Recipients With Impairments Towards Employment
(GAO-02-37) at 3-4.
\5\ Richard Tolman & Jody Raphael, A Review of Research on Welfare
and Domestic Violence, 56 J. of Soc. Issues (no. 4) 655-82, at 657.
\6\ Krista Olson & LaDonna Pavetti, ``Personal and Family
Challenges to the Successful Transition from welfare-to-work.'' The
Urban Institute (Washington: 1996) at http://www.urban.org/welfare/
reportl.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, safe, quality child care must be a key component of welfare
reform. Only 12% of eligible families are currently receiving federal
child care assistance.\7\ TANF Reauthorization must ensure access to
child care to TANF recipients who are engaged in a work activity, and
increase CCDBG funding to meet that goal. Further, TANF Reauthorization
should strengthen protections from sanctions for parents who cannot
find child care. Although current law includes sanction protection for
single parents with a child under age 6, there are no protections for
parents with children over age 6 who cannot find appropriate or
affordable after school care or for parents of children who may need
specialized care. I think we can all agree that a 7-year-old is not
ready to stay home alone. TANF Reauthorization must recognize that
older children need care, and if such care is not available, families
should not lose basic subsistence benefits as a result. Proposed
legislative language that would address this issue is attached as
Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ HHS, ACF, HHS News, New Statistics Show Only Small Percentage
of Eligible Families Receive Child Care Help. (Dec. 6, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth, TANF Reauthorization should be fair to those families that
are playing by the rules and, because of larger economic factors,
continue to need welfare. As the economy has soured, the need for cash
assistance has increased. Thirty-three states reported higher case
loads in September 2002 than in March 2001. Some states have shown
continuous case load growth in recent months, including substantial
growth over the past year in Nevada (38%), Indiana (25%) and West
Virginia (22%).\8\ To address these issues, TANF Reauthorization must
ensure that the clock is stopped while individuals are in compliance
with program rules (for instance, engaged in a work activity). The
arbitrary 20% cap on hardship exemptions should be repealed. Finally,
the time clock should be stopped by a recession, when the state
unemployment rate is 5.5% or higher, or has increased by the lesser of
50% or 1.5 percentage points. The legislative language in Appendix A
would address these concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Center for Law and Social Policy. ``Welfare case loads Are Up
in Most States.'' At http://www.clasp.org/pubs/TANF/FY01%20case
load%20Data.htm (visited Jan. 15, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If these five proposals were adopted as part of TANF
Reauthorization, it would go a long way to improving the system and
addressing the needs of poor women and families on welfare.
While there are many components of the Bush Administration's TANF
Reauthorization Proposal about which we have grave concerns, there are
three components that we believe would significantly harm women on
welfare and their families.
First, the Bush Administration has proposed continuing federal TANF
funding at the 1996 level through 2007, despite the clear need for a
major increase. This funding level is tens of billions less than the
amount that is needed to address family poverty and support parental
employment, and represents a substantial cut in funding after
inflation.
Second, the Bush Administration's plan would further divert TANF
funds away from cash assistance and job training by setting aside $300
million for highly speculative and faddish marriage promotion and
family formation projects. Particularly when juxtaposed with the
Administration's failure to expand educational opportunities for
welfare recipients--an already proven route out of poverty--the
Administration's plan seems intended to return us to a day when women
were expected to sacrifice their individual potentials and
opportunities at the altar. Many--in fact, polls say the majority of
the public--are skeptical of any government role in promoting marriage.
Certainly, if public funds are to be used for this purpose, they should
not be taken from funds needed to provide basic cash assistance,
training and child care. Similarly, while there is a need for more
funding for ``responsible parenthood'' programs which provide services
to low income non-custodial parents, this should be new funding, not a
diversion from existing capped amounts. And these programs should serve
all non-custodial parents, not just non-custodial fathers, as the Bush
plan seems to propose.
Finally, the Bush plan would increase to 40 the number of hours
required for work to count; increase the participation rate standard to
70%; and eliminate the case load reduction adjustment to the
participation rate standard. To meet these new requirements, states
would almost inevitably have to assign most recipients to workfare
programs, where they would work from 24-40 hours a week without
compensation beyond their welfare check. This is counterproductive.
Studies have consistently shown that education and training are
critical components of moving toward self-sufficiency. Further, welfare
families are by definition families with children. We have already seen
disturbing evidence that onerous work requirements are harmful to these
families--increasing delinquency, for example. Increasing the required
hours will only further undermine these families.
In sum, TANF Reauthorization provides an opportunity to assess the
successes and failures of the past six years, and improve upon the
current system. To do that, Congress must pay careful attention to the
data that demonstrates that welfare reform cannot be done ``on the
cheap'' and that education, training and child care are critical
components of successful poverty reduction. We look forward to working
with you to improve the lives of low income women as this legislation
moves forward.
______
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
WORK REQUIREMENTS FOR TANF RECIPIENTS
The Problem: States and recipients should be able to choose from a
variety of work activities for placement under the TANF program. In
addition, if a recipient is complying with all work requirements, the
time clock should not be running against her.
The Solution: The list of potential work activities should be
expanded. A bonus should be created to reward states for high
performance in moving recipients into employment that will move
families out of poverty, removing employment barriers and providing
work supports. The statute should be amended as follows:
Expansion of work activities:
Section 407(d) (42 USC 607(d)) is amended as follows:
(1) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
L(4) transitional work experience leading to jobs that provide
an income of not less than 250% of the poverty line;''
(2) by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following:
L(7) voluntary participation in a community service program;''
(3) in paragraph (8) by striking ``(not to exceed 12 months
with respect to any individual)'';
(4) by striking paragraph (9) and inserting the following:
L(9) job skills training directly related to employment,
including participation in training for technical,
professional, or nontraditional occupations for women.
(5) by striking paragraphs (10) through (12) and inserting the
following:
L(10) participation in a State or federal work-study program
under part C of titile IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965;
L(11) education, including but not more than 6 hours of home
study per week, in the case of a recipient who is enrolled----
L(A) at an elementary or secondary school (as defined in the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965);
L(B) in a course of study leading to adult literacy, English as
a second language, or a certificate of high school equivalency;
or
L(C) at an institution of higher education (as defined in
section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965), regardless of
the content of the course of study;
L(12) the provision of appropriate care to a child who has a
disability or a serious health condition (as defined in section
101(11) of the Family Medical Leave Act) or has not attained 6
years of age, by a recipient who is a parent or caretaker
relative of the child; and
L(13) participation in treatment or an educational activity
designed to address a mental health problem, disability,
substance abuse, or domestic or sexual violence.
Removal of limitation on educational activities:
Section 407(c) (42 USC 607(c)) is amended to strike paragraph
(D).
Time limit exception:
Section 408(a)(7); 42 USC 608(a)(7) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
L(H) EXCEPTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH WORK ACTIVITIES.--In
determining the number of months for which an individual has
received assistance under the State program funded under this
part, the State shall disregard any month throughout which the
individual is in compliance with all applicable work
requirements of the State program.
Bonus:
Amend Section 403(a)(4) (42 USC 603(a)(4)) to read as follows:
(4) BONUS TO REWARD HIGH PERFORMANCE STATES----
L(A) IN GENERAL--The Secretary shall make a grant pursuant to
this paragraph for each bonus year for which the State is a
high performing State with respect to a category described in
subparagraph (C).
(B) AMOUNT OF GRANT----
L(i) Subject to clause (ii) of this paragraph, the Secretary
shall determine the amount of the grant payable under this
paragraph to a high performing State under each of the three
categories described in subparagraph (C) which shall be based
on the score assigned to the State under subparagraph (D)(i)
for the fiscal year that immediately precedes the bonus year.
L(ii) The total of the amounts payable to a State under the
paragraph for a bonus year shall not exceed 5 percent of the
State family assistance grant.
L(C) FORMULA FOR MEASURING STATE PERFORMANCE--Not later than
October 1, 2003, the Secretary in consultation with affected
groups, including recipient groups and State governors, shall
issue regulations implementing criteria for awarding bonuses
under this paragraph in each of the three following categories:
L(i) PREPARATION AND PLACEMENT OF RECIPIENTS IN EMPLOYMENT THAT
WILL MOVE FAMILIES OUT OF POVERTY--The degree of success in
implementing employment-related measures, including job entry,
job retention and earnings gain rates, improvement in each of
such measures, and the success of States in----
L(I) meeting self-sufficiency needs for welfare leavers;
L(II) training, placing and retaining welfare leavers in
higher-waged jobs identified in an assessment done by the
State;
L(III) training, placing and retaining welfare leavers in
technical, professional or non-traditional employment
occupations for women;
L(IV) providing career development assistance related to
higher-waged jobs including reliable, up-to-date career
counseling services, employability assessments on available
employment that pays a sustainable wage, nontraditional
training and education options and employment opportunities;
L(V) encouraging participation in post-secondary educational
programs;
L(VI) encouraging use of effective literacy programs that
strengthen basic skills in the context of employment; and
L(VII) encouraging participation in vocational education
programs for occupations identified in an assessment of
available jobs that pay a sustainable wage.
L(ii) REMOVAL OF BARRIERS TO SELF SUFFICIENCY--The degree of
success in removing mental health, substance abuse, disability
or domestic or sexual violence barriers to escaping poverty;
L(iii) PROVISION OF WORK SUPPORTS--The extent to which the
State has increased the percentages of eligible families
receiving (I) Food Stamps; (II) Medicaid and SCHIP; and (III)
Child Care Subsidies.
L(D) SCORING OF STATE PERFORMANCE; SETTING OF PERFORMANCE
THRESHOLDS--For each bonus year, the Secretary shall--(i) use
the performance measure developed under each of the three
criteria in subparagraph (C) for a measure to assign a score to
each eligible State with respect to the measure for the fiscal
year that immediately precedes the bonus year; and (ii)
prescribe a performance threshold for each such measure in such
a manner so as to ensure that--(I) the average total amount of
grants under this paragraph for each bonus year is $200
million; (II) each measure described in subparagraph (C) is
assigned a bonus reward of not less than $60 million; and (III)
the total amount of grants to be made under this paragraph for
all bonus years equals $1,000,000,000.
L(E) DEFINITIONS.--In this paragraph:
L(i) BONUS YEAR--The term ``bonus year'' means fiscal years
2002 through 2008.
L(ii) HIGH PERFORMING STATE--The term ``high performing State''
means with respect to a measure and a bonus year, an eligible
State whose score assigned pursuant to subparagraph (D)(i) with
respect to one of the measures under subparagraph (C) for the
fiscal year immediately preceding the bonus year equals or
exceeds the performance threshold prescribed by the Secretary.
__________
APPENDIX B
CIVIL RIGHTS
The Problem: Just like other employees, welfare recipients in work
experience programs, welfare-to-work placements, and job training
programs have the right to a discrimination-free workplace. From the
beginning of the TANF program, the federal executive branch has
consistently said that federal employment protection laws, such as the
minimum wage law and the employment discrimination laws, apply to
workers in TANF workfare programs in the same way they apply to other
workers. The statute should be amended to clarify this and to codify
the position of the federal executive branch.
The Solution:
Amend Section 407(d) (42 U.S.C. 607(d)) as follows:
L(1) by adding a new subsection (e) as follows:
(e) Application of workplace laws to welfare recipients.
LNotwithstanding any other provision of law, workplace laws,
including the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201
et seq.), the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29
U.S.C. 651 et seq.), title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.), and the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), shall apply to an
individual who is a recipient of assistance under the temporary
assistance to needy families program funded under part A of
title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) in
the same manner as such laws apply to other workers. The fact
that an individual who is a recipient of assistance under the
temporary assistance to needy families program is participating
in, or seeking to participate in work activities under that
program in satisfaction of the work activity requirements of
the program, shall not deprive the individual of the protection
of any federal, State, or local workplace law.
Section 408(d) (42 U.S.C. 608(d)) is amended as follows:
(1) by adding at the end the following----
(5) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C.
1681)
______
APPENDIX C
FAMILY VIOLENCE OPTION
The Problem: Federal law permits each state to choose whether to
adopt the Family Violence Option, or ``FVO,'' in their administration
of TANF. Adoption permits the state to waive welfare applicants and
recipients, from some or all welfare program requirements if they are
victims of domestic or sexual abuse or violence (definitions of these
terms vary from state to state). Among welfare requirements that states
may waive are participation in work activities, time limits on
benefits, and cooperation with child support collection. Since 1996, a
majority of states (32) and the District of Columbia have adopted the
FVO as part of their welfare law. Twelve other states have equivalent
policies that enable abuse and violence victims in some cases to seek
temporary or indefinite waivers from some or all TANF requirements.
However, five states have no FVO policies.
The Solution: Amend the Family Violence Option, requiring states to
certify that they have established standards and procedures to ensure
that trained caseworkers will screen individuals for domestic or sexual
violence, and extend the federal definition of work to include
participation in counseling or other activities designed to address
domestic or sexual violence.
LA BILL TO ENSURE THAT ALL STATES ADDRESS DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE
IN THEIR TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE TO NEEDY FAMILIES PROGRAM.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``SAFETY AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY Act of
2001''.
SECTION 2. ADDRESSING DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN TANF PROGRAM
Section 402(a)(7) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(7))
is amended--
(1) by striking the heading and subparagraphs (A) and (B) and
inserting the following----
``(7) CERTIFICATIONS REGARDING DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE----
``(A) GENERAL PROVISIONS--A certification by the chief
executive officer of the State that the State has established
and is enforcing standards and procedures to ensure domestic
and sexual violence is comprehensively addressed, and a written
document outlining how the State will do the following:
L``(i) Address the needs of a recipient who is or has been
subjected to domestic or sexual violence, including how the
State will--
L``(I) have trained caseworkers screen, and, at the option of
the recipient, assess and identify individuals who are or have
been subjected to domestic or sexual violence;
L``(II) provide each recipient of assistance with adequate
notice of eligibility and program requirements, confidentiality
provisions, assessment and program services, and modifications
and waivers available to such individuals as well as the
process to access such services, modifications, or waivers;
L(III) refer such individuals for appropriate counseling and
other supportive services, modify or waive eligibility or
program requirements or prohibitions to address domestic
violence and sexual assault barriers, and ensure such
individual's access to job training, vocational rehabilitation,
and other employment-related services as appropriate;
L``(IV) restrict the disclosure of any identifying information
obtained through any process or procedure implemented pursuant
to this section absent the individual's written consent or
unless otherwise required to do so under law; and
L``(V) pursuant to a determination of good cause, waive,
without time limit, any State or federal eligibility or program
requirement or prohibition for so long as necessary, in every
case in which an individual or family receiving assistance
under this part has been identified as having been subjected to
domestic or sexual violence and the requirement makes it more
difficult for the individual to address, escape or recover from
the violence, unfairly penalizes the individual, or makes the
individual or the individual's child(ren) unsafe.
L``(ii) Coordinate or contract with state or tribal domestic
violence coalitions, sexual assault coalitions, or domestic or
sexual violence programs in the development and implementation
of standards, procedures, training, and programs required under
this Act. to address domestic and sexual violence.
L``(iii) CASEWORKER TRAINING.--Train caseworkers in--
L``(I) the nature and dynamics of domestic or sexual violence
and the ways in which they may act to obstruct the economic
security or safety of the individual and the individual's
children;
L``(II) the standards, policies and procedures implemented
pursuant to this part, including the individual's rights and
protections, such as notice and confidentiality;
L``(III) how to screen for and identify when domestic or sexual
violence creates barriers to compliance, and how to make
effective referrals for services and modify eligibility and
program requirements and prohibitions to address domestic and
sexual violence barriers; and
L``(IV) the process for determining good cause for
noncompliance with an eligibility or program requirement or
prohibition and granting waivers of such requirements.
L``(iv) USE OF QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS.--At State option, enter
into contracts with or employ qualified domestic violence and
sexual violence professionals for the provision of services in
each of the fields of domestic or sexual violence.
``(B) DEFINITIONS.--
L``(i) DOMESTIC OR SEXUAL VIOLENCE.--In this title, the term
`domestic or sexual violence' has the same meaning as `battered
or subject to extreme cruelty' in 402(A)(7)(C)(II).''
L``(ii) QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL DEFINED--For purposes of this
Act, the term `qualified professional' includes a State or
local victim services organization with recognized expertise in
the dynamics of domestic or sexual violence who has as one of
its primary purposes to provide services to victims of domestic
or sexual violence, such as a sexual assault crisis center or
domestic violence program, or an individual trained by such an
organization.
SECTION 3. ASESSMENT.
(1) Section 408(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
608(b)(1) is amended by striking ``and'' and inserting after
employability, ``and potential barriers, including domestic or sexual
violence, mental or physical health, learning disability, substance
abuse, English as a second language, or insufficient housing,
transportation or child care''
(1) Section 408(b)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
608(b)(2)(A) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph
(iv) and the period at the end of paragraph (v), and inserting ``;
and'' and inserting--
L(vi) documents the individual's receipt of adequate notice of
program requirements, confidentiality provisions, assessment
and program services, and waivers available to individuals who
have or may have been subjected to domestic or sexual violence,
as well as the process to access such services or waivers; and
L(vii) may not require the individual to participate in
services to address domestic or sexual violence.
SECTION 4. REVIEW AND CONCILIATION PROCESS.
Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(12) REVIEW AND CONCILIATION PROCESS.--(A) In general--A State to
which a grant is made under section 403 shall not impose a sanction or
penalty against an individual under the State program funded under this
part on the basis of noncompliance by an individual or family with a
program requirement, where domestic or sexual violence is a significant
contributing factor in the noncompliance; and
(B) Prior to imposing a sanction or penalty, the State shall
specifically consider whether the individual has been or is being
subjected to domestic or sexual violence, and where such violence is
identified, make a reasonable effort to modify or waive program
requirements or prohibitions, and offer the individual referral to
voluntary services to address the violence.
SECTION 5. STATE OPTION TO INCLUDE SURVIVORS IN WORK PARTICIPATION
RATES--
STATE OPTION TO INCLUDE SURVIVORS IN WORK PARTICIPATION RATES--
States may consider individuals receiving services or a waiver from
program requirements under Section 402 (a)(7) as being engaged in work
for the month for purposes of determining the monthly participation
rates under subsection (b)(1(B)(i).
SEC. 6 EXCLUSION OF SURVIVORS OF DOMESTIC OR SEXUAL VIOLENCE FROM 20
PERCENT LIMITATION ON HARDSHIP EXCEPTION--
Section 408(a)(7)(C) (42 USC 608(a)(7)(C) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking `by reason of' and all that follows
through the period and inserting `by reason of----
(I) hardship; or
L(II) if the family includes an individual who has been
subjected to domestic or sexual violence
L(2) in clause (ii), by striking `clause (i)' and inserting `clause
(i)(I)' and
L(3) in clause (iii), by striking `clause (i)' and inserting
`clause (i)(II).
SECTION 7. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
Section 413 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 613) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(j) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.--
L``(1) GRANTS AUTHORIZED--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall make an award to a national victim services
organization or organizations to identify and provide technical
assistance with respect to model standards and procedures,
practices and training designed to comprehensively address
domestic and sexual violence, including for individuals with
multiple barriers, and move individuals subjected to domestic
or sexual violence into employment without compromising their
safety or that of their child(ren).''
L``(2) GRANTS TO STATES.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall provide grants to states and localities to
contract with a State or tribal domestic violence coalition or
sexual assault coalition or joint domestic and sexual violence
coalition to--
L(i) provide training to caseworkers and technical assistance
regarding screening, assessing, and providing services to
address domestic or sexual violence, modifying or waiving
eligibility or program requirements or prohibitions, and
assisting individuals subjected to domestic or sexual violence
to secure and retain employment; and
L(ii) develop and implement demonstration projects to promote
best practices in serving individuals who have been subjected
to domestic or sexual violence, with priority given to programs
that contract with qualified professionals.
L``(3) LIMITATIONS ON AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--To
carry out paragraph (1), there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary $1,000,000 for Fiscal Year 2003,
to carry out paragraph (2) there are to be authorized and
appropriated not more than $10,000,000 for each fiscal year
2003-2007.
__________
APPENDIX D
CHILD CARE PROTECTIONS
The Problem: Nearly all of the adults moving off welfare and into
waged work are women with children. But women with children can only
work if they have access to reliable and affordable childcare. Without
it, their families' financial security and well-being are jeopardized.
A report issued in 2000 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families, found that only 12%
of eligible families are currently receiving federal childcare
assistance.
The Solution:
Sanction protection amendments:
Amend Section 407(e)(2) as follows:
L(1) By striking ``EXCEPTION'' and inserting ``CHILD CARE
EXCEPTION''; and
L(2) By striking ``proves that the individual has a
demonstrated inability (as determined by the State)'' and
inserting ``certifies that the individual is unable''; and
L(3) By adding at the end of paragraph (2) the following:
La. ``(3) ADDITIONAL CHILD CARE EXCEPTIONS--Notwithstanding
paragraph (1), a State may not reduce or terminate assistance
under the State program funded under this part based on a
refusal of an individual to engage in work required in
accordance with this section if the individual is a custodial
parent or caretaker relative caring for--
L(A) a child who has a disability or a serious health condition
(as defined in section 101(11) of the Family and Medical Leave
Act), and the individual does not have meaningful access to
safe, appropriate, affordable, and quality care for the child;
or
L(B) a child who has attained 6 years of age and the individual
does not have meaningful access to safe, appropriate,
affordable quality after-school or summer care for the child.
Work Requirement Amendments for Parents of School Age Children:
Section 407(c)(1)(A) should be amended by adding the following
provision at the end of the section:
L``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the maximum average
number of hours per week shall be 20 for any week in which the
recipient is the parent or caretaker relative of a child who
has attained 6 years of age and does not have meaningful access
to safe, appropriate, affordable quality after-school or summer
care for the child.''
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Ms. Davis, for your testimony.
Now, Mr. Bilchik for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF SHAY BILCHIK, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, CHILD WELFARE LEAGUE OF AMERICA
Mr. BILCHIK. Mr. Chairman, Mr. English, I am delighted to
be here on behalf of the Child Welfare League of America
testifying on this legislation. On behalf of our 1,175 public
and private not-for-profit child-serving agencies across the
country, I will start my testimony by saying that we are
pleased that the legislation before you includes a modification
to the overarching language to the purposes of the Act to
include child well-being as one of the overall goals of TANF
programs.
H.R. 4090 requires the State to measure the goals and
methodologies toward reaching the four purposes of TANF. The
League supports adding a requirement to that, that the TANF
State plans must also include the measures of child well-being.
The League is not recommending a mandate, but would suggest
a flexible process whereby States design and implement TANF
programs that will measure themselves. This would assure that
promoting child well-being would remain a strategy in the TANF
policy and planning process. Some have framed this part of the
TANF reauthorization debate as a choice between child well-
being and poverty reduction as a strategy. We do not see these
two measures as competing, but rather as complementary. This is
evidenced by the fact that more than 12 million children under
age 18 continue to live in poverty in this country, despite the
successes of welfare reform.
Second, the League urges Congress to carefully consider
changes to the existing TANF work requirements and how they
will affect children. A parent who is working serves as a model
for children in the behaviors that we wish to see as children
grow. Behaviors such as hard work, self-reliance, and achieving
goals can all benefit children. When that work has meaning, it
promotes dignity, self-worth, and self-esteem for the parents.
The TANF already includes definite work requirements and
targets for parents and States. Congress must carefully
consider how changes to these existing work rules will affect
families. We hope Congress will not engage in a debate that
ignores the needs of struggling parents who are trying to work
to find quality child care and to be the best parents they can
be. Additional work requirements could have the unintended
result of becoming stresses and challenges to the families we
are trying to serve. Congress should ensure that policies allow
parents to spend time with their children. To meet their
children's needs, we must ensure that families who may already
be under stress and struggling to meet their own economic needs
have time to also tend to the needs of their families.
Third, the League recommends that the flexibility to serve
families through TANF be maintained and not altered in ways
that would restrict States' abilities to address the needs of
children who are eligible for child-only grants. Nine percent
of the total families on TANF are kinship child-only grants.
The League also recommends the eligibility link between
Title IV-E foster care and adoption assistance in AFDC be
removed. This change will eliminate a costly administrative
burden and will treat all children with special needs
equitably. Current law requires States to look back to the AFDC
rules that existed on July 16, 1996, to determine eligibility
for Title IV-E foster care and adoption assistance.
The League is pleased that Title IV of H.R. 4090 will make
it easier for States to operate Title IV-E child welfare
waivers; however, we are very concerned about the potential
impact of the superwaiver authority proposed in Title VI. This
new authority would allow federal agencies to waive countless
program requirements with an automatic 90-day approval process.
This authority could undercut important gains that this
Subcommittee enacted in child welfare over recent years. This
could open the door to block grants for child welfare and other
important programs that provide needed assistance for
vulnerable children. Further, this new authority cannot ensure
that the protections in place under current law and regulations
for vulnerable children would be maintained.
Fourth, as a nation we must face the fact that our society
has changed. Record levels of single parents with young
children are in the workplace. Increasing numbers of two-parent
families are discovering they need two incomes to make ends
meet. We have an ever-growing need for child care with or
without changes to TANF work requirements. Congress recognized
this in 1996 when it said States must spend a substantial
portion of the amounts available to provide child care to low-
income working families who are not working their way off
welfare or are at risk of becoming welfare dependents. Congress
made clear that child care was intended for more than just the
goal of reducing cash assistance case loads. That same law also
increased the number of families who were potentially eligible
for child care by increasing the maximum income eligibility
from 75 percent to 85 percent of a State's median income.
Child care must address the needs of those on or leaving
TANF as well as the broader population. All of this must be
done while improving standards and quality of child care. To
increase child care funding is important to make sure we meet
the goals of TANF reform.
We have three related items I will mention very briefly,
Mr. Chairman. First, the fact that the social services block
grant be increased back to $2.8 billion. I think there has been
leadership on this Committee. The President has demonstrated
leadership in seeing that the social services block grant is
restored to that $2.8 billion. We must pay attention to the
substance abuse problems facing these families, and last but
not least, we must make sure that we pay attention to the
impact on youth. Current research is demonstrating there may be
a negative impact from the welfare reform on this population.
Research needs to be done on this, and youth development
opportunities need to be provided for these children in order
to make sure that they succeed in their lives. Thank you, and I
look forward to working with you on this legislation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bilchik follows:]
Statement of Shay Bilchik, President and Chief Executive Officer, Child
Welfare League of America
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Shay Bilchik,
President and CEO of the Child Welfare League of America. I welcome
this opportunity to testify in behalf of more than 1,175 public and
private nonprofit child-serving agencies nationwide on the
reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program
(TANF) and reauthorization of the mandatory funding levels in the Child
Care and Development Fund (CCDF).
TANF reauthorization this year presents the first real opportunity
for Members of Congress, the Administration, and the nation to review
and evaluate the significant decision made in 1996 to replace the Aid
to Families with Dependent Children's program (AFDC). We have an
opportunity to evaluate what has worked and to make changes that,
hopefully, will improve the lives of millions of low-income children
and their families.
Child Well-Being
CWLA represents both public and private nonprofit agencies that
serve children, youth, and families every day. Advancing child well-
being is at the core of our agencies' missions. CWLA is pleased the
Administration has offered as one of its main themes the need for TANF
to focus on ways to promote child well-being. We look forward to
working with this Subcommittee and other Members of Congress in
crafting legislation that will improve the lives of our most vulnerable
children.
CWLA agrees with the Administration's proposal to tie child well-
being to the purposes of the TANF statute. Including this phrasing in
the purposes section of the law is one step to better provide a link
between TANF and the children who make up most of the TANF case load.
CWLA also supports the Administration's suggestion that TANF state
plans should include measures of child well-being so that states design
and implement TANF programs that will measure themselves against how
they affect children.
Poverty is an overarching indicator of child well-being and should
be addressed in TANF reauthorization. Although some have framed this
part of the TANF reauthorization debate as a choice between child well-
being and poverty reduction as a strategy, CWLA does not see these two
measures as competing, but rather as complementing each other. With
poverty as an overarching indicator of child well-being, the challenge
will be to develop strategies that address the needs of these children.
CWLA encourages states to develop child well-being outcome
measures. Each state should also move toward the goal of adopting some
standardized indicators for child well-being based on indicators that
researchers have found to be associated with positive outcomes for
children. CWLA's monograph, Making Children a National Priority: A
Framework for Community Action, presents indicators of child well-being
in terms of five fundamental needs: fulfilling basic needs, ensuring
nurturing relationships, protecting children from harm, easing the
impact of harm, and promoting optimal development.
Child Trends, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization,
recently drafted a comprehensive list of indictors that significantly
overlaps CWLA's recommendations. These include a range of options in
six areas: education, socioemotional development, health and safety,
attitudes, family well-being, and poverty. Within each of these areas
are more specific measures. For example, socioemotional development
measures include indicators on adolescent mental health, behavioral
problems, teen child-bearing, and afterschool activities. Family well-
being includes a range of concerns and measures, such as parent
monitoring and supervision, work efforts among adolescents, parent-
child relationships, connectedness and activities, and housing adequacy
and homelessness.
CWLA recommends this Subcommittee consider the existing research as
a way to improve understanding of how states might better measure their
TANF policies and their positive and negative effects on children and
families. We would be pleased to further contribute to this discussion
as this legislation is drafted, debated, and enacted, and as
regulations are shaped.
States will also need federal leadership as they develop their own
sets of child well-being indicators. Any new outcome measures should be
coordinated with ongoing federal efforts to develop child well-being
outcomes. The Adoption and Safe Families Act requires the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop measures for
outcomes on safety, permanency, and well-being, by which all state
child welfare agencies' performance is reported to Congress annually.
Reports were published in 2000 and 2001, but, to date, only
measures in safety and permanency have been implemented, with measures
in well-being still in development. This is due, partly, to the
complexities of measuring well-being and partly due to lack of
comprehensive, comparable data being collected. Another federal effort
under way is the development of measures to determine the well-being of
youth leaving the foster care system, mandated by the Chafee Foster
Care Independence Act.
Work Requirements
CWLA urges Congress to carefully consider changes to the existing
TANF work requirements and how they will affect children. One of the
important messages of the 1996 law was the emphasis on work. The value
of a job is important because it provides obvious financial benefits to
children. A parent who is working serves as a model for children and
the behaviors that we wish to see as children grow. Behaviors such as
hard work, self-reliance, and achieving goals can all benefit children.
When that work has meaning, it promotes dignity, self-worth, and self-
esteem for the parent.
A quality job that allows a parent to advance in skills and income
is important to families and children. A good job strengthens
opportunities for parents that can benefit children. TANF already
includes definite work requirements and targets for parents and states.
Congress must carefully consider how changes to these existing work
rules will affect families. We hope Congress will not engage in a
debate that ignores the needs of struggling parents who are trying to
work, to find quality child care, and to be the best parents they can
be.
Additional work requirements could have the unintended result of
becoming stressors and challenges to families. We must consider the
amount of time it takes to get to work. We must ensure that policies
allow parents to spend time with their children--to meet some of their
children's needs, such as affection, by which children develop self-
esteem, and support so children can develop new skills and
capabilities. We must ensure that families who may already be under
stress and struggling to meet their own economic needs have time to
tend to routine care and family needs and time for family emergencies.
There are ways to strengthen the current work requirements, such as
replacing the case load reduction credit with a credit that encourages
states to place adults into jobs with substantial wages. CWLA urges
Congress to reject strategies that will force states to meet a
numerical goal of 40 hours of work, creating a system focused only on
reaching numbers and not on moving families forward. We cannot ignore
the reality that many of these parents spend several hours each week
traveling to and from jobs, to and from child care providers, and to
and from school.
Some proposals Congress may consider may include a flexible
definition of activities and work. Additional work requirements may
appear simple and flexible at the federal level, but when implemented
locally, they may become more stringent. New federal work requirements
may force states to design policies with a very specific number of work
activities. States may try to avoid federal penalties rather than focus
on progress for families. Consistent with a work policy that helps
parents move into permanent, productive jobs, CWLA urges the
Subcommittee to consider ways that work requirements can address
barriers to self-sufficiency. We address this more fully in our
comments on barriers and screening.
TANF and Child Welfare
There is a long historical link between Title IV-A of the Social
Security Act and the child welfare system. The links that existed under
AFDC continue under TANF, including funding, the families and children
served, and the way the two programs are administered. A significant
percentage of families in the child welfare system receive cash
assistance and services funded by TANF. TANF funds also provide needed
supports to prevent children from coming in contact with the child
welfare system in the first place.
Child Only Cases
CWLA recommends that the flexibility to serve families through TANF
be maintained and not altered in ways that would restrict states'
abilities to address the needs of children who are eligible for child-
only grants.
Child-only cases under TANF, and under AFDC, have always
represented a significant percentage of the overall cash assistance
case load. In 1999, child-only families represented 29% of the total
number of families receiving TANF. This does not mean, however, that
none of these families had a parent in the household, or that all of
them were kinship care families. In fact, most of the child-only case
load includes a parent. Parents may be ineligible for TANF because of
their legal alien status, because of their disability status under
TANF, or because they receive Supplemental Security Income. In 1999, of
the child-only case load, 30% were children in families where the head
of the household was related but not the parent. These child-only
kinship families represented approximately 9% of the total families on
TANF.
Kinship care allows relatives to care for their family members'
children within the context of the family. This form of family care
strengthens the family system and enables children to remain within the
family if separation from their biological parents is necessary.
Kinship caregivers are being responsible family members and responsible
members of society. Receiving TANF child-only stipends helps kinship
caregivers meet some of the essential needs of the children for whom
they have taken full responsibility. The caregivers that care for their
family members' children are usually living on fixed incomes. Many live
in poverty, and they are not prepared financially to provide these
children with basic essential items. They have chosen to keep their
children within the family, however.
The child-only stipend provides some limited financial help with
the daily expenses incurred in raising a child, but it is insufficient
to cover the costs of raising a child. Child-only stipends vary
considerably in different parts of the country. CWLA encourages states
to increase the amount of monthly stipends for children living with
kin.
Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance
The 1996 TANF law repealed the eligibility standards for AFDC.
TANF, however, requires states to look back to the AFDC rules that
existed on July 16, 1996, to determine eligibility for Title IV-E
Foster Care and Adoption Assistance. CWLA recommends the eligibility
link between Title IV-E foster care and adoption assistance and AFDC be
removed. This change will eliminate a costly administrative burden and
will treat all children with special needs equitably.
Child Care
With or without increased work requirements, as a nation we must
face the fact that our society has changed. Record levels of single
parents with young children are in the workplace. Increasing numbers of
two-parent families are discovering they need two incomes to make ends
meet. As a result, we have an ever-growing need for child care.
CWLA applauds President Bush's recent statements acknowledging the
link between the quality of care and whether children enter school
ready to learn. To change the current system of care into a quality
system that is both a critical support for parents who work outside the
home and an educational and child well-being tool for the children who
attend that care, we need significant investments at the federal,
state, and local levels.
It is true that the decade of the 1990s represented a historic
increase in child care funding. It is also true that those increases
came at the very same time as we experienced record workforce
participation by parents with school-age and preschool children. In the
1990s, we also began to recognize the importance of early brain
development and its impact on our national goals for education and
child well-being.
Despite this increase in federal child care dollars, funding for
the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) is inadequate. HHS indicates
that approximately one in seven eligible children receive care. Many
families have been placed on long waiting lists to get the financial
support they need and for which they are eligible. And waiting lists do
not tell the full story, since many lists may be limited in some way,
and in some instances lists are not kept because the need is so great.
Existing resources simply are not enough to reach all those in need.
In addition, states do not have adequate resources to ensure that
child care services provided are of high quality. Many families who do
receive child care support are forced to choose lower quality programs
because states don't have the funds to reimburse programs at a level
necessary to ensure quality.
CWLA is disappointed with recommendations by the Administration and
others who argue that no new resources are needed for child care and
that current funding will address current or future work requirements
in TANF. We should continue to recognize that our child care system is
not designed merely to provide the minimal form of care for those who
are on or who are leaving TANF.
In the conference report that accompanied the 1996 reauthorization
legislation (Report 104-725), Congress made clear its intent: ``States
must spend a substantial portion of the amounts available to provide
child care to low-income working families who are not working their way
off welfare or at risk of becoming welfare dependents.'' Congress made
clear that child care was intended for more than just the goal of
reducing cash assistance case loads. That same law also increased the
number of families who are potentially eligible for child care by
increasing the maximum income eligibility from 75% to 85% of a state's
median income.
Child care must address the needs of those on or leaving TANF, as
well as a broader population. All this must be done while improving
standards and quality of that care. To accomplish these goals, CCDF
funding must be increased substantially. CWLA recommends no less than a
$11 billion increase in mandatory funds, as included in at least two
legislative proposals before Congress. If work requirements are altered
significantly, then this total will have to be increased even more.
Social Services Block Grant
The Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) has long been a source of
funding for child care. Recent state reports indicate, however, that
the most prominent use of SSBG funds are for child welfare services.
SSBG also funds a number of other human services, including services
for the aging and people with disabilities. Many of these services are
provided by community and faith-based organizations. While states
continue to use SSBG funds for child care, the reduction in SSBG
funding since 1996 has eroded the block grant to such an extent that
many human services, including child care, are in competition for these
funds. Clearly, SSBG does not sufficiently meet the great need for
additional child care resources. CWLA urges Congress to restore SSBG
funding in FY 2003 and beyond to $2.8 billion, the level agreed to in
the 1996 TANF law. In doing so, this would allow other critical human
service needs to be met.
TANF and Barriers to Employment: Substance Abuse
Families receiving TANF assistance face a number of barriers. As a
result, some TANF recipients are unable to move from welfare to
personal responsibility and work. These barriers may include substance
abuse, mental illness, domestic violence, and disabilities. For those
families who come to the attention of the child welfare system--a good
portion of them TANF recipients--alcohol and other drug (AOD) use is a
major contributing factor for remaining unemployed for long periods of
time.
Estimates of the prevalence of substance abuse among TANF
recipients range from 16% to 37%. In a survey of CWLA member agencies,
caseworkers reported that up to 80% of the families that come to the
attention of the child welfare system have a substance abuse problem.
HHS estimated in August 2000 that at least 460,000 families on
welfare--about 1.2 million parents and children--were affected by
substance abuse. Several studies have suggested a high prevalence of
substance abuse among women receiving TANF, with rates as high as 27%
to 39%. Whatever the prevalence of the problem, TANF caseworkers, in
particular, see substance abuse as perhaps the most inflexible of the
barriers facing people who are trying to make the transition from
welfare to permanent employment.
In keeping with the philosophy of removing obstacles to work to
achieve the overall goals of personal responsibility and self-
sufficiency, CWLA supports changes and improvements in screening and
assessment, sanctions, and work requirements for those needing
substance abuse treatment and applying for TANF benefits.
Family Screening and Assessment
The purpose of family assessment is to learn about and engage a
family in identifying their needs, strengths, and current resources.
Family screening and assessment is a key ingredient in our efforts to
assist families in achieving self-sufficiency. It is also a vital tool
for helping families improve their parenting abilities and to ensure
child safety and well-being. Families seeking cash assistance often
face many other stressors in their lives that can become barriers to
completing TANF successfully and that can jeopardize child safety and
well-being. These include the need for adequate housing and
transportation, substance abuse and behavioral health treatment, and
assistance with domestic violence.
Many jurisdictions have initiated screening and assessment for
families. Some conduct an assessment with all new families requesting
assistance. A personal responsibility plan is developed, based on the
assessment findings. The plan sets forth the services the family will
receive to address barriers, and includes recommendations from
substance abuse or behavioral health assessments. Assessments may be
conducted ``mid-course'' to determine client progress and make any
necessary corrections to the service plan. Finally, some jurisdictions
require a full assessment with the family prior to imposing sanctions.
These steps can prevent problems for families down the road--both
the failure to meet work requirements and the increased risk of child
abuse or neglect. For those families already involved with the child
welfare system, joint TANF-child welfare assessments provide the
opportunity to implement a coordinated service and work plan with the
family. This reduces the likelihood that the family will experience
``competing'' or disjointed demands by different parts of the system
and provides the family with a single plan for accomplishing both their
work and family goals.
CWLA recommends that all families seeking TANF assistance should
participate in an initial screening by a trained caseworker to identify
and screen for barriers to work, such as substance abuse. This initial
screening should identify potential barriers that might interfere with
the family's ability to work requisite hours and otherwise comply with
program requirements. If the screening identifies potential barriers
for the parents or safety risks for the children, the caseworker should
conduct a full family assessment and, where necessary, refer the family
member for a professional evaluation to assess substance abuse,
behavioral health, or other concerns beyond the worker's expertise.
We also believe that TANF workers should be trained to screen for
barriers to work, including substance abuse, physical and behavioral
health, and domestic violence, and for risks to child safety. Workers
should also receive training in family assessment, enabling them to
assess the needs, strengths, and resources of families as a tool for
developing a plan that will lead to successful work and promote a safe
environment for the children. Finally, for families already involved
with the child welfare system, workers should be encouraged to conduct
joint assessments and planning with child welfare so that both systems
support families in their efforts to succeed in the workplace and as
parents.
Substance Abuse and Sanctions
Families in need of services such as substance abuse treatment must
receive the assistance they need to overcome barriers to employment.
CWLA recommends that states conduct a presanction review before
sanctioning parents who are considered noncompliant. Parents should not
be subjected to sanctions and case closures because of the state's
limited substance abuse treatment capacity. If substance abuse
treatment services, as specified in the individual responsibility plan,
are not available to the parent, states should refrain from sanctions
or case closures.
Substance Abuse and Work Requirements
We must view substance abuse treatment as both work and job
preparation. Comprehensive, family-focused treatment programs, either
residential or outpatient, require that parents engage in intensive
therapy sessions, group counseling, parenting classes, and education or
job training services. A 1998 Legal Action Center study, entitled
Helping Women with Alcohol and Drug Problems Move from welfare-to-work,
looked at 20 women's treatment programs and found that 60% included
work and vocational training as part of treatment, whereas 75% required
work and vocational training during the substance abuse treatment
process.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act [42 USCA Sec.12210(b)(1)], and state laws require
welfare programs to provide meaningful access and accommodation to
people with disabilities. ADA covers parents in drug treatment
programs. Reasonable accommodation and individualized assessment are
key entitlements accorded to persons covered by ADA. Substance abuse
treatment as a work activity can constitute reasonable accommodation
for parents. CWLA asks the Subcommittee to consider providing substance
abuse treatment as a work activity as a reasonable accommodation for
parents. Successful transition from treatment to work is necessary to
ensure that states provide reasonable accommodation for persons in
treatment.
Improving Access to Comprehensive Treatment for Families
With the reauthorization of TANF, Congress is taking a long, hard
look at the characteristics shared by those who remain on the TANF
rolls. The hardest-to-serve will be those who have been unable to gain
employment. Clearly, behavioral changes will be critical to move those
who have not been able to find and keep jobs because of existing
barriers, particularly those confronting substance abuse.
CWLA is encouraged by the Administration's provision to give work
credit to families engaged in short-term substance abuse treatment.
Although we feel that three months is not nearly long enough to
effectively address a substance abuse problem, the recognition of
treatment as a work activity is extremely important. We would encourage
reasonable accommodation given to treatment as a work activity to take
into account the parent's particular circumstances and needs as part of
the individual responsibility plan. Aside from the needed improvements
of screening and assessment, sanctions, and work requirements,
substance abuse treatment services must be available for this to work.
If treatment capacity is not accessible for those individuals most in
need, family assessment and reasonable accommodation will not be
successful. The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment has found that
when treatment is available, parents are more likely to be employed and
moving toward self-sufficiency.
We have a real opportunity with the reauthorization of TANF to
change behavior--a goal in both welfare reform and treatment for
substance abuse.
TANF and Adolescents
TANF has resulted in unanticipated negative consequences for teens.
New research indicates an already high risk group of adolescents face
added difficulties due to these welfare reforms. According to a study
by the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, which looked at
data from 16 programs involving almost 15,000 children and adolescents,
teens have more problems than do younger children when their mothers
participate in welfare-to-work programs.
The studies indicate that school achievement is negatively affected
for adolescents, they repeat a grade more often, and they use more
special education services. The research suggests that reduced
supervision and monitoring when maternal employment increases and
adolescents take on adult roles, such as caring for siblings or paid
work (more than 20 hours per week), affect youth negatively.
Congress should consider these new findings. Work requirements that
keep parents away from their children longer, especially without
adequate child care supports, should be examined. Forcing older
siblings into a caretaker role, is no substitute for needed child care
and opportunities for positive youth development.
According to an analysis of Child Trends' research, other negative
effects include increases in delinquency, arrests, involvement with
police, smoking, drinking, and drug use. These negative impacts on
youth should be addressed. New resources should be made available to
promote the positive and healthy development of young people. Youth
fare better when they have access to ongoing relationships with caring
adults, safe places with structured activities during nonschool hours,
access to services that promote healthy lifestyles, marketable skills
and competencies through education and youth development, and
opportunities for community service and civic participation.
Proven effective youth development strategies should be employed,
such as character development and ethical enrichment activities;
mentoring activities, including one-to-one relationship building and
tutoring; community youth centers and clubs; nonschool hours, weekend,
and summer programs; sports, recreation, and other activities promoting
physical fitness and teamwork; and services that promote health and
healthy development and behavior on the part of youth, including risk
avoidance programs.
Reauthorization of TANF provides an opportunity to ensure that
youth have access to the services and strategies necessary to support
their positive and healthy development. In so doing, we can counteract
the unintended negative consequences of TANF for this vulnerable
population.
TANF reauthorization also allows us to examine the abstinence
education program enacted at the same time as the TANF law in 1996. In
FY 2002, Section 510 of the Title V Maternal and Child Health Block
Grant was funded at $40 million for abstinence education. If this
program is considered part of the TANF reauthorization, CWLA encourages
the Subcommittee to consider enhancing state flexibility so states may
use abstinence education funds in ways that best meet the needs of
adolescents in those states. In addition, we encourage language to
provide that scientifically and medically accurate information be
taught in all abstinence education programs.
Conclusion
The reauthorization of TANF and the Child Care and Development Fund
may be the best opportunity Congress will have this year to improve the
lives of low-income children and families. Decisions made at the
federal level will shape state and local policies, affecting millions
of children and families in the years to come. Now is the time for
Congress to provide the resources, flexibility, and direction needed to
assist adults receiving TANF with the tools they need to move from
poverty to self-sufficiency and to better help their children. CWLA
looks forward to working with members of this Subcommittee, Congress,
and the Administration as TANF reauthorization proposals are considered
this year.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Bilchik. Now, Ms.
Meiklejohn.
STATEMENT OF LEE SAUNDERS, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE
PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES, AS PRESENTED BY NANINE MEIKLEJOHN, LEGISLATIVE
REPRESENTATIVE
Ms. MEIKLEJOHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Nanine
Meiklejohn, and I am a Legislative Representative at the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME). I appreciate your allowing me to fill in for Mr.
Saunders, and we appreciate being here.
I want to use my time to stress AFSCME's strong opposition
to the waiver provisions and work requirements in H.R. 4090.
Congress just recently created waiver authority for the U.S.
Department of Labor job training programs as part of the
Workforce Investment Act. The new waiver authority is therefore
unnecessary and, we believe, harmful.
Under it, for example, States could privatize unemployment
insurance operations. Our testimony describes the
accountability problems that have arisen in privatized TANF
operations in Wisconsin and Florida. These problems and more
would develop in privatized unemployment operations. Eventually
we could see a private company move unemployment insurance
telephone centers overseas, and this is no alarmist fear. The E
Funds Corp., which manages TANF and food stamp electronic
benefit cards for 19 States, recently moved its telephone call
center from Wisconsin to Bombay. With the waivers, States also
could shift federal job training funds away from dislocated
workers to TANF recipients, waive nondisplacement and worker
protections in Workforce Investment Act, and put TANF
participants in work at sub-minimum wages.
It is disappointing that the President's proposal has
resurrected the 1996 ideological dispute over who is toughest
on work instead of inviting us to work together on a sensible
and reasonable strategy.
The work participation rules are an extreme policy change.
Although Secretary Thompson has stated that the administration
would adhere to minimum wage rules, H.R. 4090 does not
accommodate States where benefits are so low that recipients
working 24 hours would work at sub-minimum wages. Thus H.R.
4090 appears to allow sub-minimum wage work. The TANF must be
amended to make it clear that the Fair Labor Standards Act,
civil rights laws, and other workplace protection laws apply to
all TANF work activities and cannot be waived under any
circumstances.
Even with that change, however, the work participation
requirements are unrealistic and too rigid. They refocus the
entire system on large-scale workfare systems. Some have called
the work requirements ``doing New York City all over the
country.'' In fact, even New York's workfare program hasn't
come anywhere close to meeting these work participation rates.
What is especially troubling is that New York's Work
Experience Program (WEP), has been a failure, and the city is
turning away from it. The WEP created a large subclass of
unpaid workers who perform regular municipal functions, but who
earn a welfare check instead of a paycheck. The city has hired
very few WEP workers, even though some have been in their
positions for years. Thousands of city jobs have been lost. The
AFSCME's affiliate, District Council 37, filed five separate
lawsuits alleging displacement violations in 1999 under the
State law. Around the same time, a decline in workfare slots
began, going from 35,000 in December 1999 to 16,000 last
November. We see this decline as a tacit admission by the city
that our charges have merit.
A federal mandate to return to large-scale workfare would
put intolerable pressure on TANF offices and welfare recipients
in New York City and elsewhere as well. Our members in TANF
offices already face difficult challenges. They work many
overtime hours, struggling without adequate training or
technology to serve too many families. They often face hostile
and desperate people. Under H.R. 4090, they would have to do
much more intensive and intrusive tracking, more record
keeping, meet a new 60-day time limit to perform a thoughtful
client assessment, and continue working with recipients
reaching their time limits. They would be under considerable
pressure to make the numbers add up so their State avoids
financial penalties. With their job performance riding on how
well they do that, they will feel pressure to sanction more
people.
The resulting increased tensions will lead to more abuse
and threats of violence in the workplace. Instead of these
unrealistic and inflexible numerical goals, AFSCME supports
expanding on the flexibility currently in TANF to provide a
broad array of education, training, and support services to
address the individual needs of families on welfare. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saunders follows:]
Statement of Lee Saunders, Executive Assistant to the President,
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employee
Mr. Chairman, my name is Lee Saunders. I am Executive Assistant to
the President of the American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and, for three and a half years, I also
served as Administrator of AFSCME District Council 37 in New York City.
AFSCME represents over 1.3 million employees of federal, state and
local governments, local non-profit organizations, and health care
facilities. Nationwide, we represent several hundred thousand TANF and
other social service workers. In New York City, we represent 125,000
employees, including approximately 25,000 social service employees.
In my testimony, I want to address three issues of importance to
AFSCME: proposals to change the work participation requirements; the
need to upgrade the quality of services in TANF offices; and
accountability under TANF and the proposed super waiver.
Earlier this year, before President Bush submitted his
recommendations for reauthorizing TANF, we had hoped to have a very
different debate. We had hoped Congress would consider how to build on
the experiences of states, TANF workers and clients and take the next
step toward helping poor families leave welfare for long-term
employment at living wages. We wanted to:
focus the program on reducing poverty instead of case
loads,
increase flexibility to provide education and
training and to address the multiple barriers that keep many
recipients from holding down a steady job,
increase funds for childcare and the TANF block grant
so that states can provide a better system of work supports and
services,
amend TANF to strengthen the nondisplacement
protections and to add a transitional jobs program as an
alternative to work experience programs,
add a new grant program to upgrade the skills of TANF
employees and the effectiveness of TANF offices in meeting the
individual needs of TANF recipients,
Restore benefits to legal immigrants who pay the same
taxes as everyone else and who work in some of the hardest jobs
in our society, and
Suspend the TANF lifetime limits when individuals are
working but still receiving supplemental assistance from TANF
or when a jurisdiction experiences the disappearance of large
numbers of jobs, especially low skilled jobs, such as occurred
in New York City after September 11.
Unfortunately, the President's work participation proposal has
thrown the current debate backward to 1996. It ignores the dramatic
number of individuals who have left welfare for employment. It seeks to
resurrect an ideological fight that might score political points over
who is ``tough on work'' but does not challenge us to work together on
a sensible and reasonable strategy for helping states help poor
families move into the mainstream.
Work Requirements
At the heart of the President's TANF recommendations is a
requirement for ``universal engagement'' in which states would have to
enroll 70 percent of their adult case load in ``constructive
activities'' averaging 40 hours per week. Of the 40 hours, a minimum of
24 hours must be in employment or other work activities, which may no
longer include job search or vocational education to the extent they
are currently allowed.
These participation rules represent an extreme policy change. In
their original presentation, they even relied on subminimum wage work
in order to reach 24 hours of work in low benefit states. In addition,
the White House fact sheet stated ``these [TANF] payments do not
entitle an individual to a salary or to benefits provided under any
other provision of law.''
While we were pleased that Secretary Thompson affirmed that the
Administration would adhere to a minimum wage policy, he did not
address the status of the other workplace protection laws or the other
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Furthermore, the courts
have gone both ways on the question of workplace protections in various
cases involving the treatment of individuals in New York City's Work
Experience Program (WEP). Therefore, if Congress continues work
experience, as we expect it will, we believe that TANF must be amended
to codify the heart of the Department of Labor guidance regarding the
applicability of workplace protections laws.
Even with such a modification, however, the work participation
percentages and design are unrealistic, unreasonable, and too
inflexible. They refocus the program on large-scale workfare systems
and away from developing educational and job skills. They set too high
a bar for states, local governments and individuals. They will hurt
poor families by increasing sanctions, and they will hurt workers by
displacing jobs and depressing wages and benefits in the low wage labor
market.
Some have referred to the President's plan as ``doing New York City
all over the country.'' In fact, however, even New York City, at the
height of its workfare program, would not have come close to meeting
these work participation requirements. We estimate that in order to
comply with the 70 percent work participation rule today, the City
would have to make sure 126,000 people were working. As of last
November, only 47,192--or 26 percent--of the adult case load were in
work activities. Even if the workfare program were running at its peak
level of around 36,000 in 1999, the City would have only 37 percent or
66,367 people in work activities that would meet the Administration's
test.
The gap between the idea of requiring 70 percent of the case load
to work 24 or 20 hours per week and the reality of implementing it is
further demonstrated by Los Angeles County. We estimate that the County
would have to ensure that 91,670 adults were working a minimum of 24
hours per week. To put this in perspective, the County itself employs
94,211 employees (and only 75,166 county, if police, firefighters,
corrections, and teachers are excluded). While not all of the necessary
work slots would be created in the county government, the operational
challenge and cost would be overwhelming since low skilled work slots
would have to be developed and managed in the public, non-profit and
private sectors.
Clearly, then, this approach would force states to redirect
substantial TANF resources into creating and supervising hundreds of
thousands of work slots. States would have to abandon the many flexible
strategies that they have used to blend work, education, training and
job search to tailor programs to meet the individual needs of welfare
recipients. Even then they would face a high probability of failure
unless they reduced their case loads through sanctions in order to make
it easier to meet the rigid work test.
What makes this approach even more troubling is that New York
City's WEP program is not a model that should be replicated. It has
been a failure on many levels, and, indeed, the City is turning away
from it.
The WEP program created a large subclass of unpaid ``workers'' who
perform regular municipal functions, sometimes supervisory in nature,
but who earn a welfare check instead of a paycheck and who have no
employment benefits. These individuals have been assigned largely to
three classes of work: office services, maintenance services, and
human/community services. Some of them have been in their positions for
years. And yet, the number that transition to regular city jobs has
been abysmally low:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Transition Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 117
1998 211
1999 234
2000 79
2001 62
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to failing to provide a path to jobs with living wages,
the WEP program has resulted in the elimination of thousands of city
jobs. Unfortunately, New York law prohibits us from sharing with you
the specific WEP assignments by department that we receive from the
City and comparing them with comparable city jobs to demonstrate our
case to you. However, we can provide information already in the public
domain and directly observed by AFSCME staff.
Between December 1993 and November 1998, the number of civilian
employees declined by about 15,000 in civilian agencies, and most of
the lost jobs were entry-level positions. We estimate that the WEP
program directly caused the loss of 800 jobs in the Parks Department
and 1,600 in the Human Resources Department.
AFSCME's affiliate, District Council 37, filed five separate
lawsuits alleging displacement violations under the New York State
social services law, which was amended to provide for substantially
stronger non-displacement protections than the weak provisions in the
federal law. Among other things, these lawsuits documented an 85
percent staff reduction from 136 to 24 custodial assistants in the
City's welfare offices while hundreds of WEP workers were assigned to
clean the offices. Another City agency lost 274 custodian positions out
of a total of 389 positions over a six-year period. In Orchard Beach
Park, there were over 60 employees in 1996, yet by the summer of 1999
only about 12-13 city workers were left. Even so, there were still over
60 people working in the Park. The rest were WEP workers.
We do not think it is mere coincidence that the decline in workfare
slots from 35,559 in December 1999 to 16,384 last November began around
the same time AFSCME District Council 37 filed its lawsuits. We see the
City's actions as a tacit admission that our charges have merit.
Indeed, the City tried and failed to have the cases dismissed.
Currently, only about 5,000 of the WEP positions are in mayoral
agencies.
As the WEP program began to decline, AFSCME District Council 37
worked closely with low income advocates to convince the City Council
to adopt a transition jobs program as an alternative to the WEP
program. Although the City Council approved one, the Giuliani
Administration refused to implement it.
One program was instituted, however, that combined work in the
City's parks with training. While the training component of the ``Job
Opportunity Program'' needs to be strengthened, the program assigned
3,000 welfare recipients to positions in union-represented jobs with
union wages and benefits for a temporary period of time. Unfortunately,
in the last days of the Giuliani Administration, the City contracted
with a temporary employment agency, Temp Force, to take over payroll
functions for the program. In the process, Temp Force became the
``employer'' and is paying wages of $7.95 per hour instead of the union
wage of $9.85 per hour.
Even with the disappointing decision to outsource the Job
Opportunity Program, it should be clear that New York City has been
heading away from workfare and that the Administration's proposal and
any other similar one would be at odds with the direction the City has
been taking recently.
Conditions in Local Welfare Offices
The extreme work and engagement requirements in the
Administration's plan would put intolerable pressures on TANF offices
and welfare recipients, who even under current law, have been under
considerable stress.
In New York City, not a week goes by without incidents of verbal
abuse or violence. Until recently, TANF agency employees worked under
threatening signs proclaiming ``The clock is ticking.'' Their job
performance evaluations have been heavily influenced by pressures to
reduce the rolls and get recipients into WEP. As their case loads rose,
their ability to provide services effectively and in a humane manner
was compromised with tension between worker and client increasing.
A report on the status of caseworkers and clients in Illinois
issued by AFSCME District Council 31 in 1999 documented similar
problems and concerns. Among other things, the study found:
Workloads of frontline workers increased
substantially despite case load declines because of a radically
altered role for the caseworker. More than 73 percent of the
caseworkers surveyed reported at least four new duties.
Responsibilities expanded from benefit eligibility
determination to include: a thorough assessment of each client;
development of a comprehensive services plan; paternity
establishment; identification of job leads, job referrals, and
job search oversight; monitoring of time limits and more.
Many caseworkers were working substantial amounts of
compensated and uncompensated overtime, coming in early and
staying late, to try to keep up with their assignments and the
department's constantly changing policies even as they
struggled with outdated and inadequate technology that undercut
their productivity.
The caseworkers urgently felt the need for more
training. New employees often received only ``on-the-job''
training while long-time employees wanted more training to
prepare them for their new responsibilities. Frustration with
the lack of training was a major cause of the 30 percent
turnover rate among first year employees.
The resulting pressures increased tensions between
caseworkers, who felt under pressure to enforce rules ``in the
strictest and most inflexible manner possible'' and clients who
had trouble reaching their caseworkers and perceived them as
meanspirited and uncaring. Again verbal abuse and even threats
of physical violence resulted.
Against this backdrop, the Administration's plan to replace the
flexibility that does exist currently with rigid requirements for 40
hours of activity and a mandatory evaluation for each client within 60
days are at odds with each other and the reality of life in a TANF
office.
On the one hand, TANF workers will be responsible for substantially
more record keeping as they try to document their clients' compliance
with the 40-hour per week participation requirement. On the other hand,
somehow they would have to do a thoughtful assessment of each client's
needs within a specific time period mandated by law. How they could
ever effectively arrange for constructive activities or document the
time spent during the 16 hours during each week when work is not
required is not at all clear. Presumably, they would have to engage in
extremely intrusive and time consuming monitoring or give cursory
attention to the requirement.
Either way, they no doubt would be under extreme pressure to make
the numbers add up so that the state would avoid financial penalties.
At the same time, clients will find it impossible to meet a rigid 40
per week requirement that is more demanding than most employees
experience in the workplace where the average weekly hours worked was
34.5 hours in 2000.
As caseworkers see their job performance evaluated on how well they
meet ever more rigid and unrealistic numbers, they will face pressure
to sanction more people. The resulting increased tensions will, we
fear, lead to more abuse and threats of violence in the workplace.
Instead of these unrealistic and inflexible numerical goals, AFSCME
supports expanding on the flexibility currently in TANF to provide a
broad array of education, training, and support services as proposed in
Representative Cardin's bill (H.R. 3625). AFSCME also has worked with
the National Association of Social Workers, National Urban League, and
other unions to develop a quality improvement proposal that would
improve the effectiveness and productivity of TANF offices with
technology improvements, model caseworker training projects, and
research into caseworker-client ratios. We strongly urge you to include
these recommendations in the bill to be approved by the Subcommittee.
Program Accountability
The Administration's ``super waiver'' is the one area where it
proposes greater flexibility. This super waiver is designed to give
sweeping authority to the heads of five federal departments to waive
federal requirements to promote ``program integration.''
Although we have not been able to review the details of the super
waiver, we are concerned that it could lead to a de facto block
granting of federal programs, more privatization of services, and,
possibility, the conversion of federal grants into individual vouchers.
In all of these cases, we believe that accountability for federal
taxpayer funds will be weakened and that program goals will be
compromised.
We are especially concerned that ``integrating'' the Workforce
Investment Act (WIA) and Wagner-Peyser Act with TANF could mean a
redirection of Labor Department resources toward TANF clients and away
from workers not on welfare, who are served by WIA. In light of the
failure of the Administration to recommend any new resources to
accompany its new expectations for the TANF system, it is highly
probable that states will be forced to redirect resources from any
related programs to which they have access.
The experience with privatized administration of the TANF program
to date is instructive and should raise serious doubts about the loss
of protections for citizens and accountability to taxpayers when
services are privatized through with a contract process or a voucher
system.
One of the most profound changes in federal policy under TANF was
the elimination of the cash entitlement and the requirement for public
administration of the program. By 2000, less than one-third of TANF
funds was devoted to cash payments, while the rest was being spent on a
broad array of employment, training, and social services.
Two states, Florida and Wisconsin, are notable for the management
of their TANF programs. In Florida, TANF was ``integrated'' with the
new WIA programs under a single administrative entity called Workforce
Florida. In a striking departure, this not-for-profit corporation was
given unrestricted authority to make policy for the programs under its
control. In other words, it is performing important state policy-making
functions, and is not simply a service provider. The consequences of
the arrangement are discussed in an article titled ``Privatization of
TANF in Florida: A Cautionary Tale'' by Cindy Huddleston and Valory
Greenfield in the January-February edition of the Journal of Poverty
Law and Policy.
Huddleston and Greenfield point out that, while the Florida law
specifically made Workforce Florida subject to the state's public
records and sunshine laws, it did not mention the state's
Administrative Procedures Act. That law protects citizens by
prohibiting public agencies from acting arbitrarily, unilaterally, or
illegally. It gives individuals the right to notice and a hearing if
their substantial interests are affected by agency action. It requires
public notification and an opportunity for input on agency plans. To
date, according to the article, Workforce Florida has asserted that it
is not covered by the Act or bound by its requirements.
Another area of uncertainty in Florida has been the implications of
the privatized arrangement for constitutional due process protections,
which require government to use reasonable and fair procedures before
depriving citizens of benefits or other property interests. Neither
Workforce Florida nor the regional workforce boards have acknowledged
officially that TANF recipients must be provided due process before
being sanctioned or deprived of a service. Regional workforce boards
are not required to give written notice of decisions or the opportunity
of requesting a hearing. However, the related state agency, the Agency
for Workforce Innovation, recently has published guidance detailing a
framework for each local workforce board in setting up a grievance
procedure.
In Wisconsin, the privatized W-2 program in Milwaukee demonstrates
a different set of problems. At the start, the process was set up to
award state contracts to counties that demonstrated an aggressive
policy of reducing case loads. Milwaukee, where most of the state's
case load resided, was never seriously considered for a public
operation. The original competitive bidding process to select the five
private providers involved classic pitfalls, including underbidding by
three of the five private agencies that subsequently received $18.2
million in additional funds after the state awarded them contracts.
Millions of dollars in TANF funds were diverted from services to
the poor. Between 1997 and 1999, the five contractors earned profits in
the range of $26.2 million in TANF funds that were realized by reducing
case loads and, therefore, program costs. Among other things, they used
the funds to invest in various business enterprises including the
purchase of a cellular telephone company and real estate. State audits
have found that the private agencies misappropriated more than
$875,000. Among these expenditures was spending by Maximus for staff
parties and entertainment, pursuing welfare contracts in other states,
flowers, hotel bills for Maximus' top managers, and a political
contribution. Other audits found that Employment Solutions, Inc., a
subsidiary of Goodwill Industries, charged taxpayers for $810,000 in
staff bonuses, including a $61,000 bonus for the Executive Director,
and spent $270,000 in TANF funds to seek contracts in other states.
AFSCME strongly opposes expanding opportunities for more of these
arrangements through broad waiver authority. Instead, Congress should
require states to use public agencies to determine eligibility and pay
cash benefits and should apply additional accountability requirements
designed to protect the taxpaying public on states for the expenditure
of TANF funds. These requirements should provide the same or equivalent
protections as those available under federal requirements for fair and
impartial administration by merit system employees and the
constitutional protections inherent in public administration.
In summary, the Administration's recommendations for TANF
reauthorization offer too much flexibility in one area and far too
little in others. We believe the legislation proposed by
Representatives Cardin and Mink represents a far better approach, one
that focuses on the needs of poor families, instead of one driven by
arbitrary numbers.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Ms. Meiklejohn. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania to inquire.
Mr. ENGLISH. I will keep this brief. Ms. Meiklejohn, I
think you make some very good points on the issues of
privatization and nondisplacement, and I would welcome an
opportunity to review the language that we are working off of
now and see if there are some ways of accommodating your
concerns. I know that you raised these issues in 1996, and they
were at least in part accommodated in the language that we
ended up adopting.
It seems to me that there is fairly broad ideological
support for some of the concerns you are raising in Congress.
So, I suspect those two issues in particular are things that we
may be able to get Republicans and Democrats to agree on. So, I
appreciate your raising these issues more than really anyone
has so far, and I am grateful for the opportunity to hear your
testimony. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. English, and again we want
to thank all of our panelists for the outstanding testimony.
With that, I would like to call up panel 7, Rabbi David
Saperstein, Director and Counsel, Religious Action Center of
Reform Judaism; Kathleen A. Curran, Health and Welfare Policy
Advisor, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; Brenda Girton-
Mitchell, Associate General Secretary, Public Policy, National
Council of Churches of Christ in the USA; Sister Mary Elizabeth
Clark, Lobbyist, Network, a National Catholic Social Justice
Lobby; Reverend Nathan Wilson, Director of Public Policy;
Valora Washington, Ph.D., Executive Director, Unitarian
Universalist Service Committee. I understand we have a
replacement here for Rabbi Saperstein. Lauren Schumer? Ms.
Schumer, would you like to begin?
STATEMENT OF RABBI DAVID SAPERSTEIN, DIRECTOR, RELIGIOUS ACTION
CENTER OF REFORM JUDAISM, AS PRESENTED BY LAUREN SCHUMER,
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR
Ms. SCHUMER. Thank you. Rabbi Saperstein regrets that his
schedule did not allow him to remain this late to testify. My
name is Lauren Schumer. I am the Legislative Director at the
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, which represents
over 1,700 rabbis and 900 synagogues with 1.5 million members.
I am here today to address our Nation's welfare system and how
this Congress will fund it in next year's budget. The religious
communities of America care deeply about these issues.
The budget of the United States is the great moral document
of our Nation. It reflects the American Government's values,
priorities, and vision for the American people. Through it real
lives are shaped; opportunities and rights are enhanced or
diminished. Almost every one of the world's major faiths
teaches as a central tenet a variant of the core theme in the
Bible: The moral test of any society is what its economic and
social policies do or do not do for the most vulnerable of
God's children. These, the powerless and the voiceless, the
elderly, the ill, the widow, the orphan, the child, and the
stranger, are the members of America's society whom we,
lawmakers and advocates alike, are called to protect. Our
welfare system is a key expression of these values.
The 1996 welfare reform law ended the welfare system as we
knew it, but it did not end poverty as, alas, we still know it.
The question that haunts us still is whether our purpose and
the purpose of welfare reform is to reduce case loads or reduce
poverty; to save money or to save lives. As debate over TANF
intensifies, Congress has both the opportunity and the
obligation to remedy the program's failings.
The TANF's success has often been quantified by the
decreasing size of the welfare rolls. We must measure TANF's
success in terms of quality of life, not quantity of welfare
recipients. Poverty reduction, not case load reduction, must be
the principal goal of our national welfare policy.
The Administration's welfare proposal, as well as the
Chairman's, recognizes and attempts to remedy some of the
programmatic limitations of the 1996 law, such as the direct
provision of child support payments to mothers and children,
and the President's proposal would restore food stamps to legal
immigrants. We commend the administration for these steps in
the right direction. The restrictions are still too great, and
the levels of funding both for individual recipients and for
the welfare system as a whole remain distressingly low. We are
particularly alarmed to hear that the expansion of food stamps
to legal immigrants in the farm bill is currently under attack
in the Conference Committee. At the very least, the President's
own proposal to expand benefits to legal immigrants should be
included in the final version of the bill.
We have many concerns discussed in our written testimony,
but let me focus on one major concern, the level of funding.
First, TANF reauthorization should provide increased long-term
funding so that States cannot only continue their existing
programs, but also develop new poverty reduction strategies and
initiatives.
Second, the TANF block grant should be indexed to inflation
in order to avoid underfunding its essential programs.
Third, in order to reduce the disparity in funding
allocations among States relative to the number of people who
are poor, supplemental grants must be reinstated to States that
have low levels of funding per poor person or high rates of
growth.
Fourth, States must be allowed to carry over funds for cash
grants or for any other service or activity funded under TANF.
Fifth, instead of reducing the credit States receive for
moving recipients from welfare-to-work, States that make
progress in decreasing the poverty level of families moving
from welfare to self-sufficiency or in increasing child well-
being should be rewarded with performance bonuses.
Sixth, the 5-year limit should be lifted.
Seventh, there should be increased funding for poor
children and for child care.
Eighth, legal immigrants ought to be entitled to all
welfare benefits without a waiting period. We must ensure that
TANF is funded at a level that guarantees child care, job
training, health care, and nutrition assistance to help move
poor people out of poverty and into long-term self-sufficiency.
Only then will the cries of the poor be silenced. Only then
will we fulfill our moral obligation to share the bounties of
our Nation to those of God's children who are less fortunate
than we and who are depending on this Congress to provide
effective, fully funded programs to allow them and their
families to move from welfare-to-work, from poverty to self-
sufficiency, and from desperation to dignity. I thank you for
the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saperstein follows:]
Statement of Rabbi David Saperstein, Director, Religious Action of
Reform Judaism
Good morning Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Committee.
I am Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of the Religious Action Center of
Reform Judaism, which represents over 1700 rabbis and 900 synagogues
with 1.5 million members. I am also an attorney and for many years have
taught on the faculty of Georgetown University Law Center.
The 1996 welfare reform law ended the welfare system as we knew it,
but it did not end poverty in America. Child poverty is still too high,
too many families are strained, fragile, and broken, too many families
still have not found work and the purpose it brings. Although the
Administration's welfare proposal recognizes and attempts to remedy
some of the programmatic limitations of the 1996 law--such as
restoration of food stamp benefits to legal immigrants and direct
provision of child support payments to mothers and children--of
significant concern are the astonishingly low levels of funding
allocated to both individual programs and the welfare system as a
whole.
Funding levels, of course, reflect not only policy but moral
choices at work. That is why it has been said that the budget of the
United States is the great moral document of our nation. It reflects
the American Government's values, priorities and vision for the
American people. Through it, real lives are shaped, opportunities and
rights are enhanced or diminished. The moral test of any society is
what its economic and social policies do--or do not do--for the most
vulnerable of God's children. These--the powerless and the voiceless,
the elderly, the ill, the widow, the orphan, the child and the
stranger--are the members of American society whom we, lawmakers and
advocates alike, have been called to protect.
A powerful and pervasive theme in our tradition is the protections
and benefits we accord to the ger--the Hebrew term we erroneously
translate in the Bible as the ``stranger.'' The ger was not a person
just passing through (albeit they too we entitled to some social
benefits). The ger was the person who came to live in Israel, who was
willing to abide by the rules of our society, to work and pay taxes
whenever possible, to observe the non-ritual laws of Israel--and to
whom the Bible and the Talmud grant all the social benefits of the
society accorded to the Jews. Is that not exactly the situation of the
legal immigrant who comes to our nation?
The Census Bureau reports that there are over 30 million immigrants
living in the United States. This represents 11 percent of the total
population. Prior to 1996, legal immigrants were usually able to
receive public benefits on the same basis as U.S. citizens. With the
passage of TANF, eligibility is now based on citizenship status rather
than legal status.
The changes in law came at the same time as the immigrant
population reached near-record levels throughout the country. The
largest immigrant group, immigrants admitted as lawful permanent
residents--in most cases for family reunification purposes--is
ineligible for benefits. Present policy has an extremely negative
impact on the children of immigrants. According to the Center on Budget
and Policy priorities, more than one in five low-income children in the
United States live in noncitizen families. Nearly 40 percent of these
families have difficulty affording food, compared with 27 percent of
native-born families. Children of immigrants are twice as likely to
live in families that pay more than 50 percent of their income for a
place to live. They are more than four times as likely to live in
crowded housing. The moral fiber of our nation, a nation that wishes to
help not harm; to aid, not to assault; to develop not to destroy;
depends on the recognition that moral public policy must create a zone
of protection for all Americans.
Jewish tradition commands us, ``You shall not wrong a stranger or
oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.'' Just two
weeks ago Jews around the world celebrated our exodus from slavery in
Egypt. As Jews, we are commanded to retell the story of our exodus. At
the Passover seder meal, we are commanded to invite all who are hungry
and all who are in need to come to our table and to share in our
celebration. We are commanded to invite Jew and non-Jew alike; we are
commanded to invite both our neighbors and those we do not know.
The story of the immigrant is a shared story. Throughout our
collective history Jews have been immigrants, strangers in strange
lands. We have faced great hardship and persecution, but we have also
flourished. The story of the immigrant is the story of America. And,
with support from our elected officials, we can be confident that the
best chapters are yet to be written.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program outlines
America's public policy priorities in the fight against poverty. If we
are to truly combat poverty, TANF's budget must reflect the economic
realities of our day. The Administration's proposal purports to
maintain the same overall funding since the 1996 welfare reform law by
freezing the TANF block grant at $16.5 billion. The value of the block
grant fell by 13.5 percent between Fiscal Year 1997 and Fiscal Year
2002. If it is not adjusted for inflation, the real value of the block
grant in 2007 will be 22 percent below its 1997 value--in effect, a
significant cut for working families. According to the Treasury
Department, TANF spending by states totaled $18.5 billion in Fiscal
Year 2001--about $2 billion more than the annual block grant provided.
Between March and September 2001, cash assistance case loads rose in 33
states. States have had to dip into their unspent reserves in order to
meet growing need. Some states, such as Montana, have shifted TANF
funds from work support programs to cash assistance because of case
load increases. States will have to scale back program funding as they
exhaust their reserves unless additional resources are made available
through reauthorization. If the funding levels in the block grant
continue to decrease in inflation-adjusted terms while states continue
to deplete their TANF reserves, these states will have to make even
deeper cuts over time. Freezing the block grant will significantly
jeopardize the ability of individual states to provide adequate job
training and other crucial programs to help those experiencing poverty
rise to a level of self-sufficiency. At a minimum, the TANF block grant
should be indexed to inflation in order to avoid under-funding its
essential programs. In fact, TANF reauthorization must provide
increased long-term funding so that states can not only continue their
existing programs, but also develop new poverty-reduction strategies
and initiatives. In order to reduce the disparity in funding
allocations among states relative to the number of people who are poor,
Supplemental Grants must be reinstated to states that have low levels
of funding per poor person or high rates of growth. States must be
allowed to carry over funds for cash grants or for any other service or
activity funded under TANF. Instead of reducing the credit states
receive for moving recipients from welfare-to-work, states that make
progress in decreasing the poverty level of families moving from
welfare to self-sufficiency or in increasing child well-being should be
rewarded with performance bonuses.
The Administration's proposal would increase the number of hours
welfare recipients must work in order to receive cash assistance from
30 to 40 hours per week. The proposal creates a number of problems for
states administering welfare programs. The Administration's proposal to
increase the number of hours recipients must work to receive cash
assistance from 30 hours per week to 40 hours per week means that only
five states (Alaska, Hawaii, New Hampshire, New York, and Wisconsin)
would be able to meet the Federal Labor Standards Act provisions that
require that a welfare recipient work no more hours than those
calculated by taking the amount of the combined cash assistance and
food stamp benefit and dividing it by the minimum wage.
In addition, we are concerned that the increased work requirement
will result in welfare recipients being forced to take low-paying,
dead-end jobs rather than jobs that hold the promise of future economic
stability and sustainability. In a recent National Governors'
Association survey, 38 states reported that the new work requirements
would force them to create costly ``make-work'' jobs. Instead of
focusing simply on case load reduction, TANF should provide quality
education and job training instead of unpaid public works programs that
would consume significant resources now dedicated to effective job
training and meaningful employment.
The TANF block grant at its current level would not cover the cost
of cash assistance under the Administration's proposal, much less the
increased demand in child care and transportation that would result
from increasing the overall state work participation rate from 50
percent to 70 percent in 5 years. Essentially, the Administration's
proposal costs states more money, but does not include any increase in
the TANF block grant.
President Bush's proposal also cuts funding for children. The
President's pledge to ``continue to maintain historically high levels
of support for child care'' will actually limit the availability of
child care funding. TANF funding is a vital component of state child
care assistance programs, and states are increasingly dependent upon
this funding to address their child care needs. States can transfer up
to 30 percent of their TANF funds to the Child Care and Development
Block Grant, or directly spend TANF dollars on child care without
transferring the funds to the CCDBG. TANF is already a greater source
of child care funding than the CCDBG: In 2000, states redirected $3.9
billion in TANF funds to child care, compared to $3.5 billion spent
through the CCDBG. The CCDBG itself requires increased investment, as
well. According to the Children's Defense Fund, although only one in
seven children eligible for CCDBG assistance currently receives help
from the program, a child care budget that does not include increases
for inflation means that 30,000 fewer children will be able to be
helped. Freezing the child care budget for the next five years will
require cutting 114,000 children from child care programs by Fiscal
Year 2007. A significant portion of the increasing need for child care
funds is due to salary costs. The salaries of child care workers cannot
be frozen over the next five years, and the already rising costs of
providing these services will necessarily continue to rise. Child care
is vital to the efforts of low-income parents to get and keep jobs. The
Administration's proposed child care budget would be a devastating blow
to the welfare system's ability to ensure that all children are fully
prepared to enter school and would jeopardize its efforts to help
families become truly self-sufficient. A nation that neglects its
children is a nation that short-changes its future. Unconscionably, the
proposals before us now would condemn the most vulnerable of God's
children to suffering and deprivation.
In addition to our misgivings about inadequate funding for TANF, we
are concerned about significant funding allocations for misguided
programs within the Administration's welfare reform proposal. Of
particular concern is a proposal to spend $135 million on abstinence-
only sexuality education programs. Contrary to the argument made by
abstinence-only advocates, studies have overwhelmingly shown that
abstinence-only programs do not deter or delay sexual activity. No
credible scientific evidence exists to show the effectiveness of
sexuality education programs that exclude information about
contraception. In fact, a 1997 report by the United Nations examined 22
HIV/AIDS and comprehensive sexuality education programs indicates that
it is these comprehensive programs that are demonstrably effective in
delaying the onset of sexual activity, reducing the number of sexual
partners, and decreasing the incidences of sexually transmitted
diseases and unplanned pregnancies. In addition, the President's
proposal allocates $500 million for programs to promote marriage. While
we agree that healthy marriages are a critical cornerstone of our
nation, we hesitate when the government attempts to narrowly define
what constitutes a healthy family. We are troubled by the proposal's
exclusion of plans to strengthen overall family life at America's
increasingly diverse contemporary family table. While we support
initiatives to provide accurate and effective sexuality education and
programs to strengthen families, we cannot afford to pour these
desperately needed funds into such highly flawed programs.
As debate over TANF reauthorization intensifies, Congress has both
the opportunity and the obligation to remedy the program's failings.
The overarching goals set out for TANF in 1996 were admirable, but the
specific policies and regulations used to achieve these goals often
fell far short of the mark. TANF's ``success'' has often been
quantified by the decreasing size of the welfare rolls. Although the
total number of people on welfare has certainly been reduced, TANF has
not alleviated the depth or breadth of poverty in the United States. We
must measure TANF's success in terms of quality of life, not quantity
of welfare recipients. Poverty reduction, not case load reduction, must
be the principal goal of our national welfare policy.
Just prior to the passage of the 1996 welfare reform legislation,
the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the lay body of the Reform
Jewish Movement, passed a comprehensive resolution on ``Our Economic
Commitment to America's Poor.'' The resolution recognized the
importance of prudent fiscal reforms and of welfare reform, but
asserted that reform must not result in undue burdens to the most
needy. The resolution further asserted that ``the United States
Government [must] . . . ensure an adequate, federally guaranteed safety
net to protect our nation's most vulnerable populations.'' Any
legislation that does not meet this standard should not be passed by
Congress or signed into law by the President.
Judaism has long recognized the need to promote the health and
well-being of all members of society and the responsibility of working
to realize the Biblical vision that ``there shall be no needy among
you.'' The great scholar Maimonides taught that the highest degree of
tzedakah--charity--is to enable a person to earn his or her own
livelihood. All faith communities are united by commandments to share
our bread with the hungry, to protect the stranger in our midst, and to
care for the poor and vulnerable children in our communities.
In the rulings of Jewish texts and in the implementation of those
rulings during the 1500 years of the self-governing Jewish community,
the government and the public sector played a central role in achieving
social justice. By Talmudic times, at least four communal funds (food,
clothing, burial, and money funds), plus communal schools for all
children, were required in every sizeable community. By the Middle
Ages, these had grown into a veritable bureaucracy of social welfare
institutions, rivaling our own today, with extensive communal
regulation of the environment, consumer rights, and worker's rights.
Tzedakah functioned as a system of taxation, not a voluntary
philanthropic enterprise. Since members of the Jewish community were
compelled to support these institutions, there are analogous in our own
time to government institutions, not to voluntary private charities.
In fact, we are deeply concerned with the Administration's interest
in using faith as a tool with which to fight poverty and substance
abuse. President Bush has made clear his support for ending
``discrimination against faith-based organizations that compete for
contracts to provide social services to people who need help,'' and he
has also said that ``one sure way'' to treat those with substance abuse
problems is to ``introduce them to faith.'' Faith-based organizations
certainly deserve support and encouragement for the important work they
do and the valuable services they provide. However, if we are to
protect the First Amendment and the religious liberty of all Americans,
we must ensure that pervasively religious organizations do not receive
direct funding from the government, preferential treatment, or
exemptions from civil rights regulations. We must also ensure that the
beneficiaries of social services provided by faith-based organizations
are not subjected to proselytization or religious indoctrination when
they go to obtain their government benefits. Finally, we must ensure
that religious organizations do not become the sole providers of social
services in America, absolving the government of its responsibility to
assist those in need. We must continue to look for ways to improve
much-needed social services and support the good works of faith-based
organizations, but we must do it without threatening America's ``first
freedom.''
Since the Great Depression, America's policy makers have sought to
provide for vulnerable populations and have woven a safety net for
America's poor, unfortunate and disadvantaged. Our government has a
moral responsibility to ensure that welfare programs provide real jobs,
real job training, and a real safety net to Americans in need. That
responsibility inherently includes providing the necessary dollars to
make these vital programs work. Breaking the chains of poverty cannot
morally be accomplished by underfunding these vital programs which
provide the most basic needs to the hungry and the strangers and the
child. We must ensure that TANF is funded at a level which guarantees
child care, job training, health care, and nutrition assistance to help
move people out of poverty and into long-term self-sufficiency. Only
then will the cries of the poor be silenced; only then will we be free
of our moral obligation to share the bounties of our nation with those
of God's children who are less fortunate than we and who are depending
on this Congress to provide effective, fully-funded programs to allow
them and their families to move from welfare-to-work, from poverty to
self-sufficiency, and from desperation to dignity.
Mr. ENGLISH. [Presiding.] Thank you, Ms. Schumer. Ms.
Curran, your testimony, please.
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN A. CURRAN, POLICY ADVISOR, UNITED STATES
CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS
Ms. CURRAN. Thank you Chairman Herger and you, Mr. English,
and the Members of the Subcommittee for this opportunity to
present the views of the United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops as you consider appropriators for TANF reauthorization.
In 1995, the administrative board of the Bishops'
Conference outlined six criteria for reform. As we did then, we
urge lawmakers to enact welfare policies that will protect
human life and dignity, strengthen family life, encourage and
reward work, preserve a safety net for the vulnerable, build
public/private partnerships to overcome poverty, and invest in
human dignity.
With these principles in mind, we believe TANF
reauthorization presents an opportunity and a challenge to
sharpen our focus on the persistent problem of poverty in this
most prosperous of nations. We must do our best to make sure
that no one who works in this country will see their family in
need. We must give States the policy tools and resources they
need to help low-income Americans leave poverty and dependence
and achieve self-sufficiency.
We must make clear that addressing the moral scandal of so
much poverty, especially among children, in the richest Nation
on Earth is a key goal of our national welfare policy. We can
do this through a three-pronged strategy of policies that
support work, strengthen families and marriages, and sustain
the needy and vulnerable among us, especially our children, and
by dedicating adequate resources to accomplish these goals, by
funding TANF at least at the current levels adjusted for
inflation.
My longer statement, which has been submitted for the
record, suggests several policy directions in each of these
areas, but for now I will just touch on a few. First, TANF
recipients need more than just any job. They need a pathway out
of poverty, and for many that means access to education and job
training and in some cases substance abuse treatment as well as
a job. States should have greater flexibility to choose to
count job training, vocational and postsecondary education, and
substance abuse treatment toward work requirements, alone or in
conjunction with an employment requirement. Several of the
current reauthorization proposals include ideas on these
issues, and we hope the final legislation will make progress in
these areas.
We support continuing TANF's emphasis on work; however, we
share the various concerns that have been raised about current
proposals that would simultaneously increase State work
participation rates, increase to 40 the hours per week required
of individuals, and end the case load reduction credit. The
concerns are about whether such changes made together would be
achievable or would limit the flexibility of States to continue
the programs they have developed to get recipients off
assistance and dependence and into employment. Given the
potential impact of such changes, we urge Congress not to adopt
an approach that combines these elements as currently proposed,
particularly without significant increases in funding for child
care and for States to develop the large-scale work experience
or community service programs they would need to ensure that
the new work targets would be met without diverting resources
from current employment focused programs and work supports.
Programs to increase to 40 the hours of activities required
appear to assume that 40 hours constitutes a standard full work
week, but according to data from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, for many American workers, especially those in the
kind of jobs TANF recipients are likely to have, the average
work week is 35 hours or less, and that includes paid leave
time. Thus, requiring TANF recipients to engage in 40 hours of
activities per week actually holds them to a higher standard
than many other parents who work.
Second, there has been and will be much discussion about
marriage and family formation policies in TANF reauthorization.
For decades our welfare policy actively discouraged the
formation and maintenance of two-parent married families. One
valuable aspect of our 1996 welfare reform law was the
recognition that our National policies must support families,
not undermine them, and help parents in meeting their
responsibilities to their children. Children do better
economically, emotionally, and spiritually when raised by both
parents in the context of a stable, healthy marriage, and we
should make appropriate efforts to encourage abstinence before
marriage, to assist single parents considering marriage, and to
help married parents to stay together. Yet we must also
recognize that many factors in our society, including the
realities of domestic violence and destructive behavior, leave
many single parents struggling to support children on their
own. Single parents deserve our help, too, without feeling
coerced into entering into inappropriate marriages or staying
in dangerous relationships. At the very least, we hope there is
agreement that the first step in a promarriage policy should be
to end more stringent State and federal TANF requirements for
two-parent families, and we urge Congress to do so.
Third, in 1996, legal immigrants were categorically barred
from public benefits programs. The Bishops' Conference has long
advocated for the availability of basic necessities to all
those in need, regardless of their race, creed, ethnic origin,
or nationality, and we urge you to restore benefit eligibility
to legal immigrants.
Fourth, access to food stamps and Medicaid can mean the
difference between success or failure, hunger and illness, or
progress for those struggling to leave welfare for work. The
law should ensure that welfare leavers are automatically
eligible for Medicaid and food stamps for a full year after
they leave TANF, and States should be required to make sure
leavers know they are eligible for these benefits and that they
are able to access them.
Finally, 23 States restrict or deny additional cash
benefits when a TANF family's size increases because of the
birth of a baby. We urge Congress to amend TANF to ban State
family cap policies on pro-life and pro-family principles. The
Bishops' Conference has long opposed such policies because of
deep concern about their impact on the well-being of children
both born and unborn.
Finally, we urge Congress to avoid casting TANF
reauthorization in terms of false choices that will diminish
public debate and people's lives. Refuse to pose welfare reform
as a choice between encouraging greater individual
responsibility or accepting greater social responsibility. Both
are necessary to help families overcome poverty. Refuse to pose
welfare reform as a choice between investing in decent work,
child care and education and training or recognizing the
importance of responsible parenthood and healthy marriages.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Curran follows:]
Statement of Kathleen A. Curran, Policy Advisor, United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops
Chairman Herger and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is
Kathleen A. Curran and I am policy advisor on health and welfare issues
with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' (USCCB). I
welcome this opportunity to share with you the views of the Bishops'
Conference as you consider proposals for reauthorization of the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program (TANF).
In the 1990s, we as a nation reexamined the welfare structure that
had evolved over several decades, and called for a reform of the way in
which we help those among us in need. Our Conference was among those
urging fundamental reform of a system that did not serve recipients,
taxpayers or our society as well as it should have. The debate over how
to change that system culminated in the 1996 passage of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, replacing the
Aid to Families with Dependent Children entitlement program with TANF
block grants to the states, a time-limited assistance program focusing
heavily on reducing welfare case loads and moving people into work.
While it is encouraging that case loads have fallen by over 50% through
fiscal year 2001, it is clear that not all recipients who leave TANF do
so to take a job of any sort, let alone stable full-time work that
allows them to support their families in dignity.
In considering whether and how to amend TANF, facts and figures,
numbers and statistics can be necessary and important tools, both in
assessing the effects so far of the 1996 law and in developing new
policies and new ways to measure future effects. But I urge you to
remember that is all they are--tools. Simply setting, meeting and
assessing numerical goals--whether for reducing case loads, boosting
work participation rates or increasing the incidence of marriage--must
not become the measure of our nations welfare policy. We must not lose
sight of the real families, real individuals, real children whose lives
will be deeply affected by the changes that will be made in TANF. We
must seize the need to reauthorize the TANF program as an opportunity,
and a challenge, to sharpen our focus on the persistent problem of
poverty in this, the most prosperous of nations. We must do our best to
make sure no one who works in this country will see their family in
need. We must give states the policy tools and resources they need to
help low-income Americans leave poverty and dependence and achieve
self-sufficiency.
Thus, as the nation turns to TANF reauthorization, we must make
clear that reducing poverty, especially among children, is a central
goal of our national welfare policy. We can do this in two ways. First,
we should amend the law to include poverty reduction among the stated
goals and develop appropriate incentives for states to reduce the
extent and depth of poverty within their borders. Second, we should
assess welfare policies, both current and proposed, by whether they
will be effective in alleviating the poverty of our sisters and
brothers and in helping them to improve their own lives and the lives
of their families.
The central challenge we face is not just people in need of help,
but the tragedy of so many families living without dignity and hope in
our nation. While some would focus instead on child well-being, these
goals are not contradictory. There ought to be a way bring together
both goals, measuring welfare reform by how it reduces poverty in a
land of plenty and how it improves the lives of its children.
Principles For Welfare Reform
The Administrative Board of the Bishops' Conference articulated
principles for welfare reform in 1995 which retain their relevance
today. I reiterate what the Bishops said then: the Conference's intent
in offering its reflection on welfare policy is not to align itself
with a particular partisan or ideological agenda. We draw our
directions from consistent Catholic moral principles, guided by
traditional values: respect for human life and dignity; the importance
of family and the value of work; an option for the poor and the call to
participation; and the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity.
We also draw upon the Church's experience living with, serving, and
being the poor among us. The poor are our neighbors and our
parishioners. The Catholic community, perhaps the largest
nongovernmental provider of human services to poor families, meets the
poor in our soup kitchens, shelters and Catholic Charities agencies.
Our community has lived with the realities of welfare reform,
encouraging and helping people to make the transition from welfare-to-
work. But we also live with those who are left behind, who turn to our
parishes, eat in our soup kitchens, sleep in our shelters and ask for
our help. Some are moving ahead and we welcome and celebrate their
progress. But some are left behind and this is the unfinished task for
our nation, which seeks ``liberty and justice for all.''
In light of our principles and our everyday experiences, our
Conference will apply six principles in evaluating proposals for
changes during TANF reauthorization. We urge lawmakers to enact polices
that:
Protect human life and human dignity: A fundamental criterion for
all public policy, including welfare policy, is respect for human life
and human dignity. In particular, we must protect the lives and dignity
of vulnerable children, whether born or unborn, and develop policies
that safeguard children and discourage inappropriate or morally
destructive behavior.
Strengthen family life: Our welfare policy should affirm the
importance of marriage, strong intact families, personal
responsibility, self-discipline, sacrifice and basic morality. It
should help mothers and fathers meet the social, economic, educational
and moral needs of their children. We should strive to keep marriages
strong and families together, and, when that is not possible, to keep
fathers involved in the lives of their children in a healthy and
constructive manner.
Encourage and reward work: Those who can work, should work. Work is
the means by which individuals support themselves and their families,
participate in Gods creation, express their dignity, and contribute to
the common good of society. The challenge is to ensure that our nations
policies support productive work with wages and benefits that permit a
family to live in dignity.
Preserve a safety net for the vulnerable: Society has a
responsibility to help meet the needs of those who cannot care for
themselves, who through no fault of their own cannot work or whose work
is caring for young children or disabled family members. Our policies
should help and sustain the most vulnerable among us, enhancing the
ability of all children, including immigrant children, to grow into
productive adults. Legal immigrants should be eligible for benefits on
the same terms as citizens, and the children of undocumented persons
should not be left without help.
Build public/private partnerships to overcome poverty: Overcoming
poverty and dependency requires creative, responsive and effective
actions in both the public and private sectors. Under the TANF block
grants, states have been given a high degree of flexibility in shaping
programs to meet the needs of their populations and to draw more upon
the skill and responsiveness of community institutions. We must strive
to achieve and preserve the appropriate balance between the roles of
the federal and state governments and private entities in fighting
poverty. This is why we support the Presidents faith-based and
community initiatives proposal. While we support the active role of
states and of faith-based and community groups, their efforts cannot
replace the important responsibility of the Federal Government, on
behalf of our entire society, to establish just public policy and to
commit sufficient national resources to meet the basic needs of the
American people.
Invest in human dignity: To continue and complete the work of
welfare reform begun in 1996, we will continue to need significant
public investment in TANF. We cannot let declining case loads deceive
us into thinking we can reduce TANF block grants. The commitment and
effort of individuals seeking to leave welfare for work, poverty for
self-sufficiency, must be met by a public commitment to provide the
jobs, training, education, child care, health care, transportation and
other supports necessary to make that transition successfully.
In pursuing these principles, we urge the Congress to avoid casting
TANF reauthorization in terms of false choices that will diminish
public debate and peoples' lives. Refuse to pose welfare reform as a
choice between encouraging greater responsibility or accepting greater
social responsibility--both are necessary to help families overcome
poverty. Refuse to pose welfare reform as a choice between investing in
decent work, child care, and education and training, or recognizing the
importance of healthy marriages and responsible parenthood--both are
necessary to improve children's lives. Children's lives and their hope
for the future are enhanced or diminished by the choices of their
parents and the policies of their government. Reauthorization is an
opportunity to improve TANF to encourage wise choices by their families
and wise investments by our nation in decent work, child care, and
education and training.
Do not draw our circle of concern too tightly. Single parents and
two parent couples struggle to raise their families in dignity. The
children of parents who were born here and of those who came here to
escape poverty and conflict are equally deserving of our help. Help not
only those who can move from welfare-to-work with a little push and
minimal assistance, but also those trapped without skills or education
or facing addiction or disability. Do not be afraid to insist on
performance and commitment from states as well as families in need,
holding states accountable for programs that help people not only leave
dependency, but also to leave poverty behind.
Lastly, avoid an overly ideological, polarized and partisan debate
over TANF reauthorization that will only undermine the steps our nation
must take to overcome poverty and restore human dignity for our
families and children.
A Strategy For Addressing Poverty Through TANF Reauthorization
With these principles in mind, we urge that a central goal for TANF
reauthorization should be to address the moral scandal of so much
poverty in the richest nation on earth. To accomplish this, TANF should
seek to reduce poverty through a three-pronged strategy of supporting
meaningful work, strengthening family life and marriage, and sustaining
the needy and vulnerable among us, especially our children; and to
ensure adequate resources to accomplish these goals by committing to
TANF funding levels at least equal to current levels adjusted for
inflation. I would like to suggest some policy directions in each of
these three areas, touching on only some of the many issues that TANF
reauthorization will encompass. I am pleased to note that several of
these ideas are reflected in various of the reauthorization proposals
that have already been put forward.
Supporting Meaningful Work
1. Expand the definition of work to include education and substance
abuse treatment: TANF recipients need more than just any job--they need
a pathway out of poverty, and for many that means access to education
and job training, and in some cases, substance abuse treatment, as well
as a job. Under current law, individuals may count only vocational
education training towards work participation, for a maximum of 12
months, and states may allow no more than 30% of their case load to do
so. But serious efforts to get a college degree or overcome an
addiction is hard work and should be recognized as such. States should
have greater flexibility to count job training, vocational and post-
secondary education and substance abuse treatment towards work
requirements, alone or in conjunction with an employment requirement.
For instance, states could be given the option to allow participants to
count education towards work after a one or two year period of
employment.
Several of the current reauthorization proposals include ideas in
this area which deserve support. For example, most of them include some
provision for allowing states to count as work activities, for limited
periods of time, substance abuse or other programs to address work
obstacles. We hope the final legislation will include similar
provisions, and in the case of substance abuse, will give states the
flexibility to include longer treatment programs of up to nine months.
With respect to educational activities, allowing states to count 24
months of vocational and educational training as work, or allowing
states to have a percentage of TANF recipients in so-called ``Parents
as Scholars'' programs, combining work and post-secondary education,
are promising ideas found in current proposals.
2. Ensure that those leaving welfare have access to transitional
benefits: Food and basic health care are essential building blocks for
life. As welfare recipients make the transition from cash assistance to
relying on work income alone, access to noncash benefits such as food
stamps and Medicaid can mean the difference between success or failure,
hunger and illness or progress. The law should ensure that welfare
leavers have automatic and meaningful access to Medicaid and food
stamps for a full year after they leave TANF. TANF leavers are eligible
for one-year transitional Medicaid coverage; they should be
automatically eligible for food stamps for one year as well.
In addition to granting automatic eligibility, states should be
required to make sure those leaving TANF understand that they are
eligible for these benefits and that they are able to access them.
Studies have indicated that former welfare recipients who are eligible
for but do not receive food stamps and Medicaid often do not realize
they are eligible, or are unable to navigate complicated administrative
requirements, including midday appointments at state offices forcing
them to miss work. States must streamline their processes so new
workers do not have to choose between obtaining needed benefits and
keeping their jobs, between work and feeding their families, between
employment and health care.
3. Child care assistance: Finding and paying for adequate child
care can be one of the biggest challenges facing parents trying to move
from welfare-to-work. The problem is exacerbated for parents who must
work weekend or night shift jobs, times when child care is particularly
hard to find. As with food stamps and Medicaid, many families leaving
TANF do not receive child care assistance even though they are
eligible. We must make sure all working parents have access to safe,
affordable child care at the times they need it by increasing funding
for federal child care assistance programs such as the Child Care and
Development Block Grant (which must also be reauthorized next year) and
the Social Services Block Grant, by making sure low-income parents know
they are eligible, and by increasing the availability of adequate child
care facilities. Several reauthorization proposals call for additional
CCDBG funding, and we urge the Subcommittee to incorporate additional
resources for child care in its TANF legislation.
4. Flexibility in time limits: A five-year time limit on federally-
funded cash assistance was one of the hallmarks of the 1996 law, and
for many time limits appear to have provided the motivation needed to
get into, or back into, the workforce. But for others, especially those
who must overcome many obstacles to work, time limits can be arbitrary
and punitive. I urge you to look seriously at ways to give states more
flexibility in how they apply time limits while continuing to use
federal TANF funds, so they can make time limits work for all
recipients. For example, states could have the option to ``stop the
clock''--to continue providing cash assistance to recipients complying
with work requirements and not count those months towards the five-year
time limit. Or states could experiment with allowing working TANF
participants to ``earn back'' time against the time limit. States could
be given the option of granting extensions to the five-year time limit,
for example when a downturn in the economy means working former
participants face layoffs and the inability to find work despite their
best efforts.
5. Caution in modifying work requirements: Under current law,
states must have 50% of families that receive TANF engaged in specified
``work activities'' for a total of 30 hours per week, with a shorter
list of activities countable for the first 20 hours. (Single parents of
children under six need work only a total of 20 hours per week to be
counted, and higher standards apply to two-parent families.) States are
eligible for a credit that reduces the 50% work participation
requirement--a percentage reduction in total case loads earns an equal
reduction in the participation rate requirement. case loads have fallen
so significantly that most states were subject to minimal or even no
work participation requirement. Nonetheless, on average states had 34%
of their case loads meeting the work requirements in 2000.
Among the proposals for TANF reauthorization that have been put
forward, two would increase both the work participation rates that
states must meet (from 50% to 70%) and the hours of activities
individuals must engage in to be counted towards the work participation
rates (from 30 hours to 40 hours per week). In one proposal, the first
24 hours would be limited to employment, work experience or community
service activities, with no flexibility to include job search or
vocational education activities (which are now allowed to count toward
the first 20 hours of the 30 hour requirement.) Both proposals would
end the case load reduction credit. (In one proposal, the case load
reduction credit would be replaced by a new employment credit, a
promising idea we urge you to pursue.)
While we support continuing TANFs emphasis on work, we share the
serious concerns that have been raised about whether current proposals
that combine these three elements--increasing state participation
rates, increasing hours per week, and ending the case load reduction
credit--are achievable and whether they would limit the flexibility of
the states to continue the programs they have developed to implement
welfare reform in a way that meet the needs of their people. Given the
potential impact of such changes in the work requirements, we urge
Congress not to adopt an approach that combines these elements as
currently proposed.
For the most part, states appear to have preferred to focus on
getting recipients into employment, over establishing large work
experience or community service programs. Two-thirds of the recipients
who counted towards work participation rates in FY 2000 were pursuing
unsubsidized employment, while 10.6% were in work experience and 6.4%
were doing community service. Studies of welfare-to-work programs in
the 1990s indicate that programs combining a range of strategies and
services, including mandatory work, job search, life skills, and work-
focused education and training, were more successful at moving
recipients off of welfare and into work than more rigid programs that
used only one strategy.
The combined impact of the proposed changes in the work
requirements would almost certainly force states to divert more
resources to developing large-scale work-experience or community
service programs to ensure that the new work targets would be met.
States would also have to find ways to increase spending on child
care--more single parents would have to spend more hours each week
engaged in activities and away from their children. Unless such changes
were accompanied by significant increases in the TANF block grants and
for child care programs, states would face the prospect of having to
turn programs designed to get people into employment, into programs
that simply keep people busy for the required number of hours, and to
focus their child care spending on TANF recipients, at the expense of
other low-income workers.
Press reports of a recent survey of states by the National
Governors Association and the American Public Health Services
Association indicate that states are concerned about the impact of such
proposals. According to the reports, 39 of the 44 states participating
in the survey fear these increased work requirements would be
counterproductive, undermining their efforts to end welfare dependency
by moving recipients into the workforce. They are also worried that
meeting such requirements would limit their ability to dedicate
resources to work supports such as training, child care and
transportation services.
The intent of such proposals appears to be to ensure that TANF
retains a strong ``work-first'' emphasis, by seeing to it that
recipients are engaged in a full workweek of activity. The assumption
is that 40 hours of activities per week constitutes a full workweek.
But for many American workers, especially those in the kinds of jobs
TANF recipients are likely to have, the average workweek is 35 hours or
less. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) considers 35 hours per
week to constitutes full-time work, and reports that in 2001 service
sector workers averaged under 33 hours per week, while retail-sector
workers on average worked just under 29 hours per week. BLS data also
indicates that 24.1% of American workers--and one-third of unmarried
women--work fewer than 35 hours per week. When gathering these data,
BLS counts as hours worked paid-leave time, such as sick leave or
vacation. It does not appear that holiday, sick time or other forms of
necessary time-off would count towards the proposed higher 40 hour TANF
requirement. This would be a particular hardship for TANF recipients,
who tend to face more of the kinds of obstacles that require time away
from work, such as child care crises, care giving for sick or disabled
relatives, and the need to interact with the benefits system during
office hours. Thus, requiring TANF recipients to engage in 40 hours of
activities per week actually holds them to a higher standard than many
other parents who work.
Strengthening Family Life and Marriage
1. Affirm the value of marriage, but do not abandon single parent
families: For decades, our welfare policy actively discouraged the
formation and maintenance of two-parent married families. One valuable
aspect of the 1996 welfare reform law was the recognition that our
national policies must support families, not undermine them, and help
parents in meeting their responsibilities to their children. The
Catholic community has consistently affirmed the vital importance of
marriage for raising children. Children do better economically,
emotionally, and spiritually when raised by both parents in the context
of a stable, healthy marriage. Out-of-wedlock birth and divorce
significantly diminish the well-being of our children. We must make
appropriate efforts to encourage abstinence before marriage, to assist
single parents considering marriage and to help married parents to stay
together.
Yet we also recognize that many factors in our society, such as the
widespread tragedy of divorce and the realities of domestic violence
and destructive behavior, leave many single parents struggling to
support children on their own. Single parents deserve our help, too,
without feeling coerced into entering into inappropriate marriages or
staying in dangerous relationships. It is essential that we both
provide the resources necessary to enable all parents, married or
single, to meet the needs of their families, and develop appropriate
policies to support and strengthen marriage.
2. Remove barriers and disincentives to two-parent families. We
should all be able to agree that the first step in a pro-marriage
policy should be to end penalties against two-parent families
struggling to meet their responsibilities. Many states continue to
implement pre-TANF policies that make it harder for two-parent families
to qualify for and receive TANF assistance. For example, two-parent
families may be forced to wait longer for benefits to begin than
single-parent families, or be disqualified because of the parents'
recent work history, even if the family's income is below the poverty
level. Congress should require states to discontinue policies, such as
these, that act as a disincentive to marriage. Congress should also end
the separate, more stringent work participation rate requirements for
two-parent families in TANF itself.
3. Help States Do More to Support Effective Marriage Programs:
States currently have the authority to spend TANF funds on marriage
support programs, and should be encouraged to assist low-income married
couples who would benefit from marital counseling or marriage-skills
programs. For example, our colleagues at Catholic Charities USA have
developed a promising proposal to create a $100 million grant program
through which states could help low-income parents who are married, or
who seek to marry, gain access to services they other wise might not be
able to afford, such as marriage counseling, relationship skills
classes, premarital counseling and marriage preparation, marriage-
skills classes.
While many groups and faith-based organizations, including our
Church, sponsor a range of marriage-support programs, we have much to
learn about what strategies are most effective in addressing specific
problems. Investing modest amounts of funding for demonstration and
pilot programs to identify ``best practices'' and for a clearinghouse
on effective programs would help states get information they need to
assess and implement effective and appropriate marriage and family
formation programs. We are pleased that several of the reauthorization
proposals would create funding for these purposes.
While we believe it is appropriate to take measured steps to
encourage and help states to do more to support marriage, lawmakers
need to evaluate every proposal to be sure it would not have the
unintended effect of forcing or pressuring couples into marriage.
Congress should be wary, for example, of measuring state progress in
this area in a manner that relies too much on simply counting the
number of marriages or the numbers of children living with married
parents.
In sum, we urge you to seek out policies that encourage and assist
states to support marriage and to work with unwed parents who wish to
marry, but efforts to promote marriage should not come at the expense
of single parents or their children, either directly or indirectly, by
diverting essential resources or inadvertently pressuring people into
inappropriate marriages. We support efforts to reward all parents for
making wise choices, but must not punish children for the choices of
their parents.
4. Involve non-custodial fathers in their children's lives. When
parents are not married, we must find ways to encourage the active
presence of both parents in the lives of their children. Most often,
that means keeping non-custodial fathers involved with their children.
As with marriage-support programs, TANF should assist states to
identify and support effective fatherhood programs that help fathers
develop the economic and emotional capacity to support their children.
The law should be amended so that child support paid by non-custodial
fathers actually goes to support their children on TANF. Under current
law, a mother receiving TANF must assign her child support rights to
the state, which retains and shares with the Federal Government most or
all of any amounts it collects from the father. Allowing more of the
fathers child support payment to reach his children will be both an
economic boost for the children and an incentive for the father to
remain engaged in his children's lives, and we are pleased that several
reauthorization proposals would make progress on this front.
Sustaining the Needy and Vulnerable
1. End state family cap laws: Twenty-three states restrict or deny
additional cash benefits when a TANF family's size increases because of
the birth of a baby. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has long
opposed such policies because of deep concern about their impact on the
well-being of children, both born and unborn. Evidence from a study of
New Jerseys experience with a family cap indicates that the policy was
accompanied by more abortions in that state. A recent GAO study notes
that in an average month in 2000, about 108,000 families received less
in cash benefits due to family cap policies. We urge Congress to amend
TANF to ban state family cap policies on pro-life and pro-family
principles. States should not be allowed to tell women they will pay
for their abortions, but will not help them support new children. A
policy that effectively penalizes certain families for having a new
child cannot be seen as pro-family.
2. Restore benefit eligibility to legal immigrants: A major reason
our Conference opposed the 1996 law was its harsh treatment of legal
immigrants. In 1996, legal immigrants were categorically barred from
pubic benefits programs. We have worked to achieve changes in the law,
which restored eligibility for some legal immigrants who entered the
United States before 1996, but did not cover the majority of legal
immigrants, especially those who entered the United States after
August, 1996. The Bishops' Conference has long advocated for the
availability of basic necessities to all those in need, regardless of
their race, creed, ethnic origin, or nationality. Furthermore, legal
immigrants pay taxes and make significant contributions to our economy
with their labor. As a matter of justice, when people are in need,
especially children, they should have access to the public programs
supported by their families' taxes.
3. Allow TANF recipients to care for young children and disabled
family members: Young children, the sick and the disabled are among our
society's most vulnerable members. Their well-being often depends upon
the ability of parents and family members to take care of them on a
full-time basis. Yet under current law those same parents and family
members may be forced to work outside the home or face the loss of the
cash assistance their family needs to survive. Congress should amend
the law so states have the option of using federal funds to continue
cash assistance to full-time care givers for children under six or
seriously ill or disabled family members. This could be done by
allowing such activities to count toward work participation
requirements or allowing states to exempt such care givers from time
limits.
4. Ameliorate harsh sanction policies: It is no easy matter to
develop welfare policy that ensures assistance for the needy without
enabling the dependency of those who can and should support themselves.
But we cannot abandon those among us who cannot help themselves, or
who, with a little more time, patience and assistance, would be able to
help themselves and their families. Our goal must be to ensure that no
one falls through the cracks of federal or state bureaucracies. To that
end, we urge Congress to take a careful look at TANF sanction polices.
There are strong indications that many sanctioned families have
multiple barriers to work--little or no education, and more incidence
of substance abuse, family violence, and mental and physical health
problems, and child care and transportation difficulties. States
currently have great latitude in implementing sanction policies, with
little accountability. Thirty-seven states use ``full-family''
sanctions, cutting benefits to the entire family when one member
violates the TANF rules. Nineteen states will impose a full-family
sanction for a first violation, and eight of those states apply a
minimum penalty period, so the entire family may continue to be denied
benefits even after the violation has been remedied. There is also
evidence that many states do a poor job of communicating to
participants what is expected of them, the consequences of failing to
meet those expectations, and how to get help in coming back into
compliance.
Congress should consider changes to the law to ameliorate arbitrary
and counterproductive sanction policies, such as requiring states to
provide clear, understandable information to all recipients on what is
required of them and the sanctions they face if they violate those
requirements; to identify and work with families at risk of sanctions;
to end full-family sanctions for a first violation; and to restore
benefits immediately when a violation has been remedied. We also must
require more accountability from states, particularly because TANF
incentives to decrease case loads can also be an incentive for a state
to ignore high sanction rates. But high sanction rates in a state
should be a warning sign, not a rewarded behavior. States, as well as
families, should be held to meet their responsibilities.
Thank you for the opportunity to share the Bishops' Conferences
principles and policies on TANF reauthorization. Together our nation
must all strive to create a truly flexible system of incentives and
accountability for both individuals and states, a system which empowers
a partnership of government agencies, community groups and recipients
to meet the needs of individual families and to give them the tools
they need to leave poverty and government assistance. The moral measure
of our society is how we treat ``the least among us.'' (Matt. 25). The
reauthorization of TANF represents a major opportunity to make
overcoming poverty and restoring human dignity central national
priorities. The Bishops' Conference looks forward to working with this
Subcommittee and Congress on these and other important aspects of
welfare policy in the coming months.
Chairman HERGER. [Presiding.] Thank you.
Ms. CURRAN. Both are necessary to improve children's lives.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you. Ms. Mitchell.
STATEMENT OF BRENDA GIRTON-MITCHELL, ASSOCIATE GENERAL
SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC POLICY, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES OF
CHRIST IN THE U.S.A.
Ms. MITCHELL. My name is Brenda Girton-Mitchell. I am the
Associate General Secretary for public policy for the National
Council of Churches of Christ (NCCC) and the Director of the
Washington Office, and we are honored to have an opportunity to
share this afternoon. We represent 36 Protestant, Orthodox, and
Anglican communions (denominations) with a combined membership
of 50 million Christians and nearly 140,000 congregations, and
the list of our communions has been attached for the record.
Through the National Council of Churches of Christ, we join
in a common witness with ministries of faith, justice,
education, and public advocacy. I do not speak for every single
member. I do, however, speak for the public policymaking body,
our general assembly. Our 350-member board is composed of
members who have been selected by their denominations
proportionate to their size.
I want to make three principal points in my written
statement today: One, that the primary purpose for TANF should
be poverty reduction; two, that TANF should receive increased
funding in order to serve all of those who need assistance; and
third, that States should have more flexibility regarding time
limits and work requirements.
All of our member communions acknowledge a moral obligation
to provide assistance to and justice for those who live and
work on the margins of our society. We are currently involved
in a 10-year campaign focused on mobilizing Christians to take
seriously the issue of poverty and to take specific steps to
challenge it with all of the tools and energies at our
disposal, including legislation. Toward that end, we have done
several things over the past couple of years with our partners.
We have conducted a survey, held a national TANF consultation,
made recommendations to the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, drafted an interreligious statement signed by 25
religious bodies that includes policy recommendations for TANF
reorganization that has also been submitted for the record.
Just last month we hosted TANF Action Days here on Capitol Hill
to share our concerns about the impact of TANF as it has been
experienced and evaluated by churches as they attempt to help
those who live in poverty.
There was unanimous agreement that the primary goal of TANF
should be the reduction of poverty, not simply the reduction of
case loads. No family should be worse off as a result of moving
from welfare-to-work than it was while receiving TANF
assistance.
The TANF should receive increased funding in order to serve
all those who need assistance. The NCCC and its partners in the
religious community advocate increased funding for both TANF
and child care. Specifically, we believe that funding for TANF
should at least be indexed to the cost of living. Religious
social service organizations tell us that they are overwhelmed
by the demand for help as TANF recipients, some of whom face
multiple barriers, struggle and juggle to meet the work
requirements, locate day care, and find shelter for their
families. Without increased funding it will be impossible to
provide the supportive services that are essential to help
people move from welfare-to-work at family-sustaining wages.
Flexibility has been one of the successful elements of
TANF. When we asked our survey respondents to identify the
things that kept TANF from working well, over and over they
said time limits are too strict and too short. They focused on
the need for more flexibility in the time limits regarding
education, job training, and health in order for people to be
able to function in the workforce. There was strong agreement
that participating in postsecondary education should count as
fulfilling the work requirement.
We also believe that States should have the flexibility to
exempt people from the TANF time limits who cannot or should
not work--people with disabilities that may not qualify for
SSI, but nonetheless disabilities that keep them from being
employable, and those who have caregiving responsibilities for
young children, elderly or handicapped relatives.
Mr. Chairman, as representatives of the faith community, we
want to preach a message to you that this legislation affects
the very people God calls us all to serve. We know you share
the calling to serve others, and it is important to use your
financial might to provide the resources necessary to help
those living in poverty. As people of faith, we urge you to
make history with this legislation rather than simply making
law. We can and must do better. God and our history calls us to
higher aspirations.
Two hundred years ago we viewed slavery as unfortunate but
inevitable by-product of our economic system. A hundred years
ago we accepted the fact that in order to spin cotton or mine
coal, 10-year-olds had to work 12-hour days. Fifty years ago we
accepted the fact that in much of this Nation segregation was
the law of the land. Members of the faith community, working
through Congress, overturned all of these conditions, and we
urge you to view poverty as just such a set of historical
blinders. In the words of Andrew Young, who is our immediate
past president and once a member of this body, ``Our goal must
be to make poverty in the 21st century as morally repugnant as
slavery became in the 19th century.''
I pray that we will all take these measures to heart, and
the Lord will raise our sights, guide our deliberations, and
soon the shame and scourge of poverty in this country will be
abolished. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Girton-Mitchell follows:]
Statement of Brenda Girton-Mitchell, Associate General Secretary for
Public Policy, National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.
My name is Brenda Girton-Mitchell. I am the Associate General
Secretary for Public Policy and the Director of the Washington Office
of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. (NCCC).
The National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. is the
principal ecumenical organization in the United States and includes 36
Protestant, Orthodox and Anglican member communions (denominations)
with a combined membership of more than 50 million Christians in nearly
140,000 congregations nationwide. A list of our 36 communions has been
submitted for the record.
Through the NCCC, members join in a common witness through
ministries of faith, justice, education and public witness. While I do
not claim to speak for all members of the communion's constituent to
the NCCC, I do speak for our policy-making body, the General Assembly,
whose 350 members are selected by those communions in numbers
proportionate to their size.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for providing the opportunity for me to
testify before you regarding welfare reform reauthorization.
I wish to make three principal points in my remarks:
1. LThe primary purpose for Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families Reauthorization (TANF) should be the reduction of
poverty.
2. LTANF should receive increased funding in order to serve all
those who need assistance.
3. LThe states should be given more flexibility regarding time
limits and work requirements.
All member communions of the NCCC acknowledge a moral obligation to
provide assistance to and justice for those who live and work on the
margins of our society. In May of 2000, the NCCC launched a ten-year
campaign focused on mobilizing Christians to take seriously the issue
of poverty and to take specific steps to challenge it with all the
tools and energies at our disposal. Toward that end, in the fall of
2000 we conducted a survey of our member communions, their social
service organizations, and our state and local partners to learn what
their experience had been with TANF. A copy of our survey findings is
available on the NCCC website at www.Ncccusa.org/publicwitness/
tanf.html Also attached is an Interreligious statement signed by 25
religious bodies that includes policy recommendations for TANF
reauthorization.
Last spring, we held a national TANF consultation, which was
attended by invited representatives of our member communions, our state
and local ecumenical, and interfaith partner organizations from 29
states and the District of Columbia. The input from this consultation
and our survey helped to shape our recommendations to the Department of
Health and Human Services last fall (attached). And just last month we
hosted TANF Action Days in this very building to share our concerns
about the impact of TANF as it has been experienced and evaluated by
churches as they attempt to help those who live in poverty.
There was unanimous agreement that the primary goal of Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families should be the reduction of poverty, not
the reduction of case loads. TANF should be to provide assistance to
low-income families to enable them to have decent lives. No family
should be worse off as a result of moving from welfare-to-work than it
was while receiving TANF assistance.
Religious social service organizations tell us that they are
overwhelmed by the demand for help, as TANF recipients struggle with
the requirement that they work. Many recipients cannot locate decent
childcare. Often the people they relied upon in the past are not
available to help because they, too, are TANF recipients who are
required to work. For most, the cost is simply too great or access and
supply are so limited that it is impossible to get a child to care in
time for the mother to get to work.
Although the very robust economy of the last few years helped some
TANF recipients get jobs, it has driven up the cost of housing so that
recipients are more desperate than ever about finding shelter for their
families. Our survey revealed that churches are being overwhelmed by
requests for help with housing and temporary shelter.
TANF should receive increased funding in order to serve all those
who need assistance. The NCCC and its partners in the religious
community advocate increased funding for both TANF and child care.
Specifically we believe that funding for TANF should at least be
indexed to the cost of living. Without increased funding it will not be
possible to provide the supportive services that are essential to help
people move from welfare-to-work at family sustaining wages. Most of
those who remain on TANF do so because they face multiple barriers to
employment that cannot be easily resolved.
The states should be given more flexibility regarding time limits
and work requirements. Flexibility has been one of the successful
elements of TANF. With flexibility states have the option of choosing a
combination of approaches to meet the needs of their communities
without being locked in to a national formula. When we asked our survey
respondents to identify things that kept TANF from working well, over
and over they said that the time limits are too strict and too short.
Respondents focused particularly on the need for more flexibility
regarding remedial education, job training, medical, mental health and
dental care in order for people to be able to function in the labor
force. There was strong agreement that participating in post-secondary
education should count as fulfilling the work requirement.
We also believe that there are some people on TANF who cannot or
should not work--people with disabilities that may not meet the
requirements to qualify for Supplemental Security Income but
nonetheless keep them from being employable, and those with care giving
responsibilities for young children or elderly or handicapped
relatives. We believe that states should have the flexibility to exempt
such people from time limits to the full extent of the need and not
just within the arbitrary limits set by the current TANF law.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as a representative of
the faith community, let me conclude by preaching this message to you.
This legislation affects the very people God calls us to serve. We know
you share the calling to serve others and implore this Committee to use
its financial might to provide the resources necessary to help those
living in poverty. There is a lot the Church can do, but it must be in
partnership with, not as a substitute for, government. This issue is so
important to the NCCC that it has been the featured topic in the last
two issues of the annual Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches.
We in the faith community are ready to work with you to help this
nation rise up and meet its obligation to its entire people. The
measure of success will be not simply in job placement, but in real
poverty reduction, This nation has the means; now we must have the will
to provide the necessary funding and flexibility regarding time limits
and work, so we can demonstrate that we truly care about all of God's
children.
NCCC Member Communions
African Methodist Episcopal Church Moravian Church in America
Northern Province and
Southern Province
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church National Baptist Convention
of America
Alliance of Baptists National Baptist Convention,
U.S.A., Inc.
American Baptist Churches in the USA National Missionary Baptist
Convention of America
The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Orthodox Church in America
Archdiocese of North America
Diocese of the Armenian Church of America Patriarchal Parishes of the
Russian Orthodox Church in
the USA
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) Philadelphia Yearly Meeting
of the Religious Society of
Friends
Christian Methodist Episcopal Church Polish National Catholic
Church of America
Church of the Brethren Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
The Coptic Orthodox Church in North Progressive National Baptist
America Convention, Inc.
The Episcopal Church Reformed Church in America
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Serbian Orthodox Church in
the U.S.A. and Canada
Friends United Meeting The Swedenborgian Church
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America Syrian Orthodox Church of
Antioch
Hungarian Reformed Church in America Ukrainian Orthodox Church of
America
International Council of Community United Church of Christ
Churches
Korean Presbyterian Church in America The United Methodist Church
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Mar Thoma Church
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Ms. Mitchell.
Mr. ENGLISH. [Presiding.] Sister Clark.
STATEMENT OF SISTER MARY ELIZABETH CLARK, SPOKESPERSON,
NETWORK, NATIONAL CATHOLIC SOCIAL JUSTICE LOBBY
Ms. CLARK. Mr. English, Chairman Herger, and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee and friends. As a Spokesperson for
NETWORK, a national Catholic Social Justice Lobby, I am honored
to represent thousands of NETWORK members who lobby with us on
issues of economic justice.
NETWORK has been surveying, researching, and educating our
membership and others about the Nation's welfare system for
many years. We lobbied for improvements in the legislation
prior to the 1996 change.
Since then, NETWORK has published two reports: Poverty Amid
Plenty, the Unfinished Business of Welfare Reform in 1999, and
Welfare Reform, How to we Define Success in 2001.
These reports include both scientific and anecdotal
evidence gathered during in-depth interviews of 4,000 people in
emergency facilities such as soup kitchens, food pantries, and
health clinics. We are convinced that each of you believes, as
NETWORK does, that we are a country called to uphold the
highest moral principles. Those moral principles laid out for
us in our Constitution call us to form a more perfect union, to
provide for the general welfare and to secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
Therefore, the existence of over 31 million people in
poverty in this Nation to us is a scandal. NETWORK believes
that an increase in funding, at least by inflation, is
necessary to provide the needed resources for people who are
leaving welfare-to-work.
Maintaining TANF at $16.5 billion a year is really a
reduction in funding. Over the last 5 years, inflation has
cause a decrease, and by 2007 a projected bite of 22 cents will
be taken out of every dollar.
We have heard from the National Governors' Association that
States spend some $2 billion more already this year. There are
hard working families in NETWORK's report and in many other
reports who have not been able to find family sustaining jobs.
With the cost of housing, child care, transportation, food, and
other necessities, families just cannot make it on minimum wage
service jobs.
NETWORK believes in the dignity of the human person as a
primary social justice principle. In our survey, we found there
is a strong correlation between whether a person has some level
of higher education and how much they earn. We know that
effective job training programs provide people with tools they
need to become independent. Daycare and other programs help
them retain jobs while meeting the needs of their families.
We have just completed 21 workshops across the country. I
would like to introduce to you, Maggie Millan from Tampa,
Florida, who is one among many who can validate the call to
additional funding.
[The prepared statement of Sister Clark follows:]
Statement of Sister Mary Elizabeth Clark, Spokesperson, NETWORK,
National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
Good afternoon, Chairman Herger, distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee and friends. As a spokesperson for NETWORK, A National
Catholic Social Justice Lobby, I am honored to represent thousands of
NETWORK members who lobby with us on issues of economic justice.
NETWORK has been surveying, researching and educating our membership
and others about the nation's welfare system for many years. We lobbied
for improvements in the legislation prior to the 1996 change. Since
then, NETWORK has published two reports, Poverty Amid Plenty: The
Unfinished Business of Welfare Reform in 1999 and Welfare Reform: How
Do We Define Success? in 2001. These reports include both scientific
and anecdotal evidence gathered during in-depth interviews of 4000
people in emergency facilities such as soup kitchens, food pantries and
health clinics.
We are convinced that each of you believes, as NETWORK does, that
we are a country called to uphold the highest moral principles. Those
moral principles, laid out for us in our Constitution, call us ``to
form a more perfect union, to provide for the general welfare and to
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.''
Therefore, the existence of over 31 million people in poverty in this
nation is a scandal.
NETWORK believes that an increase in funding at least by inflation
is necessary to provide the needed resources for people who are leaving
welfare-to-work. Maintaining TANF at $16.5 billion per year is really a
reduction in funding. Over the last five years, inflation has caused a
decrease, and, by 2007, a projected bite of 22 cents will be taken out
of every dollar. We have heard from the National Governors Association
that states spent some $2 billion more than the $16.5 billion the
Federal Government provided in TANF funding so far this year.
There are hard working families in NETWORK's report and in many
other reports who have not been able to find a living wage job. With
the costs of housing, child care, transportation, food and other
necessities, families just cannot make it on minimum wage service jobs.
NETWORK believes in the dignity of the human person as a primary social
justice principle.
In our survey, we found there is a strong correlation between
whether a person has some level of higher education and how much they
earn. We know that effective job training programs provide people with
tools they need to become independent, and daycare and other programs
help them retain jobs while meeting the needs of their families.
We have just completed workshops on TANF Reauthorization in 21
sites across the country and have heard welfare workers, social service
providers and TANF recipients themselves call for an increase in the
funding so that appropriate levels of services can be provided. I would
now like to introduce to you Maggie Millan from Tampa, Florida, who is
one among many who can validate that call.
STATEMENT OF MAGGIE MILLAN, TAMPA, FLORIDA
Ms. MILLAN. Good evening to everyone. My name is Maggie. I
am a 33-year-old single parent with four children. I live in
Tampa, Florida, and I work at the Agency for the Community
Treatment Services where I began my training 9 months ago at
the Start Services Welfare-to-Work Program of Hillsborough
County.
Three months later, I was hired full-time working in the
procurement field. I take a bus to work, and it takes me an
hour, an hour and a half to get there, and 2 hours to get back
home. Since then I have acquired the self-confidence which I
lacked while on the system, an incredible friend in my job
coach which coaches you for the first 6 months of your
employment, great co-workers, an understanding boss, my
driver's license, which I thought I would never have, and the
courage to do anything I set my mind on, including flying to
Washington, DC, today all by myself to give my testimony on why
more money is needed for welfare reform to help more moms stay
off the system and take care of their families.
Five years ago, when the welfare reform began, I thought
what would I do now. I knew nothing but life on the system.
Then immediately after that, I thought that this is the best
thing that could have happened. People like myself will have to
get up and get a life. When you grow up on welfare, that
becomes all you know. So, it becomes normal and comfortable and
passed on. Inside of me I wanted to be someone and be able to
take care of my children by myself. It wasn't until 1999 after
moving to Tampa, Florida, that reality kicked in.
I went through the Wages Program and my caseworker at the
time told me he wanted me to go to school like I always wanted
to so that I can have a career. My necessity at the time was
getting a job----
Mr. ENGLISH. Maggie, you have got about 30 seconds. Then if
you want, you can submit your testimony for the record.
Ms. MILLAN. Okay. I just wanted to say that instead of
thinking about how many people we will get off the system now,
let's think about how many we will keep off forever. Thank you
for listening to my testimony. May I please be excused? I have
a plane to catch.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Millan follows:]
Statement of Maggie Millan, Tampa, Florida
My name is Maggie. I am a 33 year old single parent with four
children. I live in Tampa, Florida, and I work at the agency for
community treatment services where I began my training nine months ago
through the Star Services welfare-to-work Program of Hillsborough
County, a customer-friendly program to address career skills and
employment barriers not addressed by general welfare transition
programs. Three months later I was hired full time working in the
procurement field. I take a bus to work, and it takes me an hour each
way.
Since then I have acquired the self confidence, which I lacked
while on the system, an incredible friend in my job coach, which
coaches you for the first six months of your employment, great co-
workers, an understanding boss, my driver's license, which I thought I
would never have and the courage to do anything I set my mind on,
including flying to Washington all by myself to give my testimony on
why more money is needed for welfare reform to help more moms stay off
the system and take care of their families.
Five years ago when the welfare reform began, I thought, what will
I do now? I knew nothing but life on the system. Then immediately after
that I thought, this is the best thing that could have happened. People
like myself will have to get up and get a life. When you grow up on
welfare, that becomes all you know, so it becomes normal and
comfortable and passed on. But inside of me I wanted to be somebody and
be able to take care of my children by myself. But it wasn't until
1999, after moving to Tampa, Florida, that reality kicked in. I went
through WAGES, and my caseworker at the time told me he wanted me to go
to school like I always wanted to, so that I can have a career, but
because my necessity at the time was getting a job to be able to pay
rent and bills, they sent me to JOB CLUB. JOB CLUB was an introduction
to the working world. They taught me and a few other girls how to dress
for an interview, write a resume, what to say on an interview and many
other work-related techniques. I attended this JOB CLUB for one month.
Many things happened between then and now, including losing my job and
returning to the system and attending Hillsborough Community College
for one year, then dropping out to go back to work.
Had they offered me the support services I needed instead of
rushing me off the system, I would have at least an Associate's degree,
a car, and a darn good paying job.
I've come a long way, thanks to my optimism, my children who give
me the courage to do things and God who gives me strength, but not
everyone is me. There are women out there that need help and if the
welfare reform wants to be successful they need to take the time to
educate and treat people with dignity!
Instead of thinking about how many women we will get off the system
now, let's think about how many we will keep off FOREVER!
Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you, Maggie. Thank you so much for being
here. Thank you, Sister, for your testimony. Reverend Wilson.
STATEMENT OF REVEREND NATHAN WILSON, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY,
AND MANAGER, CAMPAIGN TO OVERCOME POVERTY, CALL TO RENEWAL
Mr. WILSON. Thank you Representative English. My name is
Nathan Wilson. I am Director of Public Policy and Manager of
the Campaign to Overcome Poverty, for Call to Renewal, which is
a national network of faith-based organizations active in Erie
and other places working together around what we believe is the
Bible imperative to overcome poverty.
Call to Renewal has a broad network that includes
conservative evangelical churches, Roman Catholic churches,
historic black churches, historic peace churches, mainline
Protestant churches, and others. It is safe to say that
theologically and politically, our members and partners run the
gamut from being quite conservative to quite liberal.
We acknowledge that the causes of poverty are complex. They
include economic inequality, lack of opportunity, and
institutional racism. They also include irresponsible personal
choices and a breakdown of families and communities.
The solutions, therefore, to overcome poverty are equally
complex. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act played a role in reducing
the number of people on welfare by requiring employment. A
significant number of welfare recipients are now working. Yet,
far too many, especially children, remain in poverty.
As reauthorization approaches, we urge a conceptual shift,
much as you have heard already in Congress, to view TANF and
related programs through the eyes of poverty reduction rather
than simply welfare reduction. So many of those who have moved
to work remain below the poverty line. We all know that people
who are responsibly trying to work should be able to support
themselves and their families. Let's focus not only on case
load reduction, but also on reducing the number of families
living in poverty and increasing the number of self-sufficient
families.
We strongly urge that reducing poverty be made an explicit
legislative goal of TANF reauthorization. Of course there is
serious debate and difference about how best to reduce poverty.
A genuine bipartisan commitment to that goal would
significantly help reduce the partisanship and offer the hope
of finding common grounds that puts the interest of those who
are poor foremost in the legislation.
Poverty reduction as a moral commitment and a legislative
goal would frame the rest of our debate. Now, among the many
important legislative issues in this debate that I addressed in
my written statement that has been submitted for the record, I
will briefly mention three.
First, the question of what is defined as work. Obviously,
work includes employment. It should also, in our view, include
an individual's efforts to improve her or his employment skills
through education and vocational training. Currently persons
have to choose between receiving any assistance and improving
their skills. That is an often cruel and an always short-
sighted mistake. For people trying to escape poverty, serious
work preparation should count as work.
Let's reward efforts to improve their lives. For instance,
programs like the Parent to Scholars program in Maine that
combines work and postsecondary education can be a model of the
way to allow participants to work participation requirements.
Second, the issue of child care. When President Bush
introduced his plan, he spoke movingly saying, and I quote,
``Across America, no doubt about it, single mothers do heroic
work. They have the toughest job in our country.''
He is right. The single largest problem, though, facing
those single mothers, while holding a job is the availability
and the affordability of child care. Along with much more
assistance to help meet the costs of child care, and keep child
to staff ratios at reasonable levels, those same mothers need
improved facilities. They need better training for child care
workers. They need higher quality care.
Third, programs to support healthy families and reduce
teenage pregnancy. Study after study bears out the fact that
children with a single parent are far more likely to be poor.
Some insist that promoting marriage should be at the center of
reducing poverty, and others insist that funding antipoverty
programs will promote marriage. It is an infamous political
false choice.
Of course, healthy marriages are good for economic
stability. Of course, economic stability is good for healthy
marriages. Why can't we do both? Adequately fund necessary
programs and support initiatives that help establish and
maintain healthy families. Here the faith community can play an
important role. At the very least, let's end this disincentive
and harsh rules for two-parent families that exist in the
current system.
Representative English, I appreciate your hard work on this
legislation. I hope you will not let this opportunity pass
without making a difference in the lives of millions of poor
children, women, and men. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Reverend Wilson follows:]
Statement of the Rev. Nathan Wilson, Director of Public Policy, and
Manager, Campaign to Overcome Poverty, Call to Renewal
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee.
Thank you for inviting me to testify this afternoon. I am Director
of Public Policy for Call to Renewal, a national network of churches
and faith-based organizations who have come together on the biblical
imperative to overcome poverty. Our ``Campaign to Overcome Poverty'' is
one of the broadest ecumenical tables in the country for churches
involved in anti-poverty efforts. We work to network churches and
faith-based organizations into a movement, and provide a national
public policy voice.
We acknowledge that the causes of poverty are complex. They include
economic inequality, lack of opportunity, and institutional racism; as
well as irresponsible personal choices and the breakdown of families
and communities. The solutions to overcome poverty are equally complex.
They include employment at a living family income, quality education,
safe neighborhoods, affordable health care and housing, strengthening
families, and renewing an ethic of personal and community
responsibility.
After five years, the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act has had an important impact in reducing
the number of people on welfare through requiring employment. A
significant number of former welfare recipients are now working. Yet
far too many, especially children, remain in poverty. As the
reauthorization of TANF approaches, there are several areas where we
urge Congress to focus.
Most importantly, we urge a conceptual shift to view TANF and
related programs through the eyes of poverty reduction rather than
simply welfare reduction. Too many of those who have moved to work
remain below the poverty line. We believe that people who are
responsibly trying to work should be able to support themselves and
their families. The objective for the next period should focus not only
on case load reduction, but also on reducing the number of families
living in poverty and increasing the number of self-sufficient
families.
We strongly urge that an explicit goal of reducing poverty be made
part of the legislative purposes of TANF reauthorization. While there
is serious debate and difference about how best to reduce poverty, a
genuine bi-partisan commitment to that goal would significantly help to
reduce the partisanship and offer the hope of finding common ground
that puts the interests of those who are poor foremost in the
legislation. The reauthorization priorities should be framed with this
in mind.
Our specific recommendations toward that objective include:
1. LFund TANF at adequate levels with increases for inflation.
The 1996 Act funded annual block grants to the states at a
fixed $16.5 billion per year. It should be obvious that $16.5
billion in 2002 is not what it was in 1996, and certainly not
what it will be by 2007. Continuing flat funding is actually a
significant cut in funding. Reauthorization should at a minimum
adjust the grants for inflation, and ideally increase the
amount. TANF should allow states to continue to provide
assistance to those remaining on welfare along with continuing
and expanding the support programs for people who have found
employment.
2. LIncreased work supports and outreach efforts. Many of those
who have moved from welfare-to-work have ended in the lowest
paying jobs, often at or near the minimum wage. Their ability
to remain employed and move out of poverty requires several
important work supports.
a. LChild care. Access to safe and affordable child care is one
of the major problems facing low-income workers. To increase
the work requirements and hours at work per week without
increasing the availability and affordability of childcare
simply will not work. An array of services and resources should
be funded, ranging from improved facilities to better training
for child care workers to an increased capacity for specialized
needs. The ability for states to spend TANF funds directly on
child care should be maintained along with adequately funding
the Child Care and Development Block Grant. Minimum national
standards for facilities and staff should also be established
to ensure the health and safety of children. This is in the
best interests of those women who are moving from welfare-to-
work, but perhaps even more importantly, in the best interests
of their children.
b. LFood stamps. Low-income working families frequently report
having to choose between buying food and meeting other
expenses. Yet the food stamp program is intended to assist
these families. The evidence is that families still eligible
for food stamps are not receiving them--either because they are
unaware they are eligible or because application forms and
requirements are too onerous. An outreach program designed to
find eligible families along with simplified application
procedures should be developed.
c. LHealth insurance. While improvements have been made in the
past five years, efforts to increase the number of low-income
families with access to health insurance should be
strengthened. Increased outreach to enroll children in the
Children's Health Insurance Program is essential. Eligibility
standards for Medicaid coverage should be eased, and states
should be encouraged to simplify enrollment procedures.
d. LTransportation. Access to adequate transportation between
home, childcare, and work is often a major barrier to
employment. States should be encouraged to use flexibility in
developing such programs as discounted bus fares, loans for car
ownership, automobile restoration programs, and providing
special bus service to places of employment.
3. LTime limits. While the five-year lifetime assistance limit
may have aided in moving people from welfare-to-work, the
reauthorization process should re-examine it and allow for
greater flexibility by the states.
a. LLow-income workers. People who are working in compliance
with program rules while continuing to receive some amount of
assistance to supplement low earnings should not be subject to
the time limit.
b. LAllow post-secondary education and training and caregiving.
Efforts to improve an individual's employment skills through
obtaining education or vocational training should be permitted
to count toward meeting the work requirement. The ``work
first'' requirement often meant that persons had to choose
between receiving assistance or improving their skills and
employability. Such initiative toward employment should be
rewarded rather than penalized. For people trying to escape
poverty, serious efforts to prepare for work or enhance
training and knowledge that can lead to greater self-
sufficiency should be recognized and supported rather than
penalized.
c. LWaivers in areas of high unemployment. With the economy
still recovering from September 11 and a recession that led to
large numbers of layoffs and growing unemployment, states
should be required to suspend the limit when unemployment
reaches a certain threshold. People who have been successfully
employed and are laid off due to economic conditions should not
be denied assistance because of an artificial time limit.
d. LLimit sanctions. Sanctions for non-compliance with program
rules should be more carefully monitored by the Department to
ensure their fairness. Sanctioning an entire family, for
example, due to the failure of one member to meet a requirement
should not occur.
4. LRestore TANF and other benefits to legal immigrants.
Immigrants legally in the United States following the 1996 law
are ineligible for most forms of assistance. New legislation
should reinstate eligibility for legal immigrants to major
assistance programs, particularly TANF benefits, food stamps
and Medicaid. Many legal immigrants in the country today work
hard and pay taxes, and should be entitled to assistance when
in need.
5. LAddress barriers to unemployment for those remaining on
welfare. Many of those still on welfare rolls face barriers to
employment, including domestic violence, substance abuse, or
mental illness and disability. States should be required to
develop and fund programs that assist people in overcoming
these barriers.
6. LPrograms to strengthen marriage. Our personal experience
and multiple studies indicate that children raised in single
parent households are more likely to be in poverty. The
evidence increasingly shows that one of the most effective ways
out of poverty is a stable marriage. We therefore encourage
initiatives to develop programs designed to reduce single
parenthood, promote responsible fatherhood, and strengthen
marriage. The pilot programs being initiated in various states
should be carefully examined to assess their success and the
ability to replicate them. We also support the elimination of
provisions that discriminate against married parents through
stricter work requirements, exclusion from some programs, or
other means. It is true that healthy marriages are good for
economic stability, and it is also true that economic stability
is good for healthy marriages. We urge the Committee to find
ways to do both.
7. LContinue and strengthen the charitable choice provision.
Call to Renewal has supported partnerships between faith-based
organizations and government in overcoming poverty. We believe
that government at all levels--local, state, and federal--has
an important role in developing, promoting and implementing
public policies to reduce poverty. As part of that role,
government and faith-based organizations should develop
partnerships that empower or fund the successful programs of
both religious and secular nonprofit organizations in ways that
do not violate the First Amendment. We believe the ``charitable
choice'' provision in the 1996 law should be maintained, with
several changes.
a. LReligious organizations seeking government funding should
be required to establish a separate tax-exempt non-profit
organization. In the five years since the passage of the
original charitable choice legislation, Call to Renewal has
advised religious organizations considering applying for
government funding that it would be prudent for them to form a
separate organization. We urge this provision be added in the
final version of the reauthorization legislation.
b. LProtect the integrity of religious organizations and the
religious freedom of individuals receiving assistance. Debate
in Congress on the President's faith-based initiative led to
suggested changes in the 1996 provision that should be adopted
here. Individuals seeking assistance must have clear access to
alternative religious or non-religious programs. Programs
freely chosen by individuals using vouchers can include
religious activities, while any religious activities in
directly funded programs must be separately funded and
voluntary. Social services and religious activities must be
kept separate, so that public funding is for public purposes.
In closing, in addition to TANF, we also urge Congress to support
working families by:
1. LExpanding the Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC has been
one of the most effective poverty-reduction programs in history
by reducing taxes for low-income workers. Expanding the EITC to
provide tax relief for additional low-income families and
increasing the maximum credit a family can receive would assist
additional families to continue moving from poverty to self-
sufficiency.
2. LStrengthening unemployment insurance. The combined effects
of September 11 and a recession have led to the highest
unemployment rate in five years. Unemployment assistance should
be strengthened to provide benefits to unemployed workers who
are looking for part-time work but who meet all other current
eligibility standards, and basing eligibility on the most
recent work experience of the unemployed person.
Reducing poverty and promoting individual responsibility for all
our people are biblically rooted and morally compelling goals. We urge
the Committee to approach the issue of TANF reauthorization with that
clarity of purpose. We look forward to a continuing dialogue with you,
and stand ready to assist in whatever ways we can. I can be reached at
328-8745, ext. 218 or at [email protected]
Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you, Reverend Wilson. Dr. Washington, we
would love to hear your testimony.
STATEMENT OF VALORA WASHINGTON, PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST SERVICE COMMITTEE, CAMBRIDGE,
MASSACHUSETTS
Dr. WASHINGTON. Thank you, Mr. English. I think that what
you are hearing from those of us on this panel is a very
similar message. Every person, regardless of their economic
status, regardless of their marital status or gender, is a
person who has inherent value and worth.
As a caring community of people of faith working for
justice, we are witnesses to many stories like the one we just
heard from Maggie. At the Unitarian Universalist Service
Committee, we have been looking at the issues of poverty over
very many years. We have heard the stories and seen the faces
of people like Maggie in our own studies.
For example, a woman with whom we have worked, Sarah, 32-
year-old mother of four from the State of Washington told us
when her husband went to work, their benefits were reduced. The
family's utilities were shut off, and they faced eviction. We
are concerned that many people in our Nation feel that the
government cares more about getting them off of assistance,
whether or not they survive.
This panel then is bearing witness to the fact that many
families have benefited from the reforms that we have seen in
recent years. That is only part of the story. To make good
decisions about the future of TANF, we need to look at the
whole story and not replace one set of myths and choices that
may be false or incomplete with just another one.
As Executive Director of the Unitarian Universalist Service
Committee, I oversee programs that address issues of human
rights and children's rights, the rights of women, and the poor
and the marginalized people of the world. For more than 6
years, we have collected the stories of over 3,000 families who
have been beneficiaries of government assistance in one form or
another.
Beyond the many statistics that you have heard today, I
think we need to think very carefully about the human realities
with which many of these families must deal. We have our
findings in this report, America's Forgotten Families, that you
have a copy of. We are really thinking seriously about how we
might support your efforts to help reduce poverty.
We believe that families want to work. When we look at the
voices of 3,500 families that we have studied, we find that
many of them didn't get there by their own bad choices or the
bad choices of their parents. Many of them were thrown into
poverty by circumstances beyond their control.
Likewise, I think we should admit and face the fact that
many have been supported by the good economy of the recent past
that may no longer be the case. Many people in poverty have
worked hard all of their lives. They do not necessarily need to
be prodded to work. They don't feel that they must be beat over
the head in order to work. They want to work. They worked hard
all of their lives. I think that we need to continue to support
them to get the education that they need to have a better
quality of life.
Many of these families in our studies tell us that they are
forced to make job choices and child care choices, which cause
them to have a great deal of fear and concern for their
families. All of these work requirements, the lack of
educational opportunities available to many of those families,
and the inflexibility of the time limits, are things that we
are very concerned about. These are things that we hope can be
addressed in this reauthorization period.
Many States have responded very vigorously and successfully
to powerful incentives to reduce their case loads. We want to
be sure that those same States and same agencies will give
equally vigorous attention to helping those families get out of
poverty. We want to give them the incentive to help families
have the support that they need, the child care and flexibility
to make the choices, and move toward self-sufficiency and
eradicate poverty in our country.
You have heard over and over again today that welfare, as
we know it, is gone. It is time to reduce poverty as we know
it. Personal choices that people make alone will not reduce
poverty. You have heard time and time again, it is a
combination of the personal choices as well as the political
and policy choices that we make. We support a performance bonus
to States to help reduce poverty. We are also hoping that as we
move forward in this period of reauthorizing TANF, that the
House of Representatives will heed the voice and the call to be
a prophetic voice for justice and not just to pass the law that
is before us. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Washington follows:]
Statement of Valora Washington, Ph.D., Executive Director, Unitarian
Universalist Service Committee, Cambridge Massachusetts
``Sarah,'' one of over 3,500 participants in a six-state study that
examined the effects of welfare reform, reported: ``Since my husband
started working, we are no longer eligible for additional benefits.''
This resulted in the family's utilities being shut off and a growing
fear of being evicted. The 32-year-old mother of four from Washington
state sadly concluded, ``the only thing that matters [to the
government] is getting us off assistance, whether we can survive or
not.''
As Sarah's story tells us, the approaching deadline of September 30
for the reauthorization of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
presents us all with a challenging opportunity. The program has had
many success stories, but we must examine the success of TANF more
closely, address the unintended consequences of reform and then build
on the strengths of the legislation so we can ensure that all American
families can provide their children with a stable, nurturing home in
which they can thrive.
I am Dr. Valora Washington, executive director of the Unitarian
Universalist Service Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to join
you today as you review proposals for the reauthorization of Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). UUSC has worked to advance
justice throughout the world for more than six decades. Founded by a
small group of intrepid activists who risked their lives rescuing
eastern European children and their families from Nazi oppression, we
have applied that same passion to seeking ways to help families
struggling to win against poverty in this country.
We come to this conversation with a wealth of information gathered
from some people whose existence has been too seldom noted in all the
talk of the success of TANF: the people we have come to call
``America's forgotten families.'' Over a five-year period, UUSC's
Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project (WHRMP) has engaged in more
than 3,500 intensive interviews in six states with people struggling
against poverty under the new TANF rules.
We review current proposals for TANF reauthorization in light of
our findings and base our recommendations on that compelling empirical
data.
In 1996 Congress decided to give states more flexibility and hold
families more accountable. The families have done their part; now it's
time to hold states accountable for reducing poverty and give families
the flexibility they need to move toward an appropriate degree of self-
sufficiency.
As President Bush has so appropriately said, the job of welfare
reform is not yet done; we do not yet live in a poverty-free America.
Our research shows that in order to move closer to that goal we need to
re-shape the authorizing legislation for TANF to reflect that goal more
clearly. As long as we reward states for reducing case loads but not
for reducing poverty, we can expect the ``success'' of the program to
be dogged by the poignant stories of those left behind.
I am happy, of course, for those who are experiencing ``success''--
finding a job, having a place to go every day where their services are
valued, bringing home a paycheck, and being a model for their children.
They are the ``lucky leavers,'' and I rejoice in their courageous
spirit and their newfound pride. We celebrate the ability of low-income
families to survive against formidable odds.
Our research has put us in touch with thousands of people who tell
us another part of the story:
the ones still on welfare facing multiple barriers to
getting and keeping a job, and whose time is running out;
the ones who have been dropped from the rolls before
they could find a job;
the ones who work full time all year at jobs with pay
and benefits inadequate to sustain a family.
These stories correlate with the downside of the mixed statistical
evidence about poverty in America. True enough, the Census Bureau has
reported that in the year 2000 poverty levels were the lowest since
1979, and that all racial and ethnic groups had experienced
improvements in their economic well-being. At the same time, the
proportion of families below half the poverty level had increased, and
the poverty rate was still three times as high among African-Americans
as among Caucasians. International studies showed that child poverty
remained higher in the United States than in any other developed
country.\1\ And that was while the economy was still booming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ UNICEF, ``A League Table of Child Poverty in Rich Nations,''
Innocenti Report Card No. 1 (June 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While states reported dramatic case load reductions in a time of
prosperity, the recent downward dip in the economy has been accompanied
by case load increases in many states. case load reduction actually
began about two years before passage of the new law, so there is good
reason to ask how much should be attributed to the law and how much to
the economy. A recent study in Connecticut showed a control group still
living under the AFDC rules--no time limits, no work requirements--
performed just as well in the job market as those living under the TANF
rules.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The study by the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation
was reported in the New York Times, Feb. 20. 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listening to the Voices
The welfare monitoring program, begun as a pilot project in
Massachusetts in 1996, compiled more than 3,500 case studies in six
states: Washington, Massachusetts, California, and New Jersey,
Connecticut, and Alabama. The testimonials many of these stakeholders
were analyzed and summarized in a report called America's Forgotten
Families: Voices of Welfare Reform, released in 2001.\3\ They reflect
remarkably common themes and experiences. Welfare recipients
representing extremely diverse backgrounds, education levels,
communities and goals all report similar problems that are intensifying
over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ To read or download all or part of the report in one of several
versions, go to http://216.117.173.228/programs/welfarefeb28.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the collected testimonials are the voices of single mothers
who anticipate moving themselves and their children off of welfare and
out of poverty. Other voices describe the day-to-day struggle of
providing care for a child with a physical or mental disability. And
some report struggles with their own mental or physical limitations.
Those who shared their lives with UUSC's monitors have presented candid
insights into a world prescribed by poverty. The generosity of those
who participated in the study calls each of us--policy makers,
advocates and voters--to review welfare reform policies in light of
this information.
The Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project focused on state
welfare practices through the lens of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR), which sets international human rights standards.
UUSC monitors conducted interviews with adult welfare recipients and
direct service providers mindful of those articles of the declaration
that address equality, discrimination, privacy, social security,
standard of living, work and education. The resulting data are
qualitative and do not represent a statistical analysis. Nevertheless,
these voices from within the welfare community in the United States
tell us more than statistics can about the human impact of recent
welfare changes in several states.
A father of three in the state of Washington, struck
by a car, incurred a broken collar bone and fractured ribs. For
a while he could not even tie his own shoes, much less bathe,
dress, cook for three children, and go to work. Accused by the
state welfare agency of not complying with work requirements,
he was deprived of child care assistance just when he and his
children needed it most.
A California woman, was sanctioned for
``noncompliance'' with the work rules after her education plan
was denied. Using her rent money for child care while fighting
to get retroactive payments, she faced eviction.
The mother of a child with special needs faced job
penalties, and then sanctions, for missing work because she
could find nobody else to care for her sick child. As one
family support worker said, ``the overall outcome is the
sanctioning of the child, not just the adult.''
Families need more than ``incentives,'' and states need different ones
The Administration's proposal, ``Working Toward Independence,''
assumes that tough work rules account for the success of TANF, and that
tougher rules will work even better. But our research gives voice to a
wide range of people to whom those assumptions do not apply. They know
we live in a tough world and that work is essential to their ability to
survive and thrive. Their troubles come not from a lack of incentive to
work but from a combination of factors beyond their control, including
a shortage of high quality child care and confusing and contradictory
rules governing their eligibility for funding.
Because states have had much stronger incentives to reduce the TANF
rolls than to reduce poverty itself, families have often been
confronted by conflicting expectations and requirements, including some
elements of policy and implementation that have impeded their ability
to move toward self-sufficiency. Instead of moving from the notorious
``trap'' of ``welfare dependency'' to a life of ``independence,'' too
often families too often find themselves in a different kind of trap,
dependent on jobs that cannot sustain their families.
Unintended consequences of TANF rules
Rules intended to enhance the stability of family connections
sometimes disrupt whatever stable supports a family already has.
``Diane,'' a high school senior and mother of a newborn, was homeless
but not without resources or incentive. Despite her troubled life, she
was an honor student and had child care available through the school
she had always attended in a North Shore Massachusetts community. Due
to contradictory support regulations under TANF, she was told by her
caseworker that she had to move to a structured teen shelter in a
different community. The move would leave her without child care, and
to take care of her child she would have had to drop out of school. She
explained this and showed that she met all of the criteria for a waiver
of this policy, but she was denied benefits for not moving on demand.
Thanks to the intervention of an advocate, Diane won reconsideration of
her case and the reinstatement of benefits. What if the state had a
multi-million-dollar incentive to help Diane build on her resources and
continue the education she needs for her family to thrive? How would
the caseworker have behaved differently?
Rules requiring disclosure of an absent parent's identity can
compound the problems of families with a history of domestic violence.
``Kathy,'' the mother of two young children, sought protection from her
batterer for herself and her family in a Los Angeles shelter. Welfare
officials insisted that she reveal the identity of her children's
father or lose all benefits. When they learned that the father had gang
connections, the officials contacted the police. By enabling the
batterer ultimately to locate the shelter, this action put Kathy and
her children in danger again, and she felt it necessary to leave the
shelter for her safety and that of the other families. What if states
were expected to screen aid applicants for evidence of domestic
violence and rewarded for helping them find safety and needed services?
Might not Kathy then have a better chance of finding sustainable
employment?
Work is essential to the survival of families, and stable families
are vital to a healthy economy, but sometimes the rewards of work and
marriage are outweighed by the penalties. ``Sarah,'' a 32-year-old
mother of four, also from Washington, reported: ``Since my husband
started working, our benefits have been reduced greatly. After buying
equipment for his job, we are further in debt than before he started
working. Since he does work, we are no longer eligible for additional
benefits.'' Even though her husband was working, they family still did
not have enough money to keep the power on. To the government, she
concluded, ``the only thing that matters--is getting us off assistance,
whether we can survive or not.'' What if states helped families set
reasonable goals for an appropriate level of self-sufficiency, while
providing the work supports for moving toward those goals? Would not
Sarah and her husband have a better hope of becoming a healthy and
economically sustainable family?
Even for those with the education and skills to emerge from
poverty, temporary assistance comes with a message of disrespect that
is more a hindrance than a help. ``Donna,'' a Washington state woman,
who needed cash assistance after her marriage ended, was able to move
from welfare to work in 1999. She had received a good education before
her divorce and was able to support her family successfully after her
youngest was old enough for day care. But her ability to escape poverty
came in spite of TANF, not because of it; and she saw the ``work
first'' rules depriving others of the educational opportunity that had
made the difference for her. ``I have learned,'' she said, ``that
motherhood and education are no longer respected, at least not for
welfare mothers.'' What if states were rewarded for reducing poverty?
Would not caseworkers have more incentive to treat families with
respect and help them plan realistically to move toward an appropriate
level of self-sufficiency?
On the basis of our the findings and recommendations in our WHRMP
report, UUSC has worked with colleague organizations for several years
to prepare for the debate about the key decisions you are called upon
to make. As part of the Coalition on Human Needs, we helped develop and
have endorsed their statement of principles for TANF reauthorization.
And as part of the Inter-religious Working Group on Domestic Human
Need/Justice for Women and Families, we helped formulate and have
endorsed the ``Call to Poverty Reduction in the Context of TANF
Reauthorization.'' Now that the Bush Administration and several members
of Congress have begun introducing their proposals, we are prepared to
make some preliminary recommendations.
Recommendations
As the debate continues in the next few months, additional concerns
will surface. But at this point, here is how we apply them to the
emerging issues in the debate:
Reauthorize TANF with a renewed focus on helping
families move toward an appropriate level of self-sufficiency.
Include poverty reduction as one of the
purposes of TANF, and reward states through a poverty
reduction bonus. (See the Mink bill, H.R. 3113, which
includes provisions of Rep. Stark's Child Poverty
Reduction Act.)
Require states to use a measure of relative
self-sufficiency to guide TANF recipients in choosing
realistic strategies for achieving it.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Wider Opportunities for Women has developed self-sufficiency
standards for 38 states and will soon develop the other 12. At least
one state, Connecticut, has officially adopted that measure of the
success of its program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continue to provide appropriate work supports
for TANF ``leavers'' as they continue to work toward
their goals.
Increase TANF block grant to offset the effects of
inflation and give the states the resources they need to do the
unfinished business of welfare reform.
Poverty reduction cannot succeed as an
``unfunded mandate.''
Purchasing power of the $16.5 billion annual
TANF block grant had declined by 14% to the end of
2001. The Cardin bill (H.R. 3625) adjusts funding to
$18.7 billion by 2007.
When he was Governor of Wisconsin, Tommy
Thompson correctly emphasized that doing welfare reform
effectively would require more money, not less. Now
that he is Secretary of Health and Human Services, it
is still true.
Those remaining on the rolls often face more
significant barriers to getting and keeping a job than
those who have already left.
Increase child care funding in accordance with work
requirements and unmet need.
Work requirements and child care are linked:
If there's not enough money for needed child care,
increased work requirements are unsustainable.
Studies show states provide only 25% to 35%
of the child care subsidies needed to enable families
to work.
Cardin bill increases Child Care and
Development Block Grant by 11.25 billion over 5 years.
Welfare as we used to know it is gone. Now it is time to end
poverty as we know it.
Some will say we cannot afford to do what needs to be done.
However, the financial decisions we face about children and families
are every bit as important as the ones you face on military spending.
In recommending the expenditure of an additional $15 billion on
foreign aid, President Bush recently declared the restoration of hope a
national priority as part of the struggle against terrorism. In a world
where hopelessness and alienation lie at the root of violence and
insecurity at home as abroad, ending poverty is not an option but a
necessity, for the health of our economy, for our security as a nation,
and for our global role in the advancement of human rights. It is part
of our destiny as a nation blessed with riches that we have an
obligation to be a beacon of hope to the world.
Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you. This has been a wonderful panel.
Before we move on to the next panel, I just want to ask each of
you a very short, almost yes or no question, which is really
the central question that we are considering here. That is,
starting with Dr. Washington. On balance, do you feel that the
1996 reform law that we are looking to reauthorize was a
success or failure? Dr. Washington.
Dr. WASHINGTON. I think in the context of the booming
economy, it has been successful for some families in some
circumstances, and we can continue to build on that success to
move forward.
Mr. ENGLISH. Very good. Reverend Wilson. Has it been a
success or a failure?
Mr. WILSON. Of course, no social legislation can be seen in
a vacuum, so it must be kept in context with the economic
period through which we lived. In that context, since one of
the goals, perhaps the chief goal was to reduce case loads,
yes, it has been successful. Has it reduced poverty? That is a
different question.
Mr. ENGLISH. In your view, what is the answer to that
question? Has it reduced poverty?
Mr. WILSON. Certainly not to the same level as it has
reduced case loads.
Mr. ENGLISH. Sister Clark, has it been a success or a
failure?
Ms. CLARK. That, Congressman English, is our question. How
do we define success? So, in our view, it is not a success yet
until it really reduces poverty.
Mr. ENGLISH. Ms. Mitchell, has it been a success or a
failure?
Ms. MITCHELL. Based on our survey results, 48 percent of
our surveyed folks said it was not a success, and 43 said that
it was. Then there was that other group that was kind of in
between. So----
Mr. ENGLISH. Ms. Curran, in your view, has it been a
success or a failure?
Ms. CURRAN. I think it was successful in changing some of
the problems in the old program. I think that like some of my
colleagues, there is a long way to go before we can say that
welfare reform has been successful in bettering the lives of
all the people.
Mr. ENGLISH. Ms. Schumer, in your view has it been a
success or failure?
Ms. SCHUMER. I will echo my fellow panel members. Although
the total number of people on the welfare case rolls has been
reduced, and the over-arching goals set out in welfare reform
were very admirable, TANF has not adequately alleviated the
depth or the breadth of poverty in the United States. Although
we have just experienced a decade-long economic boom,
unprecedented in our Nation's history, the poor in our country
got even poorer.
Mr. ENGLISH. Very good. I want to thank all of you for
participating and taking the time tonight to be part of this. I
would like to dismiss you and call forward the next panel,
which will be our 8th panel. My understanding is that, yes,
Panel 8 will consist of Will Lightbourne, the Director of the
County Welfare Directors Association of California. Jean Ross,
the Executive Director of the California Budget Project, Alex
Yazza, Jr., Department Director of the Navajo Nation TANF
program, and I understand also a constituent of our colleague,
Mr. Hayworth, Eric Rodriguez, standing in as Vice President of
the National Council of La Raza.
I want to thank all of you for your patience and for
participating. If I can, I would like to invite that people's
name plates be reversed in the appropriate way. You, after all,
know your names. Mr. Lightbourne, we would now welcome your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF WILL LIGHTBOURNE, DIRECTOR, SANTA CLARA SOCIAL
SERVICES AGENCY, SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AND VICE-PRESIDENT OF
PROGRAM, COUNTY WELFARE DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. LIGHTBOURNE. Thank you, Mr. English. I am Will
Lightbourne. I am actually the Director of the Social Services
Agency of Santa Clara County in California, and Vice President
of the County Welfare Directors Association of California.
Mr. ENGLISH. We stand corrected.
Mr. LIGHTBOURNE. Perhaps starting where you left off the
last panel, Mr. English. We would consider California's TANF
program to have largely been a success. We have transitioned
nearly half of the 1995 case load off aid, and have 57 percent
of adults on aid now actively engaged in work or work-related
activities, most of it from subsidized employment.
The major challenge ahead of us now is how we work with the
remaining families, the multiple barrier families and have them
enjoy successful transitions. The Administration's proposal and
Chairman Herger's proposal highlight child well-being and the
strengthening of families as overall goals of TANF. Those are
goals we embrace and are consistent with many of the ``family
friendly'' programs and services provided by our counties in
California.
We are also heartened that in addition to those goals, all
of the various reauthorization proposals introduced to date
preserve the basic block grant, and flexibility, maintain at
least the current funding level, and some would add a cost of
living increase.
The four things that I would like to focus on this evening
are funding and child care, flexibility, employment credit, and
participation requirements. First, in the funding area. We
believe that it is vital to increase the funding available for
all of the TANF purposes. Especially for the child care funds.
California is now spending 96 percent of all of its
allocated TANF dollars. Next year the State faces a significant
budget deficit and will have great difficulty maintaining all
of the services. Early estimates on the added child care costs
in California of the administration proposals range from $300
million to half a billion dollars annually.
I would note that in Santa Clara County, 80 percent of
those people who are eligible for child care subsidies are
utilizing them from our TANF program. We believe that it is
essential to maintain the commitment that was implicit in
welfare reform at the beginning, that families transitioning to
work be provided the support of child care.
We are very aware that in California the same county
agencies that are requiring parents to work and be outside the
home are the same very agencies that will also ascertain and
intervene if there is determined to be child neglect.
We also support in the funding area restoring benefits to
legal immigrants, funding the social services block grant at
$2.8 billion, and providing separate funding for any
initiatives with no set-asides from the block grant.
In terms of flexibility, we think that preserving TANF
flexibility is absolutely critical. It has been the hallmark of
our California programs that have let us develop the sorts of
local self-sufficiency based programs that would have been
unimaginable 5 years ago. Counties, working with communities
and faith-based groups, schools, child care providers,
workforce agencies, housing and transportation agencies,
treatment providers, private employers, private foundations
have designed an extraordinary range of creative programs. All
of these people have a genuine sense of ownership, a genuine
sense of pride, and have in many cases directly invested in
these programs, precisely because they see them as theirs. They
do not see them as national programs even if 85 percent of the
money is nationally originated.
In terms of the employment bonus. We recommend that States
receive credit for the numbers of recipients placed in full-or
part-time employment, and those engaged in activities leading
to work rather than only those who have left welfare because of
work. In our case, we structured our programs with a generous
income disregard in recognition of our very high housing costs.
That means that we have a large number of people who are
working the full number of hours but are still on aid. It would
be important that they be recognized as meeting the employment
credits.
We would also recommend a process toward meeting
participation rates by creating a category of people who are
working a percentage of the required number of hours but
perhaps not all of them. This is a very developmental process
and an iterative process. The employment credit provision of
H.R. 4057 by Representative Levin, supports a similar approach.
In terms of the work participation requirements, the
administration's proposed combination of phasing up the States'
participation rate to 70 percent, requiring 40 hours weekly of
work and work-related activity, and limiting the activities
that count toward 24 hours of work gives States far less
flexibility than the current program.
We feel that this will essentially dismantle what we have
accomplished. Having been in the position of operating major
workfare programs, they are not as successful as the
alternative. It is our hope that the Congress will afford us
the sorts of flexibility that allow us to continue providing
those kinds of services.
Mr. ENGLISH. Can you summarize, sir?
Mr. LIGHTBOURNE. Yes. We are now at a point where in many
of our counties, half or almost half of the people receiving
services are also receiving mental health, behavioral health,
domestic violence related services. These are essentially
extremely expensive services. To have to divert those services
to operate workfare-like programs would really be a disaster in
terms of successfully serving these populations.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lightbourne follows:]
Statement of Will Lightbourne, Director, Social Services Agency, Santa
Clara County, California and Vice President of Program, County Welfare
Directors Association of California
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me here today to share the local level perspective from the
nation's largest state on the welfare reform reauthorization proposals
under consideration by your committee. I am Will Lightbourne, Director
of the Social Services Agency in Santa Clara County, California, and
Vice President of Program for the County Welfare Directors Association
of California (CWDA).
By any measure, California's TANF program has been a success, and
we look forward to building on that foundation in the next stage of
welfare reform. At its peak in 1995, California's welfare program aided
nearly one million families and by January 2001 had declined to 490,000
families. Well over half--57%--of adults on aid are actively engaged in
some form of work or work-related activity. One third of all adults are
meeting the work participation requirement--32 hours for single parents
and 35 hours for two-parent families.
For our counties, the major challenge is to address and remedy the
problems of families that are a long way from being ready to maintain
stable employment and move off welfare, the ``multiple barrier''
families. Some of these are among the other 24% of families engaged in
work or work activity, but for insufficient hours to meet the
requirement. Many others are among the 43% of adults who are not
currently engaged. Before exploring how the reauthorization affects the
hard-to-serve families in our case load, I want to address some more
general features of the proposals, especially the Administration's.
President Bush's proposal highlights child well being and
strengthening of families as the over-all goal of TANF Reauthorization,
a goal that we firmly endorse. Several policies adopted in California's
CalWorks program exemplify those principles and serve as the framework
for numerous ``family friendly'' programs and services provided by the
counties.
We are heartened that in addition to strengthening families, all of
the various reauthorization proposals introduced to date are headed in
the right direction, in that they preserve the basic block grant
flexibility and the emphasis on the work first approach of the 1996
law. Further, all the proposals would maintain at least the current
funding level, and some would add a cost of living increase or
recognize the need for more child care funds.
In addition, the Administration's proposal improves flexibility in
use of TANF funds, by allowing states to:
establish a Rainy Day fund, which can be drawn down
in future years without additional maintenance of effort
requirements;
spend prior-year funds carried over for non-
assistance needs, as well as cash assistance;
provide support services to non-working families,
without counting it as assistance, maintain the Contingency
Funds, and
utilize ``super waivers'' to integrate and coordinate
agencies and programs at the local level.
FUNDING
It is vital to preserve or increase the funding available for all
TANF purposes, and, specifically, to increase the amount of TANF
funding available for child care. CWDA's policies for reauthorization
call for additional funding, through a cost of living increase for the
basic block grant, or by increasing child care funds, which will be
needed if a higher work participation rate or increased work hours are
enacted. California has spent 96 percent of its TANF block grant
allocations to date, and faces a severe fiscal crisis in the coming
year, an estimated $12.5 billion budget deficit.
Funding for incentive programs should not be carved out or set
aside from the TANF block grant, but should be separately provided, as
is proposed for the Administration's healthy marriage and responsible
fatherhood initiatives.
CWDA also supports restoring benefits to legal immigrants and
funding the Social Services Block Grant at $2.8 billion, with authority
to transfer 10% of TANF to the services block grant.
FLEXIBILIITY
Preserving the great flexibility provided by the TANF law is
critical. That flexibility is the hallmark of California's welfare
reform program, which allows the counties to invest assistance and
supportive services over a longer period in order to foster employment
stability and long-term family self-sufficiency. A generous earned
income disregard, reflecting the generally higher cost of living in the
state and a sanction policy that removes only the non-compliant adult
from cash assistance. A ``child safety net'' will continue a reduced,
child only grant when parents reach the 60-month limit. The counties,
in collaboration with community-and faith-based organizations, schools,
child care providers, workforce agencies, housing and transportation
agencies, and treatment providers, have designed creative programs that
respond to the unique needs of their areas.
WAIVER FLEXIBILITY
The proposed ``super waiver'' program can be a useful tool to
enhance the local design and service flexibility described above,
particularly for inter-agency and inter-jurisdictional collaboration.
It is important that the waivers can serve regions or counties, as
proposed. CWDA recommends that the Secretary be given authority to
waive cost-neutrality requirements.
EMPLOYMENT BONUS OR CREDIT
We recommend that states receive credit for the numbers of
recipients placed in full or part-time employment and those engaged in
activities leading to work. Rather than rewarding states for the number
who leave the roles for work, as the case load Reduction credit now
does, the employment credit would reward progress toward meeting
participation rates. It would recognize job entry efforts of states
such as California, where many families with an employed adult remain
on assistance because of low wages and high cost of living. The
employment credit provision of H.R. 4057 by Rep. Sander Levin and its
companion, S. 2058 by Senator Blanche Lincoln supports this approach.
Although California benefits from the case load reduction factor--
which effectively reduces its work participation requirement from 50%
to only 8%, it has masked the high level of success the counties
attained in engaging 57% of adult recipients in work.
UNIVERSAL ENGAGEMENT WITHIN 60 DAYS
The proposal put forth by the Administration would require an
upfront assessment of every participant and require every participant
to be engaged within 60 days of program entry in a family self-
sufficiency plan that includes work. This approach, coupled with a
narrower definition of work that no longer specifically includes job
search, may require revision of our ``work first'' approach that
engages participants in an upfront test of the labor market.
Clarification is needed about how this universal, early engagement
affects the work first approach and whether work first without other
engagement in other activities can be done only in the proposed 90 day
intensive services period.
The current ``work first'' approach allows a significant percentage
of participants to secure unsubsidized employment within the first few
months. This initial period of intensive job search instructs
recipients on the preparation of resumes and job applications and
requires them to apply or interview for certain numbers of jobs each
week. By the end of this period (which varies by county), those who are
employable typically have found a job, and those who haven't found work
are assessed further to determine what is holding them back. At that
point, we work to find a mix of activities that will move these
participants into the workforce, and toward unsubsidized employment, as
quickly as possible. Each person will need a different set of
activities to succeed.
WORK PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS
We support efforts to increase participation in work and work
activities; however, these efforts must maintain maximum flexibility
for states and counties, recognizing the unique needs of families
receiving TANF and the need to tailor services to meet those needs.
The administration's proposed combination of phasing up the state
participation rate to 70%, requiring 40 hours weekly of work and work-
related activity, and limiting the activities that count toward the 24
hours of work gives states far less flexibility than the current
program. We are concerned that increasing either the hours or the
participation rate will disrupt successful programs, especially our
efforts to serve families with multiple barriers.
The proposed mix of 24 hours work and 16 hours of other activity
seems arbitrary and difficult to administer, despite the greater
flexibility for states to define and expand the range of activities
that may count in the 16-hour portion.
CWDA strongly recommends that states be allowed to retain their
current minimum of work hours and the discretion to determine the mix
of direct work and other activities that individuals need to perform.
Job search and vocational education should remain a part of the
definition of work.
Further, we recommend that the current state participation rate be
retained. We believe that maintaining the 50 percent work participation
rate, coupled with modification or replacement of the case load
reduction credit, will increase states' actual work requirements
significantly while enabling states and counties to achieve continued
success during the second phase of welfare reform. To encourage rates
higher than 50%, incentive payments could be provided for states that
are meeting the 50% rate and can progress incrementally.
Eliminating separate work requirements for one and two-parent
families supports the goal of stabilizing families and improving child
well being, and it will simplify the tracking, case management, and
reporting of the work participation requirements. Consistent with our
recommendations above, we recommend that the current single-parent
hours and work participation rate be used for both.
We are concerned that in order to step up to more than 50%
participation, and to meet he proposed 24/16 hour minimums, we would
have to back down some of the support services that we now provide to
working TANF families and to the less job ready families. Without
additional funding to meet additional costs for staff, tracking and
reporting systems, and child care, resources would be drawn from
current programs.
States and counties have achieved unprecedented success with a work
participation rate of 50 percent and under current TANF work week
limits. California's 32-hour per week requirement for one-parent
families engages recipients in the workforce with a mix of work,
education, training, or treatment that is determined by the county in
consultation with each participant. Although some work less than the
federal weekly hours requirement, fifty seven percent of our case load
are working or participating in work-related activities. California's
program allows working recipients to continue receiving a reduced grant
for an indefinite period, and to continue receiving supportive services
during and after their time on aid. Research on the Minnesota Family
Investment Program, after which California's program is patterned,
shows that a longer period of assistance, coupled with an emphasis on
work and the provision of services to the family, leads to better
outcomes for children and families.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Virginia Knox, Cynthia Miller, Lisa A. Gennetian (September
2000). Reforming Welfare and Rewarding Work: A Summary of the Final
Report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program. Manpower
Demonstration Research Corporation and Minnesota Department of Human
Services. Available online at http://www.mdrc.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, many of the working parents who remain on our case
load due to low wages and the earned income disregard structure, would
have to take on multiple jobs to meet the work requirements. A further
concern is that counties would have to develop stop-gap public service
jobs in order to total 24 hours for all recipients working less hours.
High-unemployment areas could be particularly affected, where
unsubsidized jobs are lacking and public employment may not be able to
supply the extra hours.
A case example illustrates the need for the counties to have
flexibility and discretion about the mix of work and activities:
A single mother with major depression, a history of violent
relationships, no high-school diploma and no work experience.
The expectation for her to be able to work 24 hours per week
and participate in other activities for another 16 hours is not
realistic. For this mother, participation in drug treatment,
counseling, and adult basic education classes may be the best
approach; not just for three months and not just for 16 hours a
week, but until she is able to enter the workforce and sustain
employment.
COUNTABLE ACTIVITIES
All current work activities, including job search and time-limited
vocational education, should continue to count as work participation.
For example, we have found that an upfront test of the labor market
through a period of assisted job search is the best way to determine
who is employable and who needs more in-depth services and training in
order to find a job. Further, participation in activities contained in
a participant's welfare-to-work plan, such as mental health and
substance abuse treatment, counseling, and basic education, should also
count toward the work requirement.
CHILD CARE
Any change to work requirements would create significantly higher
demand for supportive services, especially child care. Early estimates
on the added cost in California of child care of the Administration's
proposal range from $300 million to half a billion dollars annually.
The state already commits $3.2 billion each year, about half state and
half federal funds, to child care subsidies for current and former
welfare recipients and the working poor.
If child care demand increases significantly, we will be unable to
meet that demand and also provide the kind of case management and
supportive services that will be needed to get recipients engaged in
work and work activities. Something will have to give. We are very
concerned that some of the creative county-run programs that have made
welfare reform a success would have to significantly scale back or even
end as resources shift to more child care and monitoring of expanded
work participation.
SUPPORTIVE SERVICES
TANF work requirements need to recognize the significant challenges
states and counties face in helping seriously impaired recipients to
participate in any activities. We need the flexibility to count
participation in activities such as treatment and domestic abuse
services toward individuals' work participation, without arbitrary time
limits or artificially distinguishing between work and treatment
activities.
As the case load size declined, the way in which California spends
its money has shifted dramatically, as well. Average monthly
expenditures on cash grants have dropped sharply and now almost half of
the TANF funds are spent on supportive services such as child care,
transportation, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and
domestic abuse services. Support services are needed by most of the
working TANF families and almost all of the families with severe or
multiple barriers to employment.
In Sonoma County, roughly half of the current case load is
participating in mental health services, drug abuse treatment, and/or
domestic abuse services to help deal with multiple employment barriers.
Sonoma County has found that vocational training is also an important
intervention strategy to enable individuals with no skills to learn a
skill, and to help working individuals with some skills improve their
ability and find higher-paying jobs. Despite the prevalence of these
major employment barriers among our case load, none of the treatment
and services we provide to these participants are countable toward the
federal work participation requirements, with the exception that under
current law, up to 12 months of vocational training is allowed at state
discretion.
MULTIPLE BARRIERS
Since several of CWDA's recommendations for TANF reauthorization
are in the context of families that are hard to serve in a system that
demands work and self-sufficiency, we want to describe some of the
challenges. Many of those who remain on aid have multiple barriers to
employment that must be addressed before we can help them even find a
job, including little or no experience in the workforce. These adults
do not know how to deal with the trials of daily life, let alone the
requirements of TANF. They may have limited education or training,
learning disabilities, poor English skills, mental illness, substance
abuse problems, criminal records or current legal issues. Typically
there is no reliable way to get from their homes to training programs,
child care, or a job. A full range of basic supportive services is
needed, which unless combined with work may not count toward required
participation.
Counties have started creative programs, such as multidisciplinary
clinical evaluation and treatment teams stationed at their welfare
offices, specialized training for case workers in spotting potential
barriers to employment and talking with the recipients about these
issues, and intensive training in life skills that many of us would
consider very basic, but that our recipients never learned. It will
take time to learn from the results of these attempts, to refine our
approach, and to help our staff learn to use the tools they have been
given to work with these extremely challenging recipients.
During 2000 and 2001, CWDA commissioned focus groups of county
staff in each region of the state.\2\ The findings show much pride in
counties' ability to get participants to work, in their ability to
collaborate with local agencies and the business community, and in
their shift from a system focused on giving people monthly welfare
checks to a system focused on employment and family well-being. One
focus group participant noted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Jann Donnenwirth (January 2001). Results of Focus Group
Research on CalWORKs Programs in 27 California Counties. Center for
Human Services, University of California-Davis, Davis, California.
People have chaotic lives. We do a little survey when they come
back [on aid]. One person wrote in for, ``Why did you go off
aid?'': My husband got a job. And for, ``Why are you back
today?'': My husband got arrested and put in jail. It seems
like a lot of life crises and turmoil going on, so employment
[alone] is not necessarily the answer for the working poor. We
still have to make a case that the services have to continue--
the case management services, mental health services, [and] job
retention services so they can stabilize and get into career
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
development.
Another focus group participant commented on the fact that not
every family with problems wants to admit that they are in trouble.
I think it is important that people understand that there is a
lot of denial in these families. They don't have an alcohol
problem, and they don't have a mental health problem. So when
our workers are first going out or talking to them in the
office, the workers are being told that they don't need these
services. It isn't until we start trying to get them in job
club or orientation or whatever that we start seeing behaviors
we knew of all along.
Research is also confirming the extent of multiple barrier families
in TANF programs. A General Accounting Office study found last year
that 44 percent of TANF recipients had at least one physical or mental
impairment \3\ The California Institute for Mental Health has found a
similar prevalence in its study of 643 recipients in Kern and
Stanislaus counties. In two rounds of intensive interviews, the
Institute found that nearly one-fifth had a need for services in more
than one of three areas. Taken individually, between 30 and 33 percent
of respondents needed mental health services, and 12 to 18 percent
needed substance abuse services. Depending on the county, 22 to 26
percent (Kern) and 32 to 37 percent (Stanislaus) reported a need for
domestic violence services. These two counties were chosen because the
approach they take to substance abuse, mental health, and domestic
violence identification and treatment are seen as a model for other
counties to follow.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. General Accounting Office (October 31, 2001). Welfare
Reform: More Coordinated Federal Effort Could Help States and
Localities Move TANF Recipients With Impairments Toward Employment.
GAO-02-37, Washington, DC. Available online: http://www.gao.gov
\4\ Daniel Chandler and Joan Meisner (February 2002). CalWORKs
Project Research: Alcohol and Other Drugs, Mental Health, and Domestic
Violence Issues: Need, Incidence, and Services. California Institute
for Mental Health, Sacramento, California. Available online: http://
www.cimh.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is: Let states decide the best way to put people to
work, based on the research in the field and the success they have
already achieved. Replace the case load reduction credit with a credit
that better reflects how states and counties put people to work, but
maintain the 50 percent work participation rate and the current work
week. Recognize the significant barriers that these families face, and
let us work with them, on an individualized basis, to help them
progress. Preserve at least the current funding level and provide new
funds for any extra demands that the reauthorized program imposes, such
as child care.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. My colleagues
and I are pleased to be part of the revolution that was welfare reform,
stage 1 and we are confident about moving California's program into the
second stage with new TANF legislation.
Mr. ENGLISH. Very good, Mr. Lightbourne. Thank you so much
for your testimony. Ms. Ross, we look forward to your
statement.
STATEMENT OF JEAN ROSS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA BUDGET
PROJECT, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
Ms. ROSS. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
you for your perseverance this evening. The California Budget
Project is a nonprofit policy research group dedicated to
improving social and economic policies for low and middle
income Californians.
What has happened with welfare reform since 1996 in
California? First, California has spent, as Mr. Lightbourne
said, nearly all of our available funds, 97 percent of funds
received to this date and will exhaust the remaining funds next
year. In fact, California Work Opportunity and Responsibility
to Kids (CalWORKS), California's TANF program, is anticipating
a substantial deficit in our Governor's proposed budget for the
next fiscal year.
We have made substantial spending reductions in cash
grants, employment services, and child care to bridge a
deficit, anticipated to be in excess of $500 million.
To answer your question to the final panel, case loads have
declined. Some would judge that a success. They have declined
much faster than poverty rates, even in light of California's
extremely good economy during the late 1990s.
More people are working. Again, that is a success. A large
part of that is attributable to unprecedented employment growth
during the late 1990s. Again, I don't think we can anticipate
economic growth of that level in the foreseeable future.
However, due to low wages, many families continue to combine
work and cash assistance. Approximately 60 percent of those
people who have left the CalWORKS case loads are working,
though many do not earn enough to support a family.
Because of California's high cost of living and the
structure of our cash assistance program, 42.8 percent of the
adults receiving cash assistance were employed, substantially
higher than the national average of 28 percent. Again, most
parents who do find work do not earn enough to support a
family.
County level studies suggest that the median hourly wages
for welfare ``leavers'' in the San Francisco Bay Area are
approximately $9 to $10 an hour. That is in an area where the
rent for a two-bedroom apartment is oftentimes as much as
$2,000 a month. The total household income for many ``leavers''
often falls at or below the federal poverty level, and is far
below what it costs to live in California.
Moreover, many families do not receive the supportive
services that can help them facilitate the transition from
welfare-to-work. A recent study found that approximately half
of welfare laborers received Medi-Cal, California's Medicaid
program 1 year after leaving welfare. Only one in five report
receiving food stamps, even though an additional 30 percent or
more are eligible.
Many of the families who remain on welfare have serious
barriers to employment. A study of two California counties
found that up to one-third have recent and serious mental
health and domestic violence problems. Many welfare recipients
lack the education and language skills that are necessary for
employment at higher earnings. More than half of California's
CalWORKS adults lack a high school degree, and more than a
third of CaLWORK's heads of household reported a primary
language other than English.
How can you help us resolve these problems and move to
marking welfare reform a success? First, Congress should, at a
minimum, adjust the TANF block grant for inflation; increase
funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, and
update the TANF contingency fund. As I mentioned before,
California is currently overspending the funds that are
available to us. Over the next 5 years, the purchasing power of
our TANF block grant will be eroded by approximately 22
percent.
The deficit has two causes. First, program costs continue
to rise with inflation despite stagnant funding levels. Second,
the current model that California uses prepares recipients for
and supports them in work. That is more costly than the prior
cash assistance model upon which the State's block grant was
predicated.
Second, Congress should retain and expand flexibility for
States and counties. One of the primary virtues for TANF is
that it provided States with flexibility. We believe that to
undermine or limit this flexibility would limit one of the
guiding principles of welfare reform, that States rather than
the Federal Government are best situated to identify the needs
of local communities.
We recommend families who combine welfare and work, should
not lose the possibility of future assistance and would
encourage you to ``stop the clock'' for families that are
working. Fourth, Congress should make poverty reduction an
explicit goal of TANF to take welfare reform to the next step.
We would encourage you to remove restrictions on education and
training as work activities and allow States the option to use
TANF funds to serve legal immigrants. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ross follows:]
Statement of Jean Ross, Executive Director, California Budget Project,
Sacramento, California
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Good afternoon. My name is Jean Ross, and I am the Executive
Director of the California Budget Project (CBP). The CBP is a nonprofit
policy research group based in Sacramento, California. Over the past
seven years, we have analyzed the impact of state and federal welfare
policies and have worked with public and nonprofit organizations
throughout the state to develop policies and programs aimed at moving
families not only off welfare, but also toward self-sufficiency. My
testimony will address the impact of welfare reform in California and
the issues that you are considering as part of the reauthorization
debate that are important as California strives to move families from
welfare-to-work.
What Has Happened Since 1996?
California is spending available funds. California has used 97
percent of all TANF funds it has received.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This includes actual reported expenditures, as well as
transfers from the TANF block grant to the Social Services Block Grant
and the Child Care and Development Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CalWORKs program is running a deficit. Combined annual TANF and
MOE funds of $6.4 billion are not sufficient to fully fund CalWORKs,
California's TANF program. The Governor's proposed 2002-03 Budget makes
spending reductions in cash grants, employment services, and child care
to bridge a deficit in excess of $500 million.
case loads have declined, but much faster than poverty rates.
Between March 1995 and November 2001, the number of families receiving
cash assistance through AFDC/CalWORKs declined by 46 percent. Poverty
rates have dropped as well, but not nearly as much as the case load.
More people are working. California witnessed unprecedented
employment growth during the late 1990s and unemployment rates reached
historic lows. The strength of the state's labor markets enabled many
families to obtain work. However, due to low wages, many continued to
combine work and cash assistance. Approximately 60 percent of people
who leave CalWORKs are working, though many do not earn enough to
support a family.\2\ In 1999, 42.8 percent of adults receiving cash
assistance through CalWORKs were employed, much higher than the
national average of 27.6 percent.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, for example, California Department of Social Services,
CalWORKs Leaver Survey: A Statewide Telephone Survey of Former CalWORKs
Recipients (January 2000).
\3\ US Department of Health and Human Services, Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program, Third Annual Report to
Congress, Table 10:20 (August 2000), downloaded from www.acf.dhhs.gov/
programs/opre/annual3.doc. 1999 is the most recent year for which data
are available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most parents who find work do not earn enough to support a family.
County studies suggest that median hourly wages for leavers in the Bay
Area are approximately $9 or $10. However, total household income for
leavers often falls at or below the federal poverty level and far below
what it costs to live in California.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ R. Mark Gritz et al., Assessing the Family Circumstances of
TANF Applicants and Leavers in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties: Final
Report (Sphere Institute: October 26, 2001); Anne Moses et al.,
Examining Circumstances of Individuals and Families Who Leave TANF:
Assessing the Validity of Administrative Data: 12-Month Report (Sphere
Institute: December 22, 2000); David Mancuso and Vanessa Lindler,
Examining the Circumstances of Welfare Leavers and Sanctioned Families
in Sonoma County (Sphere Institute: June 29, 2001); and California
Budget Project, Making Ends Meet: How Much Does it Cost to Raise a
Family in California? (September 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many families do not receive supportive services that facilitate
the transition from welfare-to-work. A recent study based on state
administrative data found that half (49 percent) of leavers receive
Medi-Cal one year after leaving CalWORKs.\5\ Surveys of Bay Area
leavers indicate that approximately one-quarter lack any type of health
coverage one year after leaving cash assistance.\6\ Only one in five
CalWORKs leavers (19 percent) report receiving food stamps and another
30 percent or more are eligible but do not receive food stamps.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Amy Cox and Jacob Klerman (RAND) and Ingrid Aguirre Happoldt
(Medi-Cal Policy Institute), Medi-Cal After Welfare Reform: Enrollment
Among Former Welfare Recipients (Medi-Cal Policy Institute: December
2001).
\6\ R. Mark Gritz et al., Assessing the Family Circumstances of
TANF Applicants and Leavers in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties: Final
Report (Sphere Institute: October 26, 2001); Anne Moses et al.,
Examining Circumstances of Individuals and Families Who Leave TANF:
Assessing the Validity of Administrative Data: 12-Month Report (Sphere
Institute: December 22, 2000); David Mancuso and Vanessa Lindler,
Examining the Circumstances of Welfare Leavers and Sanctioned Families
in Sonoma County (Sphere Institute: June 29, 2001).
\7\ California Department of Social Services, CalWORKs Leaver
Survey: A Statewide Telephone Survey of Former CalWORKs Recipients
(January 2000); R. Mark Gritz et al., Assessing the Family
Circumstances of TANF Applicants and Leavers in Contra Costa and
Alameda Counties: Final Report (Sphere Institute: October 26, 2001);
Anne Moses et al., Examining Circumstances of Individuals and Families
Who Leave TANF: Assessing the Validity of Administrative Data: 12-Month
Report (Sphere Institute: December 22, 2000); David Mancuso and Vanessa
Lindler, Examining the Circumstances of Welfare Leavers and Sanctioned
Families in Sonoma County (Sphere Institute: June 29, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many families that rely on cash assistance have serious barriers to
employment. A study of two California counties found high incidences of
mental health issues, domestic violence, and drug dependency among
CalWORKs recipients.\8\ Up to one-third have recent mental health or
domestic violence problems. Many CalWORKs recipients lack the education
and language skills that are linked to employability and earnings. More
than half of CalWORKs adults lack a high school degree.\9\ Over one-
third of CalWORKs heads of household report a primary language other
than English.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Sandra Naylor Goodwin et al., The Prevalence of Mental Health,
Alcohol and Other Drug, and Domestic Violence Issues among CalWORKs
Participants In Kern and Stanislaus Counties (California Institute for
Mental Health: September 2000).
\9\ California Department of Social Services, CalWORKs: A
Characteristics Survey on Social and Economic Characteristics of
Families Receiving Aid (Federal Fiscal Year 1999).
\10\ California Department of Social Services, CalWORKs: A
Characteristics Survey on Social and Economic Characteristics of
Families Receiving Aid (Federal Fiscal Year 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendations
Congress should, at a minimum, adjust the TANF block grant for
inflation, increase funding for the Child Care Development fund CCDF),
and update the TANF contingency fund.
While California's CalWORKs case loads have declined by nearly
half, program costs exceed available funds from the annual TANF block
grant and the minimum MOE spending requirement. This deficit has two
causes: (1) program costs rise with inflation, despite stagnant funding
levels and (2) the CalWORKs model, which prepares recipients for and
supports them in work, is more expensive than the AFDC cash assistance
model on which the state's block grant was predicated.
In addition, funding for the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)
must be increased in order to ensure that families are not forced back
on to welfare because they cannot afford the child care they need to
remain in the workforce. We estimate that over a quarter of a million
California children qualify for child care assistance based on income
but do not receive it.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ California Budget Project, Lasting Returns: Strengthening
California's Child Care and Development System (May 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should also update the TANF contingency fund, which is
designed to provide states with additional funds during economic
downturns. The original program rules do not reflect the fiscal
realities of states and the maintenance of effort requirement makes the
fund essentially useless to states when they are most in need.
Congress should retain and expand flexibility for states and
counties.
TANF provided states with the ability to craft programs to match
diverse local needs. This is particularly important in a state like
California that encompasses urban areas with strong, technology based
labor markets, as well as rural areas with high levels of poverty and
high rates of structural unemployment. Our Legislature took advantage
of this flexibility when creating the CalWORKs program by designing a
benefit structure that rewards work, allowing recipients with an
opportunity to pursue education, and encouraging counties to address
barriers to work, such as mental health and substance abuse problems.
To limit this flexibility would undermine one of the guiding principles
of welfare reform: that states, rather than the Federal Government, are
best situated to identify the needs of local communities.
Families that combine welfare and work should not lose the
possibility of future assistance.
California uses earnings disregards to encourage work and raise
family income. However, since these families continue to receive grant
checks, no matter how small, they ``use up'' time-limited assistance
that might be needed more in the future. Families are thus rewarded by
the earnings disregard and punished by the time limit for combining
welfare and work. The typical earnings of welfare ``leavers'' are far
below the levels necessary to afford basic necessities, particularly in
light of California's high housing costs. In the San Francisco Bay
Area, where studies find that leavers typically earn $9-$10 per hour, a
family needs to earn $10.08 an hour in full-time employment to pay the
Fair Market Rent on a one bedroom unit, not including the cost of food,
transportation, child care and other necessities. We estimate that a
single mother with two children needs to earn $25.99 per hour in full-
time work to afford the full complement of basic necessities.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ California Budget Project, Making Ends Meet: How Much Does it
Cost to Raise a Family in California? (September 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress can resolve this conflict by giving states the option to
``stop the clock'' for recipients who are working and still receiving
cash assistance. Alternatively, Congress could designate earnings
supplements as ``non-assistance,'' so that they would not apply toward
the five-year time limit.
Congress should make poverty reduction an explicit goal of TANF.
TANF reauthorization provides an opportunity to communicate to the
public, recipients, and states what the goals and priorities of welfare
reform will be over the next several years. Currently, the main message
received by states is that reducing the number of families that receive
cash assistance is the primary measure of success. However, given that
many welfare leavers are not working in stable jobs or do not earn
wages sufficient to support families, reducing the number of families
receiving cash aid should not be the only or primary measure of
success. The Federal Government should place more emphasis on improving
family economic well-being, not just moving families off the case load.
Congress should remove restrictions on education and training as
work activities.
Currently, recipients can satisfy federal work requirements by
enrolling in vocational education for no longer than 12 months.
However, research in the context of welfare reform suggests that higher
skill levels and education beyond high school are linked to higher
future wages.\13\ A comprehensive evaluation of 11 welfare-to-work
programs found that a Portland program that used a ``mixed'' strategy,
assigning some participants to education and training and others to job
search, was most successful at increasing employment and family income.
Programs that encouraged all recipients to pursue education or training
or to get a job as quickly as possible were not as effective as the
Portland program.\14\ Together, these findings indicate that a 12-month
restriction on vocational education may not make sense for recipients.
For certain recipients, such as those who are finishing a degree,
education alone may be the best way to increase future earnings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Julie Strawn and Karin Martinson, Steady Work and Better Jobs:
How to Help Low-Income Parents Sustain Employment and Advance in the
Workforce (Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation: June 2000).
\14\ Gayle Hamilton, et al., National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work
Strategies: How Effective Are Different Welfare-to-Work Approaches?
(Manpower Development Research Corporation: December 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should allow states the option of using TANF funds to
serve legal immigrants.
California uses state funds to provide CalWORKs cash assistance and
services and food stamps to immigrants who are not federally eligible.
Even though essentially all immigrants remained eligible for food
stamps and cash assistance through the state's replacement programs,
immigrant participation in these programs fell dramatically in the
1990s.\15\ Allowing states to use TANF block grant funds for recent
immigrant families would give California flexibility over how to use
TANF and MOE funds and would help reduce confusion about eligibility by
making all legal immigrants eligible for federal TANF benefits,
regardless of date of entry into the US.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ California Department of Social Services. Sponsorship or
``deeming'' rules, which count the resources and income of an
immigrant's sponsor when determining program eligibility, make many
recent immigrants ineligible for these programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should not require states to use block grant funds to
implement marriage promotion or other family structure programs.
While evidence exists that growing up in families with married
parents has positive economic benefits and effects on child well-being,
research by the CBP indicates that working poor families in California
are just as likely to be married as all working families.\16\ Moreover,
in light of the CalWORKs deficit, it is not reasonable to create more
demands on the state's TANF block grant and MOE funds. Policies that
may help strengthen families include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ California Budget Project calculations from the Current
Population Survey.
Encouraging states to remove any barriers in their
TANF programs that discriminate against two-parent families.
Providing income support to working families. A study
of a Minnesota TANF program with an earnings disregard very
similar to California's found increases in marriage rates for
both single-parent and two-parent families.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Virginia Knox, Cynthia Miller, and Lisa A. Gennetian,
Reforming Welfare and Rewarding Work: A Summary of the Final Report on
the Minnesota Family Investment Program (Manpower Demonstration
Research Corporation: September 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improving child support enforcement and distribution.
Supporting low-income fathers, with employment
training and educational opportunities.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon. I would be
happy to answer any questions you might have.
Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you, Ms. Ross. Mr. Yazza, we look
forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ALEX YAZZA, JR., DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR, NAVAJO
NATION TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE TO NEEDY FAMILIES PROGRAM, DIVISION
OF SOCIAL SERVICES, WINDOW ROCK, ARIZONA
Mr. YAZZA. Good evening, Chairman Herger, Mr. English. I am
representing the Navajo Nation, which has a population of about
200,000 members, which is a reservation that extends into
States of New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah, covering approximately
27,000 square miles. The Navajo Nation began its tribal TANF
operations on October 1, 2000.
Pursuant to section 412 of the law and pursuant to 45 CFR
Part 286 of the Tribal TANF Rules and Regulations, the Navajo
Nation is providing services to 9,000 Navajo families serving
27,000 recipients within the three State areas. Our annual
budget is approximately $31.2 million, providing services to
our Navajo customers.
The issue that I am going to present to the Committee is in
regards to any bills that are being introduced by Congress this
year and the lack of funding resources for services for Indian
tribes. We are presented with a disadvantage for tribal
agreements to immediately determine if they should apply for
tribal TANF programming. In this lack of funding, we see that
issues that we have in terms of funding streams that States are
receiving are not provided to the tribes, including the
maintenance of effort dollars, performance bonuses, access to
the contingency funds, planning, and any startup dollars to
provide to the Navajo Nation as well as Indian tribes.
Second, some funding streams that tribes cannot access and
are not adequate are the disproportionate amount of State
funding to administer TANF. This is again, the TANF block grant
is not providing enough funds for tribal operations. In light
of that, the Navajo Nation has experienced the lack of funds
to, one, construct new one-stop shop service delivery centers,
to renovate existing facilities, or buildings to house now
tribal TANF programming, to develop or enhance a computer
management information system to effectively and efficiently
serve our Navajo families.
To anticipate tribal customer case load increases, and to
adjust administrative cost of living costs associated with an
annual 2.5-to 5-percent inflationary adjustment and also to
develop a culturally enriched training and development program
for our customers, staff, and partners.
I am bringing these issues up because the States are
advocating for the same level of funding at $16.5 billion. In
the budgeted message to Congress, President Bush also proposes
to maintain the same level of funding for States but with a
greater emphasis on getting TANF customers to work and
encouraging formation of two-parent families. In neither of
those two proposals Indian tribes again are not mentioned in
the reauthorization process.
In the bill that is being provided by Representative
Herger, H.R. 4090, he talks about the basic development of the
President's message and keeping in line with that, and we
support some of the issues, but one thing that we notice is in
terms of strengthening child support, that we also would like
to continue to provide child support payments to mothers and
children.
In order for us to do so, we need to be able to establish
what is called a Financial Medical Assistance Program (FMAP)
rate, in order for us to pass those same dollars on to our
tribal family members. In regards to Representatives Mink, H.R.
3113, she mentions the reauthorization of tribal TANF
programming through the year 2008.
Representative Cardin's bill, H.R. 3625, does not
specifically identify reauthorization for tribal TANF
programming. I mention this to you, Mr. English, because again,
tribes feel that they are left out in this whole discussion.
That as States are presenting their information and advocating
for the maintenance of the same level of funding, tribes are
not being consulted and are not being able to provide the type
of input that is needed.
Speaking of lack of funds, another issue I want to discuss
regards the Title IV-E program. Since Indian children and
families need other support services besides TANF to
successfully make their transition toward self-sufficiency,
there needs to be additional funding available for Indian
tribes for those purposes.
Many children making this transition will be in foster care
and adoptive settings, and therefore stable funding, such as
the funding available through Title IV-E, foster care, and
adoption assistance programs could provide these opportunities
for Indian children and families. We are encouraged by the
supportive efforts to give tribal governments the opportunities
for direct funding such as H.R. 2335, which is a legislation
sponsored in the House by Congressman Dave Camp. We think this
legislation will be a good fit for tribal welfare
reauthorization.
In closing, Mr. English, we do support the fact that we
would like to have Congress consider federalizing the MOE,
which would be basically providing 100 percent MOE dollars for
the tribes. We ask at this time also that tribes are requesting
for economic development initiatives in addition to our tribal
welfare reform programming. So, that is something that we are
also asking for.
So, in our tribal programs, we know that welfare reform
means economic reform on our reservations. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Yazza follows:]
Statement of Alex Yazza, Jr., Department Director, Navajo Nation
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, Division of Social
Services, Window Rock, Arizona
Chairman Herger and Members of the Committee:
My name is Alex Yazza, Jr. I am the Department Director of the
Navajo Nation Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program,
Division of Social Services, in Window Rock, Arizona. On behalf of the
Navajo Nation, it is a great privilege to be here today to address the
viewpoints on tribal TANF for the reauthorization of welfare reform.
The Navajo Nation has a population of 250,000 members and is the
largest federally recognized Indian tribe in the United States.
Navajoland extends into the States of New Mexico, Arizona and Utah,
covering over 27,000 square miles and is compared to the size of the
State of West Virginia. Since 1997, the Navajo Nation engaged itself in
planning, organizing, developing and implementing it's own tribal TANF
program pursuant to Public Law 104-193, Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), Section 412, and
pursuant to 45 CFR Part 286, the Tribal TANF Rules and Regulations. The
Navajo Nation negotiated with the States of New Mexico, Arizona, and
Utah for the proportionate of the federal ``Tribal Family Assistance
Grant'' (TFAG) block grant funds to begin operations of the tribal
program. Pursuant to Fiscal Year 1994 case load data, the three states
served 9,000 Navajo families (27,000 recipients) comprising of an
annual budget of $31.2 million. The Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) Secretary approved the Navajo Nation TANF Plan to begin
administering the tribal program on October 1, 2000. Thus far, the
Navajo Nation is the largest tribal TANF program in the United States.
The reauthorization of welfare reform lends the opportunity for
Indian Tribes to provide input regarding issues which were not
adequately addressed before. Therefore, it is an appropriate time to
carefully examine the issues and recommendations to consider before
Congress during this legislative session.
Lack of Funding Resources
From the beginning, the lack of adequate funding for Indian Tribes
presented a disadvantage for tribal governments to immediately
determine if they should apply for the tribal TANF program. Pursuant to
P.L. 104-193, Section 412, tribes applying for the administration of
the program were provided a funding formula that simply used the state
case load data of Indian families served and state expenditures serving
Indian families in Fiscal Year 1994. What Congress and state human
service providers did not consider was the socio-economic factors of
tribal reservations. For example, the Navajo Nation's unemployment rate
is 53.88% (1999 BIA Labor Force Statistics) and the cost of living is
much higher than urban metropolitan communities. Therefore, the lack of
funding resources continues to present unique problems for tribal
governments to adequately meet the needs of administering the program.
In addition, to providing the cash assistance payments to the Navajo
customers, high administration costs and indirect costs creates an
inequitable service delivery operations.
The challenges for the Navajo Nation to effectively implement a
large tribal TANF program is the lack of funds to:
Construct new ``one stop shop'' service delivery
centers
Renovate existing facilities or buildings to house
the new tribal TANF program
To develop or enhance a computer management
information system (MIS) to effectively and efficiently serve
our Navajo families
To anticipate tribal customer case load increases
To adjust administration cost of living costs
associated with annual 2.5 to 5.0% COLA
To develop a culturally enriched training and
development program for our customers, staff and partners
Currently, the Navajo Nation receives $31.2 million per year in
``Tribal Family Assistance Grant'' (TFAG) and has cost allocated this
amount for customer benefits payment and administration costs. This
amount is still not enough to fully implement a successful tribal TANF
program. Congress needs to understand that tribes are stepping into the
roles of state TANF administration, liken to become a state provider.
In the case of the Navajo Nation, we are now responsible for a tri-
state program the size of the State of West Virginia! Therefore our
costs escalates even greater in the pre-administration of tribal TANF.
The Navajo Nation requests of the committee to consider providing
additional funds for the above mentioned issues to successfully
implement the tribal TANF program.
Currently, states are advocating for retaining of the same level of
funding at $16.5 billion. In the budget message to Congress, President
Bush also proposes to maintain the same level of funding for states,
but with greater emphasis on getting TANF customers to work and
encouraging the formation of two-parent families. In either of these
two proposals, Indian Tribes are, again, not mentioned in the
reauthorization process. Thus, it is incumbent to come before you today
to strongly advocate on behalf of Indian Tribes.
In meeting the President's welfare reform agenda ``. . . to
strengthen families and welfare recipients work toward independence and
self-reliance'', the Navajo Nation needs more funding above and beyond
the state formula allocation system pursuant to P.L. 104-193.
The Navajo Nation reaffirms the government-to-government
relationship with the Federal Government and supports the direct
funding of federal TANF grants to tribes. The Navajo Nation also
supports a funding formula that provides no less than the current
resource level, observing a ``no net loss'' principle. The Navajo
Nation also supports the President's proposal that allows for
flexibility to be creative to build a network of assistance for low
income families. This will allow tribes to further design their own
programs, define program eligibility, and establish what benefits and
services will be available and developing their own strategies for
achieving program goals and including how tribal TANF customers move
into the workforce.
In speaking on the lack of funds, another issue I want to discuss
regards the Title IV-E program. Because Indian children and families
need other support services besides TANF to successfully make their
transition toward self-sufficiency, there needs to be additional
funding available to Indian tribes for these purposes. Many children
making this transition will be in foster care and adoptive settings,
and therefore, stable funding, much like the funding available through
the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Program could
provide these opportunities for Indian children and families. We are
encouraged by and supportive of efforts to give tribal governments
opportunities for direct funding, such as H.R. 2335, legislation
sponsored in the House by Congressman Dave Camp. We think this
legislation would be a good fit with welfare reform reauthorization.
State Maintenance of Effort (MOE)
Currently, it is unclear whether the states will continue to
provide state maintenance of effort (MOE) funds to Indian Tribes
administering their own tribal TANF program. The Navajo Nation receives
MOE funds from the States of Arizona and Utah. The State of New Mexico
has not provided MOE funds to the Nation. The states have the
discretion to provide state MOE funds to the tribes. The uncertainty
that states will provide MOE funds beginning in FY 2003 depends on the
economic conditions of the states. In the most recent state legislative
sessions, the States of New Mexico, Arizona and Utah have reduced state
spending and have cut human service budgets which affects the general
funds of the states. There is no guarantee that states will continue to
provide MOE to Indian tribes.
The Navajo Nation certainly supports the idea that states should
continue to provide MOE, however, also recommends that the Congress
consider that it ``federalize'' the MOE and provide the tribes a 100%
MOE federal funds for tribal TANF.
Otherwise, the Congress must consider providing states with better
incentives to contribute MOE to tribal programs. These incentives could
include:
Increase the credit toward MOE requirements for funds
that states contribute to tribal programs--quintuple (or
double) state credit toward MOE contributions to tribal
programs. For example, for every dollar that a state
contributes to a tribal TANF program, they receive a credit of
five dollars (or two) dollars toward their MOE.
Reimburse states for a share of their MOE
contribution to tribal programs. For example, reimburse states
thirty cents for every dollar that they contribute to a tribal
program.
Provide both the states that are contributing MOE to
tribal programs and the respective tribal programs access to
funds from a new pot of money--an economic stimulus package.
In considering these options, the states would continue to provide
additional funds to tribal TANF programs and would receive credit
towards their MOE requirements. More importantly, the Navajo Nation is
obligated to continue to work with the respective states in a
collaborative partnership in providing Food Stamps, Medicaid and Child
Support Enforcement services to the Navajo families.
Economic Development
In speaking on economic development issues, it is imperative that
Congress understand the tribal economic conditions. There are certainly
strengths and weaknesses in Indian Country concerning economic
development. Often times, there is a misconception that all tribes
operate casinos and generate revenues from these casinos for economic
development purposes. The Navajo Nation is not a gaming tribe. Much of
our revenues generated are from natural resources (coal and oil).
Resources are limited to develop the economic infrastructure needed to
attract large industries for jobs creation and employment opportunities
for our Navajo TANF customers. According to 1998 figures from the
Navajo Division of Economic Development, approximately fifty-six
percent of Navajo people lived below the poverty level and the per
capita income was at $5,759 per year. As mentioned before, the Navajo
Nation's high unemployment rate (53.88%) presents an even greater
challenge to providing job services and employment opportunities to the
9,000 Navajo TANF families.
The Navajo Nation government is working hard to attract new
investment, businesses, and jobs to the reservation. For example, the
Navajo Nation began a tax incentive based on the 1993 ``Indian
Investment and Employment Tax Incentives Act'' to create an investment
mechanism to enhance tax-exempt bond authority to provide tribal
leaders a critical tool for attracting the necessary capital to
facilitate investments in Indian Country. This is important for the
efforts of job creation and capital development for new businesses on
the Navajo Nation.
The mission of the Navajo Nation TANF Program is to promote
personal responsibility and to provide opportunities to empower the
people to make a positive change in their lives. The program will
assist families and individuals with time limited cash assistance and
social skills to enhance their quality of life and reach their maximum
potential of self-sufficiency. Therefore, it is imperative for the
Navajo Nation to find ways to attract various types of businesses to
locate on the Navajo Nation to create jobs and spur the economy.
In meeting the goals and objectives of our tribal TANF program, we
need funding for economic development activities and initiatives for
our customers. The Navajo Nation requests for economic development
funds in the form of planning grants to meet the requirements of work
participation. For example, the Navajo Nation's mandatory work
requirement rate (MWRR) is at 10% the first year; 15% the second; and
20% the third year and beyond. This means that for the first year of
tribal TANF operations, the Navajo Nation must engage (900) tribal TANF
customers to work activities mandated by law. Thus, the planning grants
provided will definitely add to the Navajo Nation's movement in
creating partnership opportunities with business organizations as well
as connecting with new entities and organizations.
The bottom line: ``Welfare Reform means Economic Reform'' on the
Navajo Nation! The help of Congress with economic development dollars
will be appreciated.
Southwest Tribal TANF Coalition (SWTTC)
The Navajo Nation is a member of the Southwest Tribal TANF
Coalition (SWTTC) formed in the Spring of 2001 to address the welfare
reform reauthorization. Members of this coalition are five Arizona
tribes administering their own tribal TANF programs. They are: Pascua
Yaqui Tribe, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, White Mountain
Apache, Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation. The coalition is also
represented by the Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA), Arizona
Commission on Indian Affairs (ACIA), Arizona Department of Economic
Security (ADES), Arizona State University (ASU), and a Nineteen Tribal
Nations Workforce Investment Board. The SWTTC was successful in meeting
with the state TANF administrators, state legislators, federal
officials, and being a member of the National Congress of American
Indians (NCAI) Tribal TANF Administrators Workgroup. The coalition has
developed a position briefing paper on welfare reform (Attachment
``A''). The issues addressed are common and provides insights to
specific tribal TANF issues in the State of Arizona.
Conclusion
I want to re-emphasize the importance of culture, language and
traditions. The life values we incorporated into our program comes from
the teachings of our elders. The four tenets of Navajo philosophy of
``Pathway to Self-Sufficiency'' is evident in our tribal TANF program:
Nitsahakees--Thinking; Nahat'a--Planning; Aadiiliil--Doing; and
Beeniiseeldo--Growing. This pathway affirms the concept of: ``Taa hoo
ajiiteego yaateego jiinaa do''--``It is up to you to live a good
life''. Therefore, the Navajo Nation and other tribal TANF programs
presents some very unique issues to the discussion of tribal welfare
reform. It is the hope of tribal TANF programs that Congress begins to
hear and listen to the needs of tribal issues. Evidently, ``One size
DOES not fit all''. In this case, Congress needs to recognize the
tribal sovereignty and self-determination issues tribes bring to the
table. As new bills are introduced and the debate on reauthorization
continues, please keep in mind the Native American population and the
efforts we are making to strive for a better way of life. In the name
of Nation Building, the Navajo Nation seeks the support of Congress to
make a positive change in the lives of our people. Thank you very much.
Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you very much, Mr. Yazza. Mr. Rodriguez,
thank you for your patience. We look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF CECILIA MUNOZ, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF
LA RAZA, PRESENTED BY ERIC RODRIGUEZ
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Congressman. On behalf of the
National Council of La Raza (NCLR), I want to thank you for
allowing us the opportunity to present remarks today.
As you may know, NCLR is the Nation's largest Latino civil
rights organization. We take a keen interest in the
reauthorization of TANF and welfare reform. As you know,
Hispanic-Americans were among the most affected by the
enactment of the 1996 law. The community, both immigrants and
native-born have followed the issue very closely since then.
While the most visible focus for Latinos has been the
immigrant provisions of the original reforms, there are
additional major concerns that we urge the Committee to focus
on. I would like to underscore that what makes this issue
resonate for Hispanic-Americans is not the fact that we are
talking about welfare. For us, the issues which matter in this
debate are about fairness, respect, and equity. We believe that
this debate can and must be about reducing poverty for all
working families regardless of who they are or where they are
from.
As you may be aware, the Nation is undergoing sweeping
demographic changes. The Latino population has increased by
almost 60 percent between 1990 and 2000, and much of this
increase has taken place in States where the presence of
Latinos is fairly new. For example, States like Arkansas,
Georgia, and North Carolina have experienced over a 300-percent
growth in its Latino populations. Many of these States are not
fully equipped to deal with the needs of the growing immigrant
populations.
At the same time, NCLR is particularly concerned that while
the welfare rolls have decreased dramatically nationwide, the
proportion of TANF recipients that are Latino has increased
over the last 5 years. These data combined with the experiences
of NCLR's community-based affiliates and the communities that
they serve, strongly suggest that Latino families could be more
effectively served by Welfare-to-Work programs. In an economic
downturn, for which the recovery may not mean the creation of
new jobs, there are ominous developments that NCLR believes
must be addressed in the reauthorization process.
Among the greatest obstacles which prevent Latinos who have
access to TANF from being well served by the program are
language barriers. This issue affects both native born and
immigrant Latinos who have a strong desire to get into the
workforce, but who have not been able to access appropriate
Welfare-to-Work services because they are still learning
English. Typical of the kinds of cases we see are individuals
who approach the States for services, who the States decide
they do want to serve, but who never receive an employment
assessment because caseworkers don't know how to provide one or
choose not to bother. Similarly, limits on what can count
toward the work requirements in TANF have limited access to
English language instruction, which is critical to long term
success in the workforce. As a result, many Latinos in need of
services cannot meaningfully participate in the programs
designed to get them successfully into the workforce. This
represents a serious failure in the system which undermines the
overall success of welfare reform.
In addition to these major provisions, NCLR is concerned
about funding disparities in Puerto Rico and other territories.
While the President took an important first step in addressing
these disparities with respect to one element of his proposal,
unfortunately the rest of the proposal does not include grants
to Puerto Rico where the TANF program is severely under-funded.
Finally, I must address the question of legal immigrants.
It is no secret that Hispanic-Americans were deeply offended by
the provision in the original 1996 welfare bill which
eliminated the safety net for legal immigrants, despite the
fact that their tax dollars support it. While Congress has
moved to restore many of the safety net programs that were
eliminated for immigrants since then, these restorations only
affect immigrants who were in the country before 1996, and even
these are incomplete.
You have heard from the State legislatures and the
Governors that excluding legal immigrants from federal safety
net programs creates a cost shift to States. They agree with
NCLR and our allies in the religious, civil rights, and other
communities that eligibility for federal safety net services
should be restored for those legally in the United States
regardless of when they arrived.
Immigrants who are admitted legally to this country are
vigorously screened for their ability to support themselves and
live successful lives in the United States. The 1996 law made
these screening procedures even more strict, and at the time
made immigrants completely ineligible for the main federal
programs. Immigrants work hard and contribute enormously to
this country and pay more in taxes than they use in services.
Recent studies demonstrate that the States that have seen the
biggest increases in immigrant populations are those with the
weakest safety net for immigrants. So much for the myth of the
welfare magnet.
Americans understand that what drives migration is work.
Immigrants, for all that they contribute, are not super human.
It is unfair to leave it to the States to fund services in
times of need. The bottom line is that we don't ask if someone
is an immigrant nor what year they arrived when it comes time
to pay taxes. We don't ask them when it is time to serve and
even die for this country. The inequity for asking these
questions when its comes to providing a safety net is glaring.
It is unworthy of this Nation of immigrants. We urge this
Committee in the strongest possible terms to do the right
thing, restore equity to the system and treat immigrants the
same way that we treat other taxpayers who are in need of a
safety net. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Munoz follows:]
Statement of Cecilia Munoz, Vice President, National Council of La Raza
I. INTRODUCTION
Chairman Herger and Members of the Subcommittee, I am appearing
this afternoon on behalf of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the
largest national Latino \1\ civil rights organization. I thank you for
holding this hearing and inviting me to testify. NCLR works to improve
life opportunities for this nation's more than 35.3 million Hispanics
through our network of more than 270 local affiliate community-based
organizations and 30,000 individual associate members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The terms ``Latino'' and ``Hispanic'' are used interchangeably
to refer collectively to Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Central and
South Americans, and others of Spanish and Latin American descent.
Hispanics can be of any race.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NCLR has closely followed the impact of the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) on low-income Latino
families and has served as a voice in public policy debates related to
the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant.
Therefore, I appreciate this opportunity to testify in support of fair-
minded public policy to strengthen the TANF program and improve the
opportunities for Hispanic families to move out of poverty and into
good-paying jobs.
I will begin this testimony by describing the new policy
environment with respect to Latinos and the impact of the welfare
reforms of 1996 that make TANF reauthorization an issue of particular
importance to the Hispanic community. Second, I intend to highlight the
existing proposals in the context of Latino priorities for TANF
reauthorization. Finally, my testimony will conclude with
recommendations to address more fully the concerns of this nation's
Latinos, a community of increasing political and economic importance.
II. BACKGROUND
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
fundamentally altered the nation's primary cash assistance program for
families. PRWORA's cuts in services and assistance to legal immigrants
had a profound and adverse impact on immigrant and Latino families. By
cutting legal immigrants off from the four major safety-net programs,
PRWORA both deeply offended hard working immigrants and put the states
in the position of spending their own funds to address the needs of
these communities. While some programs have been restored, the
fundamental inequity has not; leaving states in the front lines of
providing a safety net to immigrants during an economic downturn.
The 1996 law alone does not fully explain the new challenges facing
states across the nation. Since then, there have been several other
notable developments that make a strong case for change via the TANF
reauthorization process this year.
First, while in 2000 there were roughly half as many families on
the welfare rolls nationwide as compared to 1996, the share of all
families receiving TANF assistance who are Latino increased from 20.8%
to 24.5% between 1995-1996 and 1998-1999. By 1999, more than one in
four children on TANF nationwide was Hispanic.\2\ These data may signal
that Latino families are having a more difficult experience navigating
through the welfare-to-work process than other recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For a more detailed assessment of TANF case loads see:
Rodriguez, Eric, and Kaydee Kirk, Welfare Reform, TANF case load
Changes, and Latinos: A Preliminary Assessment. Washington, DC:
National Council of La Raza, September 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the economy is in recession and the fiscal condition of
states seems dire. A slow growth economy coupled with the potential for
a ``jobless'' recovery is expected to impact Latinos.\3\ Many Latino
workers are concentrated in the low-wage labor market and are
particularly vulnerable to job and income loss in the current economic
climate. In many cases, those workers who happen to be legal immigrants
are not eligible for basic safety-net services due to welfare reform's
changes in eligibility for health and nutrition services and
Unemployment Insurance (UI) rules that make them unqualified for help.
Taken together, these factors indicate that more Hispanic families are
likely to find themselves in need of safety-net services in the coming
months. But many will find that the very programs that are designed to
protect families and support their efforts to return to the workforce
are beyond their reach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Suro, Roberto, and B. Lindsay Lowell, New Lows from New Highs:
Latino Economic Losses in the Current Recession. Washington, DC: Pew
Hispanic Center, January 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, since 1990, the nation has undergone sweeping demographic
changes. For instance, the nation's Latino population increased by
57.9% between 1990 and 2000. Over the decade of the 1990s Hispanic
communities prominently emerged in states such as Arkansas, Georgia,
and North Carolina--states that experienced greater than 300% growth in
their Latino populations. Undoubtedly, large numbers of immigrant
Latino workers joining the labor force can explain the bulk of this
population growth in these particular states. However, the firms and
industries that have employed many immigrant and Latino workers have
tended to pay low wages. Therefore, while almost all Latino and
immigrant families in the U.S. have at least one working parent, many
Hispanic workers fail to earn enough to lift their families above
poverty. As a result of these factors, by 2000, one-quarter of all poor
families in the U.S. were Hispanic, and a large share of these families
had foreign-born parents who were working yet still poor. This means
that entire segments of communities in states may be seeking aid but
find themselves with no safety net or access to important work supports
for which other Americans are eligible. In many cases, states want to
serve these families but find federal rules too constricting.
Given these factors, in 2002, states are facing new socioeconomic
policy challenges. The TANF reauthorization debate will not result in
good public policy so long as it fails to address the challenges facing
poor Latino families.
III. LATINO PRIORITIES
Recently, the Bush Administration released a plan to reauthorize
the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, the
nation's primary cash assistance program for families. Not
surprisingly, this proposal, along with existing proposals from
Representatives Patsy Mink (D-HI) and Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), have
generated a good deal of debate, which is helping to shape the
political and policy parameters of the welfare reauthorization
discussion.
Thus far, proposals for TANF reauthorization have concentrated on
several core issues such as funding for TANF, work requirements, and
strengthening families. Although these issues have real implications
for all families in the TANF system, no areas of the TANF
reauthorization debate are likely to be more pivotal to the nation's
Latino families than improving access to TANF, strengthening the
welfare-to-work services available to TANF clients with limited English
proficiency (LEP), and enhancing the ability of the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico to implement welfare reform.
Access to Assistance for Legal Immigrants. Under
current law, legal immigrants who arrived after 1996 are barred
for at least five years from receiving TANF and other federal
safety-net services. Although the law permits states to provide
TANF and related services to legal immigrants who arrived after
1996 using state funds, most states have not been able to serve
legal immigrants.\4\ Consequently, across the states, entire
segments of communities are unable to access basic safety-net
services should community members suffer unexpected job losses.
In response, the National Governors Association, the National
League of Cities, and the National Conference of State
Legislators have appealed to Congress to allow states to be
given the flexibility to serve legal immigrants in their states
with federal TANF funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Currently, 23 states provide services to legal immigrants using
state funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding the practical needs of states, President
Bush's proposal posits that TANF reauthorization must safeguard
against ``welfare dependency among noncitizens''; a premise at
odds with available evidence.\5\ Though the White House did
support a provision that would allow greater access for legal
immigrants to Food Stamps, the TANF measure specifically
ensures that working families would remain unable to access
these services if needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Research by the Urban Institute found that, during the last
half of the 1990s, more immigrant families moved out of states that
opted to provide TANF services to legal immigrants than those that
moved into states with TANF access. See: Passell, Jeffrey S., and Wendy
Zimmerman, Are Immigrants Leaving California? Settlement Patterns of
Immigrants in the Late 1990s. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, April
2001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, proposals from Representatives Cardin and
Mink would, to varying degrees, ensure that states can use
federal TANF dollars to provide basic services to legal
immigrants. Specifically, Representative Cardin's bill improves
access by eliminating the 1996 welfare reform law's ban on
states providing TANF assistance to legal immigrants and
reducing to three years the period during which a sponsor's
income would be deemed available to the immigrant.
Representative Mink's bill goes further by making legal
immigrants eligible for TANF on the same basis as citizens,
removing all barriers, waiting periods, and ``deeming''
requirements that restrict eligibility.
Improving Welfare-to-Work Services for LEP Families.
Language barriers have constituted a major challenge to the
efforts of states to communicate effectively with and provide
TANF services to many Hispanic families. This issue has
impacted both native-born \6\ and immigrant Latinos who have a
strong desire to get into the workforce but have not been able
to access appropriate welfare-to-work services given their
language barriers. Moreover, in many cases LEP Latino and
immigrant welfare ``leavers'' exit the TANF system unaware of
the important transitional medical and other work supports
available to them.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Persons from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are native-born
U.S. citizens, and many are limited-English-proficient.
\7\ Previous research by NCLR has shown that Latinos constitute an
increasing share of the TANF case load. Numerous studies have
documented language barriers between LEP clients and human and social
service offices; e.g., Applied Research Center, Equal Rights Advocates,
National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support, and HHS Office for Civil
Rights. Analysis of the Food Stamp Program (FSP) by the Food Research &
Action Center has shown that over half of eligible Hispanic individuals
fail to receive FSP benefits. Also, analysis of both Medicaid and the
Food Stamp Program by the Urban Institute has documented an exodus from
both work support programs by families leaving TANF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although existing proposals take some steps to bridge
language barriers, none comprehensively address the concerns
regarding the challenges that states face in adequately serving
LEP families. Provisions to strengthen state plans, revise data
collection requirements, and perform assessments have the
potential to impact families with language challenges
positively. However, the existing proposals do not
comprehensively address the challenges states face in
adequately serving LEP families. Although both President Bush
and Rep. Cardin focus generally on strengthening state plans,
their proposals do not specifically mention LEP families,
allowing the needs of such families to be overlooked.
Furthermore, despite the Mink bill's efforts to strengthen data
collection, the required demographic information does not
include primary language or English proficiency. Also, the
provisions focusing on data collection in the President's
proposal move away from recording information on families
receiving TANF by focusing instead on information related to
management and performance, such as TANF-funded services and
expenditures. Finally, although the proposal from Rep. Mink
would provide individuals with the option to do a skills
assessment, TANF recipients facing language barriers may not
understand the option or elect to be assessed; whereas,
fortunately, Rep. Cardin's proposal would require that every
TANF recipient's employability be assessed and states that the
assessments would consider limited proficiency in English.
An important tool for improving the employment outcomes of
LEP Hispanics is English language instruction. However, the
work-first philosophy and limits on what can count toward the
work requirements of TANF have dissuaded many states from
placing people in English language programs. Also, there is
significant concern as to whether the White House proposal
would increase flexibility or significantly limit the
opportunities for LEP TANF recipients to participate in
training activities, such as English language instruction.
The administration's proposal would impose a 40-hour work
week on recipients (up from 30 hours under current law) and
require that at least 24 of the 40 hours be in ``direct'' work
activities. Furthermore, the White House proposal would only
allow participation in job training, possibly including English
language instruction, for up to three consecutive months within
a two-year period. Under current law, a state may count full-
time vocational training for up to 12 months. Aside from the
provision for three months of job training, TANF recipients
would only be able to devote 16 hours per week to training
activities such as English language instruction. The increased
number of hours of participation will force parents of school
age children to participate in ``direct'' work activities
during the entirety of their child's school day (although such
schedules are difficult to obtain in the low-wage/low-skill
labor market). Should a parent intend to improve their English
proficiency, they would have to pursue this training after
school ends, forcing them to seek child care (although the
Administration has only proposed continuing child care funding
at FY 02 levels).
The existing bills in the House provide much more flexibility
for TANF recipients to gain the necessary language skills to
obtain and keep good-paying jobs. For instance, the Mink bill
allows all education and English instruction activities to
count toward the work participation rate and eliminates the
one-year limit on participation in vocational education.
Representative Cardin's bill makes similar changes by counting
English language instruction for ten of the 30 hours required
for work participation rates and extending the limit on
vocational education to two years.
Reducing Funding Disparities in Puerto Rico. President
Bush made an important first step in addressing the funding
inequities that face the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and other
territories by explicitly including territories in the marriage
grant program. Unfortunately, the President's other proposals
did not extend other grants to Puerto Rico, whose TANF program
is severely under funded due to a cap on welfare funding and
its exclusion from many funding streams. Since Puerto Rico and
other territories comply with the same obligations and
requirements as the States, they should be fully included in
the funding of TANF programs to ensure that Puerto Ricans and
other U.S. citizens are not disadvantaged by the block grant
formula.
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
The priorities that the National Council of La Raza has outlined
for TANF reauthorization correspond directly with the intent of the
law, and respond to the practical challenges facing the states. To
ignore wholly these issues in comprehensive TANF reauthorization plans,
or to take steps that exacerbate these problems, is both bad policy and
bad politics. In order to address these issues in TANF reauthorization,
NCLR urges the members of the Subcommittee in Human Resources to:
Support provisions that improve access to services for
legal immigrant families. NCLR commends Representatives Cardin
and Mink for including provisions that will provide a safety
net to families and citizen children of immigrant parents and
believes that such provisions must be included in any bill to
reauthorize TANF.
Resist proposals that place undue restrictions on
state efforts to serve legal immigrant families. Amendments
requiring that states verify that individuals have never been
undocumented or that TANF applicants are in the process of
becoming citizens invalidate any provisions that improve access
for legal immigrants. Such onerous provisions would be
incredibly difficult for states to implement and would
discourage families from applying for assistance for which they
are eligible.
Ensure that states can effectively serve limited-
English-proficient families. NCLR believes that four provisions
can bridge language barriers between service providers and LEP
clients. First, a no-cost provision that would assist states in
their efforts to serve LEP families adequately would be to
request that states include as elements of state plans a goal
and strategy for serving such families. Second, reliable data
on all who seek services from TANF offices would identify
districts with specific language needs. Third, assessments are
key to providing effective services to LEP clients. Finally, a
measure to channel resources to states for assisting them in
building capacity to serve LEP families more effectively must
be considered. Given the number of states that are experiencing
language challenges, Congress and the White House ought to
consider proposing a comprehensive formula grant program to
states which adequately meets this need.
Focus on improving the English proficiency of TANF
recipients. In order to prepare LEP parents for employment
opportunities that will provide for their families, TANF
reauthorization should focus on education and skill barriers.
While assessments would help professionals place LEP parents in
programs that are appropriate to their skill levels, TANF's
work requirements must provide states with flexibility and
incentives to place recipients in education and training
programs for a sufficient amount of time to ensure that the
programs are effective.
Address the challenges faced by Puerto Rico in
implementing its TANF program. In order for Puerto Rico to meet
the same mandates as other TANF grantees, it is essential that
similar resources be provided to the Commonwealth as the
States. One of the most significant funding limitations on
Puerto Rico's TANF program would be addressed by taking IV-E
Foster Care out of the Section 1108 cap.\8\ Furthermore, Puerto
Rico's Medicaid program is statutorily capped, the Commonwealth
may only access two of the four components of the Child Care
Development Block Grant, and it is excluded from receiving the
Supplemental Grants, although the Island otherwise meets the
requirements. Therefore, Puerto Rico should have access to the
same funding streams as the States, and such funds should be
excluded from the Section 1108 cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Section 1108 cap restricts total welfare funding because
several unrelated programs currently fall under this cap: TANF, IV-E
Foster Care, and Assistance for the Aged, Blind and Disabled (this is
Puerto Rico's substitute for Supplemental Security Income, from which
the Commonwealth is excluded).
NCLR urges the Subcommittee to address in a meaningful way the
concerns and recommendations that I have presented today because the
treatment of immigrants, families with limited English proficiency, and
the residents of Puerto Rico will not go unnoticed by the broader
Latino community. I appreciate this opportunity to testify and
encourage you to call on NCLR as you consider policy proposals related
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to these issues.
Chairman HERGER. [Presiding.] Thank you very much, Mr.
Rodriguez. I thank each of our panelists for your testimony.
All of your written testimony will be submitted as well as your
comments. With that, we will call panel number 9. Vanessa
Brown, Member, Mother on the Move Committee, on behalf of the
National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support. Pat Albright,
former welfare recipient and mother, Every Mother is a Working
Mother Network. Kate Kahan, Executive Director, Working for
Equality and Economic Liberation on behalf of Welfare Made a
Difference National Campaign. Ms. Brown.
STATEMENT OF VANESSA BROWN, LEADER, MOTHERS ON THE MOVE
COMMITTEE, PHILADELPHIA UNEMPLOYMENT PROJECT, PHILADELPHIA,
PENNSYLVANIA, AND MEMBER, NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR JOBS AND INCOME
SUPPORT
Ms. BROWN. Good evening. My name is Vanessa Brown of the
Philadelphia Unemployment Project. I am a leader of Mothers on
the Move Committee, and a Member of the National Campaign for
Jobs and Income Support, which represents grassroots
organizations of low income people in over 42 States.
Today, I would like to share with you my personal story
about the TANF program. I ran a restaurant in Philadelphia for
about 7 years. The business fell on hard times, and I was
forced to close the restaurant. I then turned to the Welfare
Department for assistance. They placed me in a TANF training
program.
Upon graduation from the program, I was placed in a job at
a call center. I held that position for a little over a year
until the tragedy of September 11 happened. The call center
closed because it served the travel industry. After September
11 there was no more business and no more calls to take.
Today, I am one of few workers out of 200 Welfare-to-Work
moms at my old job who was able to collect unemployment. They
did not work in enough quarters after leaving TANF to be able
to receive benefits. They had no safety net.
Now, I am a student at the Community College of
Philadelphia. I chose to pursue a higher learning following my
layoff because I realized that my TANF training only prepared
my for unstable low-wage jobs. I am here to testify that all
welfare recipients don't fit into one category. One size
doesn't fit all for us. I know that from my experience with the
TANF program, and the experiences that many others have told me
about, that TANF is not working. I am here to represent
thousands of women and men who are affected by the decisions
that you, our elected officials, will make.
There are three things that I would like to discuss today.
They include the 40-hour work week proposed by the Bush
administration, lifting the cap on education and training, and
the creation of public jobs and transitional work programs.
First, I would like to say that the 40-hour week would be
counterproductive for most poverty stricken families. With the
challenges that face many of these families, it is difficult to
meet the current requirement which are only 30 hours a week in
most States. Even when I left TANF for employment, I had to be
at work every day at 8:30, which was the same time that my son
was expected to be at school. I had to ask my boss to reduce my
hours down to 25 hours a week so that I could be able to care
for my son before and after school.
It did not make sense to work the extra hours at my job so
that I could be able to afford to pay after school care. Even
if I wanted to work full-time at that call center, I couldn't,
as my employer did not allow us to work more than 37.5 hours a
week. The Administration's proposal would increase the work
requirement to 40 hours a week. This would place a burden on
families as well as the States that would be responsible for
implementing this new requirement.
There is already a scarcity of jobs in Philadelphia. How is
the State going to create some thing from nothing in my
community? The only thing that the States will be able to do is
create huge workfair programs. Workfair requires welfare
recipients to work full-time in exchange for their welfare
benefits. When I was on TANF, all I got was $316 a month.
The general public seems to think that welfare is life
sustaining. At $316, I could hardly pay my utilities and keep a
roof over my head. That is why the administration's proposal is
not grounded in the realties that face the poor people in this
country. The bottom line is more work is not the answer. Taking
parents away from their children in order to work more hours
just to keep their welfare check will create more problems than
it will address.
What we do need is more access to education and training.
After my layoff, I found a community college was offering a
free semester to people who had been laid off. I took advantage
of that opportunity and enrolled in school full-time. I decided
that continuing education was important because I knew that I
had to have a degree in order to get a job that would allow me
to support myself and my son.
It is important to me to show my son the importance of
education so that he will be sure to go to college and not have
to face or go through the same challenges that I have faced
today. That is why we need to lift the federal cap on education
and training.
Under TANF, States are allowed to have only 30 percent of
the case load engaged in education and training for a maximum
of 12 months. There needs to be more access to continuing
education and technology based training. This will allow people
to develop the skills to compete in today's fast-paced job
market.
This would allow welfare recipients to get out of poverty
and leave the welfare roles forever. I feel that the TANF
training I have received left me dependent on the system. I
long for the day when I can completely walk away from the
welfare system. I need time to complete a certificate or an
associates degree program that will make me a viable candidate
for jobs that would truly support my family above the poverty
line.
The last point that I would like to touch on today is about
the creation of public jobs. The National Campaign for Jobs and
Income Support is proposing a $500 million fund separate from
the TANF block grant for national public job programs. Public
jobs would create opportunity for people to combine work
experience with training. These jobs would be transitional and
would place welfare recipients in hospitals, schools and other
community service positions. Giving welfare recipients a wage
for their work would make me and many others like me feel that
they would have a chance to build a real track record of
successful employment that would lead to something permanent.
As you finalize your decision today, keep in mind the
constituents that you serve. Remember the hardships that they
face and your responsibility to aid the entire community to
have what is necessary for us to be self-sufficient. Your goal
today should not be reducing welfare careloads, but to
encourage States to reduce poverty.
Ending poverty will start when you give people access to
education and training that they need to help place them in
real jobs. Many of you think that TANF is not designed to be a
poverty reducer. In terms of dollars and cents, would you
rather spend money on programs that would only prepare people
for low wage jobs, which would mean they would have to cycle on
and off the rolls just to keep their head above water, or would
you allocate those same dollars to educate and create real jobs
that would allow people to move their families out of poverty?
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown follows:]
Statement of Vanessa Brown, Leader, Mothers on the Move Committee,
Philadelphia Unemployment Project, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and
Member, National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support
Hello, my name is Vanessa Brown of the Philadelphia Unemployment
Project. I am a leader of the Mothers on the Move Committee at PUP and
a member of the National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support.
Today I would like to share with you my personal story about the
TANF program.
I ran a restaurant in Philadelphia for seven years. The business
fell on hard times and I was forced to close the restaurant. I then
turned to the welfare department for assistance and they placed me in a
TANF Training program.
I went into the program with high hopes, because I had heard that
there was a great opportunity to get field training and a good job.
Upon graduation from the program, I was placed in a job at a call
center. I held that position for little over a year until the tragedy
of 9/11 happened. The call center closed because it served the travel
industry and after 9/11 there was no more business and no more calls to
take.
Today, I am one of the lucky workers out of 200 welfare-to-work
moms at my old job. I collect unemployment. Many of my former co-
workers do not. They did not work in enough quarters after leaving TANF
to be able to receive benefits. They had no safety net.
Currently, I am a student at the Community College of Philadelphia.
I chose to pursue higher learning following my lay-off because I
realized that my TANF training only prepared me for an unstable, low-
wage job.
I am here to testify that all welfare recipients don't fit into
one-category. One size doesn't fit all for us. I know that from my
experience with the TANF program and the experiences that many others
have told me about that TANF is not working. I am currently a leader at
Mothers on the Move to assess the needs of welfare recipients and to
help them tell their stories like I am today.
I am here to represent the thousands of women and men who are
affected by the decisions that you, our elected officials, will make
today. There are three things I would like to discuss today. They
include the 40-hour work week proposed by the Bush Administration;
lifting the cap on education and training and the creation of public
jobs and transitional work programs.
First, I would like say that the 40-hour work week would be
counter-productive for most poverty-stricken families. With the
challenges that face many of these families, it is difficult to meet
the current requirements which are only 30 hours a week in most states.
Even when I left TANF for employment, I had to be at work every day
at 8:30 which was the same time that my son was expected to be at
school. I had to ask my boss to reduce my hours so that I could get my
son to school on time and be able to pick him up from aftercare by 5
PM. In the end, I only worked 25 hours a week so that I would be able
to care for my son before and after school. It did not make sense to
work extra hours at my job just to be able to afford before and after
school care. Even if I wanted to work full-time at the call center, I
couldn't, as my employer did not allow us to work more than 37.5 hours.
The Administration's proposal would increase the work requirement
to 40 hours a week. This would place a burden on families as well as
states that would be responsible for implementing this new requirement.
There is already of scarcity of jobs in Philadelphia. How is the
state going to create something from nothing in my community? The only
thing that states will be able to do is create huge workfare programs.
Workfare requires welfare recipients to work full time in exchange for
their benefits. When I was on TANF, all I got was $316 a month. The
general public seems to think that welfare is life sustaining. At $316,
I could hardly pay my utilities and keep a roof over my head. That's
why, the Administration's proposal is not grounded in the reality that
faces poor people in this country.
The truth is that there are many obstacles and hurdles that keep us
away from moving our families out of poverty. The bottom line is more
work is not the answer. Taking parents away from their children in
order to work more hours just to keep their welfare check will create
more problems than it will address.
What we DO need, however, is more access to education and training.
After my lay-off, I found that Community College was offering a free
semester to people who had been laid off. I took advantage of that
opportunity and enrolled in school full time. I decided that continuing
education was important because I knew that I have to have a degree in
order to get a job that will allow me to support myself and my son. It
is important to me to show my son how important education is so that he
will be sure to go to college and not have to go through some of the
challenges that I have faced.
That's why we need to lift federal caps on education and training.
States are allowed to have only 30 percent of the case load engaged in
ed & training now and individuals can only be in education or training
programs for up to 12 months. There needs to be more access to
continuing education and technology-based training. This will allow
people to develop the skills to compete in today's fast-paced job
market. This would allow welfare recipients to get out of poverty and
leave the welfare rolls forever.
I feel that the TANF training I received left me dependent on the
system. I long for the day when I can completely walk away from it. I
feel as though I need time to complete a certificate or Associate's
degree program that will validate me to be a viable candidate for jobs
that will allow me to truly support my family above the poverty line.
The last point I would like to touch on today is about the creation
of public jobs. The National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support is
proposing a $500 million fund, separate from the TANF block grant, for
a national public jobs program. Public jobs would create opportunities
for people to combine work experience with training. These jobs would
be transitional and would place welfare recipients in hospitals,
schools and other community service positions. The benefit of allowing
welfare recipients to earn a wage for their work would make me, and
many others like me, feel more confident about our ability to maintain
a long-term working position on my own. A transitional job would help
to build a real track record of successful employment for welfare
recipients.
As you finalize your decisions today, keep in mind the constituents
that you serve. Remember the hardships that face them and your
responsibility to aid the entire community to have what is necessary
for everyone to be self-sufficient. Your goal today should not be
reducing welfare case loads, but to encourage states to reduce poverty.
Ending poverty will start when you give people access to the education
and training they need and help place them in real jobs. Many of you
may think that TANF was not designed to be a poverty reducer. In terms
of dollars and cents, would you rather spend money on programs that
only prepare people for low-wage jobs which means they have to cycle on
and off the rolls just to keep their head above water, or allocate
those same dollars to educate and create real jobs that will allow
people to move their families out of poverty?
Thank you.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Ms. Brown. Ms. Albright.
STATEMENT OF PAT ALBRIGHT, FORMER WELFARE RECIPIENT AND SINGLE
MOTHER, EVERY MOTHER IS A WORKING MOTHER NETWORK, PHILADELPHIA,
PENNSYLVANIA
Ms. ALBRIGHT. I speak today for the Every Mother is a
Working Mother Network. I am a single mother and former welfare
recipient living in inner city Philadelphia. We want to express
our dismay and outrage that the work of mothers and care givers
and the needs of those we care for have been dismissed in
welfare reform and are being ignored or sidelined in the debate
around its reauthorization.
The voices of care givers who are most impacted must be
front and central and thus far have not been. Welfare reform
and the debate on its reauthorization reverses the clock on
progress in establishing the value of the work of care givers.
Welfare began on the basis that widows and later other
single mothers caring for children deserve economic support.
Welfare reform reverses that. Welfare expert, former Senator
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, was forced to admit in his book, the
Politics of a Guaranteed Income. He said, ``If American society
recognized homemaking and child rearing as productive work, the
receipt of welfare might not imply dependency.''
Denying the value of the work of mothers and other care
givers lies at the very heart of welfare reform. Linda Brewer,
an overworked grandmother from the Every Mother is a Working
Mother Network has testified: What job is harder than caring
for children? I am caring for my four grandchildren. An 11-
year-old girl, two mentally challenged boys, ages 7 and 5, and
a 3-year-old boy. I work 24/7. If you don't call what I do
work, what do you call it? Who among us has not heard the
rhetoric of mom and apple pie. Yet mothers on welfare are
vilified, dismissed, undermined, and not valued, and denied the
choice to raise their own children.
Every Mother is a Working Mother Network is for a choice,
not a mandate to work outside the home and for decent wages,
benefits, and the working conditions when we do.
The TANF has greatly neglected the profound importance of
the bonding and nurturing between mothers and our children. It
has eliminated the choice to breast-feed, what all experts
agree gives the best start in life. Mothers on welfare with
young children report having less than a half hour of non-sleep
or non-travel time with their children per day.
The TANF has ignored the research that establishes that not
only in the early years of life, but also as teenagers,
children need their mothers. That reduction in mother-child
time has negatively impacted our children.
It has bypassed the obvious, that as mothers, we are in the
best position to determine if and when our children are ready
to be cared for by others. It has treated the relationship
between mothers and children as standing in the way of the
glory of what is really important, a job outside the home, as
though the job of caring for one's own children is a nuisance.
What kind of society is it that ignores these very basic
human rights of a child to a mother's care, and of a mother to
care for her own child or to determine under what circumstances
others should care for them? Welfare reform clearly establishes
that only those who can afford to should be able to care for
their own children, and since two-thirds of those receiving
benefits are women and children of color, the racist
implications are obvious.
This must be the context of the debate on this
reauthorization. Welfare reform puts our lives and the lives of
our children in jeopardy. We are pushed to the limits finally,
physically and emotionally. Some of us criminalized. We hold
the government accountable for this.
Edna Lopez, a single mother of two in Los Angeles tells the
story of her friend, Yvette, also a single mother, who was
killed on the Los Angeles Freeway because she was too
exhausted, too overworked to make a sensible decision. Who
among you will take a stand with and for mothers? We see
millions of dollars being handed out in Washington, DC, to bail
out big business, meanwhile the clock is running out for
mothers and children on benefits.
For we are told there is no money for us. Yet, we see
billions of our dollars literally go up in smoke with bombing
campaigns and other outrageous military spending. We have not
raised our children for them to become collateral damage. We
stand in the tradition of the late Eula Saunders, former
President of the National Welfare Rights Organization for who
during the Vietnam War, she stood in the U.S. Senate and said,
we are not sending our children to fight your war.
In 1995, at the Fourth United Nations (UN) World Conference
on Women, held in Beijing, China, our grassroots movement won
the now historic UN decision to measure and value unwaged work
in all economic statistics.
The UN signed onto that agreement, yet welfare reform
ignores it. The UN has estimated that the value of women's
unwaged work internationally is $11 trillion. Care givers are
the heart of the economy, yet come last in the list of
priorities.
Insurance companies have done studies establishing the
value of mothers who have died to determine the cost to replace
work. Our work is valuable when we are dead, but not alive. In
welfare reform and the debate thus for around this
reauthorization older, younger, lesbian, or straight, our work
is worth nothing at all. Examples abound of countries and some
States----
Chairman HERGER. Begin to sum up, please. Your time has
expired.
Ms. ALBRIGHT. I just wanted to say that we are not paid
lobbyists here. We are not the advocate center or poverty
lobby. We don't have a staff-client relationship. We say that
the job is on the agenda, but put forward but the ear of
Capitol Hill does not represent us. We are the voices from the
bottom. Every day we live the impact of welfare reform, and we
are part of the growing and angry grassroots movement of care
givers who are tired, who are fed up that our work, although
counted on for everything is not deemed worthy of economic
support.
The Every Mother is a Working Mother Network is coordinated
by the Wages Campaign which since 1972 has worked to put the
valuation of caring----
Chairman HERGER. I would ask the witness to sum up please.
Your full statement will be issued for the record. I want to
remind our witnesses, we do have a 5-minute rule. As we get to
the yellow light, if we could begin to sum up, please.
Ms. ALBRIGHT. Right. I just want to say that we are
demanding that the value of caring work be reflected in welfare
benefits. We are not beggars at anyone's gate. We have earned
our right to economic support. We are determined. Mothering is
real work. What we lack are real resources.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Albright follows:]
Statement of Pat Albright, Former Welfare Recipient and Single Mother,
Every Mother is a Working Mother Network, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Background and Overview
The Every Mother Is A Working Mother Network (EMWM) is submitting
our recommendations below in response to your solicitation of comments
on the Reauthorization of the TANF Program Authority. EMWM is a multi-
racial, grassroots community-based network of mothers and other
caregivers campaigning to establish that raising children and caring
work is work, and that the time mothers spend raising their children,
and the economic value of their work should be included in the right to
welfare and other resources.
Our testimony is not attempting to be ``professional''; we are
speaking from our experience and our hearts. Everyday we live the
impact of welfare ``reform''. We in EMWM are not part of the advocacy
sector or poverty lobby; we do not have a staff/client relationship
with anyone. We are not paid professional organizers; we are
volunteers. We are unfunded, and independent; we are not aligned with
any political party. Some of us are or have been on welfare and/or
other benefits; some of us have disabilities; some are single mothers;
some are grandmothers; all of us are carers and so we all have a
personal stake in the valuation of the caring work of mothers in
welfare benefits. We care deeply about those we care for and suffer
greatly as a result of the tremendous devaluation of caring for
children and others that we see rampant in policy, the media and other
areas of society.
EMWM held a series of Community Dialogues on welfare reform on the
East and West Coasts in July 2001 where a new grassroots movement
announced itself, demanding the right of mothers to raise our own
children. We are now holding ``teach-ins'' in several cities on both
coasts bringing together moms and other carers on welfare with other
members of the community under the banner ``Invest in Caring Not
Killing''.
In our experience, TANF has greatly neglected the profound
importance of the bonding and nurturing between mothers and our
children. It has neglected the importance of the choice to breastfeed.
It has ignored the research that establishes that not only in the early
years of life, but also as teenagers, children need their mothers, and
that reduction in mother/child time has negatively impacted the
development, emotionally and otherwise, of our children. It has by-
passed the obvious: that as mothers we are in the best position to
determine if and when our children are ready to be cared for outside
the home or by a non-custodial parent. It has treated the relationship
between mothers and children as standing in the way of the glory of
what is really important: a job outside the home, as though the job of
caring for one's own children is a nuisance. What kind of society is it
that ignores these very basic human rights, of a child to a mother's
care and of a mother to care for her own child or to determine under
what circumstances others should care for them? Within this context, we
cannot take seriously any talk of ``family values'' from those at the
helm of HHS. There is a double standard at play here and one that is
grounded both in racism and in discrimination against caregivers.
Welfare ``reform'' clearly establishes that only those who can afford
to should be able to care for their own children and since 2/3 of those
receiving benefits are women and children of color, the racist
implications should be obvious.
For those of us who have been forced out to waged work, the
conditions that we have to leave our children under are undermining to
both our children and those who care for them. In California, for
example, the infant/adult ratio in infant care centers ranges from 3-1
or 4-1. We consider this promoting child abuse. Since when is one adult
able to nurture, hold, cuddle, sing to, and comfort three or four
babies at the same time? No wonder pediatricians can tell which babies
have been in infant care from the so-called ``flat-head'' syndrome
resulting from long hours of lying in a crib. Even walkers are often
not allowed and babies are stuck lying around all day without the kind
of one-on-one love and care that only a mother or main caregiver can
provide. And the pay of childcare providers is an insult; for a
relative care provider, it is often below the minimum wage. This is not
to say that mothers should not have the choice to work outside the home
and access to quality childcare, but it must be a mother's choice and
not a mandate and the conditions of care and the pay of the workers
must be greatly improved.
In addition, there has been no consideration whatsoever of the care
of sick children. How can policy that impacts children be made without
considering that children get sick? And why should a mother have to
choose between welfare ``reform'' mandates, the time clock and being
there to care for her sick child? This is abusive to both child and
mother. Anyone who has had to be away from a sick child must know the
kind of worry and concern that distracts one from any other task at
hand. Every life is of value, including the lives of mothers on welfare
and our children. Our children are not cars to be parked in a garage.
They are fragile, curious, vibrant beings full of need and potential
and they have every right to our care. And the 30 minutes or less of
waking time that mothers with infants who are in mandated-work
activities tells the story of the failure of the Department of Health
and Human Services to either provide health or be humane.
Mothers on welfare also have every right to choose to work outside
the home and when we do, we must have pay equity, quality childcare of
our choice, protection from discrimination and education and training
of our choice.
EMWM is determined in our resolve. We are well aware that the aim
of welfare ``reform'' was to instill in us that we have no entitlement
to resources to care for our own children. We hope that you are aware
that there is a growing grassroots movement in this country and around
the world for the valuation of caring work. The valuation of caring
work is a unifying issue and brings support from those not on welfare
to those who are. We are fed up with caregivers being ignored by
government and professional advocates. As mothers and grandmothers, we
are insisting that we, who produce all the workers in this country and
the world, be no longer ignored and by-passed. Those of us who are
trained to kill in the army receive economic support, but those of us
who give and sustain life are not. And those carers who are most
vulnerable, single mothers on welfare, must have the economic support
needed to care for themselves and their children on the basis of the
caring work they do. Our experience has been that the poorer we are the
harder we are forced to work, and for too long mothers on welfare have
had the impossible task of trying to make a dollar out of fifteen
cents.
EMWM is coordinated by the Wages for Housework Campaign (WFH) which
after close to three decades has put the valuation of caring work on
national and international agendas. WFH founded and coordinated the
International Women Count Network of more than 1,200 non-governmental
organizations world-wide which succeeded in winning UN resolutions
calling for governments to measure and value unwaged work (including
care giving work) in satellite accounts of the GDP. WFH also worked
with the Congressional Black Caucus which in 1993 introduced the
``Unremunerated Work Act'' which received bi-partisan support and
called for unwaged work to be measured and valued. The US Dept of
Labor, specifically the BLS has held at least one international
conference on the valuation of caring and other unwaged work in
addition to other efforts to implement the UN decision. Another
document we suggest HHS reviews is the Platform for Action passed at
the first US Women's Conference held in Houston Texas in 1977,
specifically the ``Women, Welfare and Poverty'' resolution which was
written by grassroots activists including at least two past presidents
of the National Welfare Rights Organization along with WFH. We urge HHS
to review the above-mentioned documents in preparing your
recommendations to fix welfare ``reform''.
Summary of Recommendations
1. LThe work done by mothers or other caregivers raising
children is a valuable contribution to the economy and society
and should be reflected in welfare benefits. Mothers,
grandmothers and other caregivers must not be required to work
outside the home as a condition of receiving benefits.
Mothering is real work; what we lack are real resources.
2. LMothers who choose to work outside the home should be
entitled to pay equity, affordable quality childcare of choice,
paid breastfeeding breaks (in accordance with the International
Labor Organization), and protections from sexual harassment,
and other job supports.
3. LWelfare benefits must be increased and indexed to the cost
of living.
4. LTime limits on receiving welfare benefits must be
eliminated.
5. LMothers must not be required to identify the father or sue
for child support as a condition of receiving benefits.
6. LWomen must not be pushed into marriage.
7. LMothers receiving benefits should have the right to
education and training of choice, including the right to attend
a four-year college. Participation in education and training
should be counted as work activity.
8. LNo discrimination in access to benefits, including based on
immigration status, race, disability, criminal record, or
sexual preference.
9. LFederal legislation on welfare should include national
standards, protections and guidelines that states must abide
by.
Rationale and Discussion
1. The work done by mothers or other caregivers raising children is
a valuable contribution to the economy and society and should be
reflected in welfare benefits. Mothers should not be required to work
outside the home as a condition of receiving benefits.
Caregivers are the heart of the economy, yet are ignored and
discriminated against in welfare and other policy. Caring is vital to
the survival and welfare of every community and every society. Mothers
and other carers are entitled to welfare on the basis of how much the
caring work we do is worth to society. Mothers, including mothers on
welfare, are the first carers and women remain the main carers. We give
birth to, feed and care for all in society. Yet beyond lip service this
24-hour-a-day job is devalued or not valued at all by government and
industry. As a result, not only mothers but caring itself and the
people we have raised are devalued and our needs ignored.
Many mothers are forced out to a second or third job, even though
our children need us. Children as young as six weeks old are deprived
of the love, care and attention they need and are entitled to. And
mothers--exhausted by the double or triple day of waged work on top of
unwaged work--are deprived of the time and energy we would like to put
into our children. Increasingly we are forced to give up breastfeeding,
denying children the best and most natural food in favor of formula, or
to keep our children quiet with Ritalin, Prozac or other highly
addictive drugs--we are asked to be more available to the job market
than to our children. It is unbearable that the richest and most
powerful country in the world invests in the military and everything
else it seems while it has no money for caring for children and others
who need care.
According to the State of the World's Children 2001 a key UN goal
is for states to ``develop national and child and family policies that
allow parents increased time to meet their child-rearing
responsibilities and that encourage family-given childcare.'' A survey
released Oct 22, 2001 by the After School Alliance in the US has found
that nearly 40% of US teens have no adult supervision after school. 75%
of teens report that they are more afraid after school hours of being a
victim of violence or crime. The National Center for Laity has noted in
its October 2001 issue that in the US there is no economic incentive
for a parent to be home to care for his or her own children. They
observe that the government subsidizes childcare outside the home or
gives a tax deduction if someone else cares for your child in your
home, but gives no allotment if you provide the care yourself.
According to the NGO Families International, more family members
have to work more hours outside the home which has eroded the well
being of families. Parents have experienced much higher levels of
stress and tension. The report further states: ``When parents cannot be
``present'' . . . to their children, it results in diminished support .
. . diminished attention to their accomplishments, hopes, fears,
problems and questions.''
There is growing national and international support for the work of
raising children and other caring work to be recognized as work, in
response to women ourselves demanding that our work be counted. Many
economists, statisticians and other academics have done studies
documenting the amount of time women spend raising children and doing
other unwaged work and the importance of the contribution of this work
to the functioning of society, too numerous to list here. In 1995,
after an international mobilization spearheaded by EMWM's coordinating
group, at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in
Beijing, the US and other governments agreed to measure and value
women's unwaged work and to include its value in national statistical
data and satellite accounts of the Gross Domestic Product. The 1995 UN
resolution strengthened one previously won by WFH in 1985 at the UN
Mid-Decade Conference held in Nairobi, Kenya during the Reagan
administration. The 1995 agreement is considered by many to be the most
important macroeconomic decision to emerge from the UN Conferences on
women, but the US has yet to take steps to implement it. On the
contrary, current welfare policy under TANF is in violation of, and in
opposition to, this agreement in that it dis-counts the work of mothers
raising children, and mandates that mothers' work outside the home for
30 hours or more per week as a condition of receiving benefits.
Caring work is highly skilled. Mothers have to do simultaneous
tasks to get the job done, a skill usually associated in industry with
management. In May 1999, the Wall Street Journal reported a study that
found that the ``multi-tasking'' work done by a mother is valued at
$500,000 a year. Economists have developed various models of
calculating the value of a mother's work, based on the many different
jobs, the number of hours and the prevailing market wage for those jobs
if done by another person. On a global level, the United Nations
estimates that the value of women's unwaged work is $11 trillion (1995
figures). By contrast, welfare benefits force women and children to
live far below the poverty line, and are in part responsible for the
fact that women are the majority of the poor in this country.
Economically rewarding those who do caring work already has some
precedents. In Montana and Minnesota, mothers are paid for caring for
their infants full-time, out of funds that the states have allotted for
childcare. In California, family members can be paid by the county as
homecare workers to care for low-income elderly or disabled relatives.
The Clinton administration's proposal that parents have the option of
drawing unemployment benefits while staying home to care for small
children was picked up by six states. And in most industrialized
countries, including Canada, all mothers are eligible to receive a
family allowance or child benefit that is not means-tested, in
recognition of the reality that mothers need and have a right to
economic support. In addition, low-income mothers receive welfare.
Nearly all countries, including some of the poorest in the world, have
a policy of paid maternity leave: the United States is one of only six
countries surveyed by the UN that has no such policy. And most give a
subsidy for breastfeeding.
2. Mothers who choose to work outside the home should be entitled
to pay equity, affordable quality childcare of choice, paid
breastfeeding breaks (as recommended by the International Labor
Organization), protections from sexual harassment and other job
supports.
Welfare reform has contributed to the widening pay gap between
women and men, according to some economists. Women in full-time year-
round employment earn 72% of what men earn; for African-American women
the figure is 62%, and for Latina women 52%. Most women, because we are
responsible also for raising children, work in part-time temporary jobs
where the wages are even lower, and the benefits non-existent. Welfare
reform denies our right to choose whether or not to breastfeed and to
otherwise nurture our babies and older children. Mothers of young
children report having less than 30 minutes a day of waking time with
our babies. This will get worse when the time on the 60-month time
clock for receiving benefits runs out and we will be left destitute
with no safety net.
Even a recent HHS report found that only 1.5 million of the 9.9
million children who are eligible for childcare subsidies receive it.
Studies have also shown that childcare is the third greatest expense
for families with children between 3 and 5 years old, after housing and
food; and that a family of three earning $15,000 spends between 24 and
45% of their income on childcare. Most families use informal care,
often by a grandmother, and welfare ``reform'' expects grandmothers
after a lifetime of raising their own children to be available to care
for grandchildren for free or for below the minimum wage. Low-income
grandmothers are already living below the poverty level on the pittance
provided by SSI.
3. Welfare benefits should be increased and indexed to the cost of
living.
Welfare benefits have nowhere near kept up with the rate of
inflation and increases in the cost of living. Cuts in welfare means
more women and children living in poverty, and more of us homeless,
dead, or turning to prostitution or otherwise ``criminalized'' trying
to feed our kids. Welfare reform has put our lives and the lives of our
children in jeopardy: we are pushed to the limit financially,
physically and emotionally. We hold HHS accountable for the thousands
of mothers and children who are now destitute as a result of welfare
reform. Thousands more are among the welfare ``disappeared''--no one
knows what has happened to them, but they are often counted as part of
the welfare ``success story'' simply because they are no longer on the
welfare rolls.
4. Time limits on receiving welfare benefits must be eliminated.
Time limits are punitive and prevent caregivers from carrying out
their responsibilities to children. It is up to mothers, not the
government, to say when a child is no longer in need of a mother's
full-time care. The clock runs in times of economic crisis when waged
work is scarce. The clock runs when a child is sick and needs a
mother's care. No woman can control when she will be in need of
benefits. Most of us are just a man away from welfare. The time clock
is an intimidation keeping many of us in abusive relationships and
vulnerable to emotional and physical violence for fear of complete
destitution. The clock does not recognize the value of a mother's time
caring for her family. Time limits are running out for many women just
when the economy is in a steep downturn and layoffs are massively
increasing. Without a safety net, what are women to do? By 2002 1.3
million people, most of whom are single mothers will be destitute.
Communities of color are at even greater risk of crisis as
unemployment in Black communities, for example, is double that of white
communities. In addition, a higher percentage of people of color are
ineligible for unemployment benefits: their jobs are more likely to be
part-time, temporary or seasonal. Welfare provided the only
unemployment benefit available to many in those situations, but now
that is gone. In rural areas including on Native reservations, waged
work just isn't there. And particularly in those communities wages
don't follow from work. People need to be paid for work they are doing
that is now unwaged. Without such efforts, there is bound to be
increased destitution, homelessness, and ill health, not only physical
but emotional; with communities of color hardest hit, reinforcing a
racist hierarchy.
5. Mothers must not be required to identify the father or sue for
child support as a condition of receiving benefits.
Under current regulations, a woman is mandated to name the father
of her child and sue him for child support whether she wants to or not,
with all or most of the money going to the welfare department, not to
her or the child. Many mothers, including lesbian mothers, do not want
the father to have any part in their lives or their children's, often
because he is abusive or uncaring; others have worked out their own
arrangements. Women in domestic violence shelters say that women often
turn to welfare as their only way to leave violent men. To force such
women to have contact with these men is to set up women and children
for further rape and abuse.
6. Women must not be pushed into marriage.
We are aware of the so-called ``family formation'' agenda being
promoted by some in the Bush administration, most notably Wade Horn, as
the ``solution'' to women's poverty. Multi-million dollar programs are
proposed to promote marriage and the involvement of fathers. We are all
for loving relationships and everyone's right to marry (including
lesbian women and gay men), but not for women to be forced into
marriage, under the threat that their benefits will be cut or reduced.
We want to marry for love, not for money, and men want to know that we
are with them because we love them, not because of the money they earn.
Women have fought for several decades for our right to be financially
independent of men, and have established the importance of having money
of our own as the first line of defense against complete dependence and
starvation, and as a protection against violence against ourselves and
our children. We have also fought for the right to not have to marry.
We do not intend to have the clock turned back to the dark ages where
women had to submit to sex for a bit of housekeeping money. This
official proposal is only a step away from sexual trafficking in women,
which we do not believe most people in the US would endorse.
7. Mothers receiving benefits should have the right to education
and training of choice, including the right to attend a four-year
college. Participation in education and training should be counted as
work activity.
Welfare ``reform'' takes us back more than two decades on access to
education and training which could make a real difference to women's
ability to obtain jobs with income levels above the poverty line. In
addition, mothers on welfare must have the same right as anyone else to
pursue higher education. In the 1970s, students on welfare in the SEEK
program at the City University of New York pressed for and won the
right to receive both welfare and student stipends to attend a four-
year college without one reducing the level of the other. Under welfare
reform, mothers are not allowed at all to pursue a four-year college
education. This is a violation of our human rights. Women are exhausted
raising children, working at low-waged jobs, and trying to pursue a
degree. One woman was so exhausted and so pressed to meet her next
deadline that her judgment was impaired as she stepped out on the
highway after her car broke down and was killed. Being a student is in
itself a full-time job on top of the work of being a mother and should
be acknowledged as such.
8. No discrimination in access to benefits, including based on
immigration status, race, disability, or sexual preference.
We oppose any denial of benefits based on immigration status. The
United States is, after all, a country of, and built by, immigrant
people. Nearly one-fourth of all children of immigrants live in
poverty. They account for 23% of all poor children in the US. Two-
thirds of welfare recipients are now women and children of color. Our
experience has been that women of color are receiving the worst
treatment in relation to work assignments, access to information and
services like childcare. This is on top of the institutional racism in
the waged labor market, resulting in Black and Latina women receiving
the lowest wages, and in every other area of life. Some of the most
punitive components of welfare reform--for example ``family cap''
policies--are in states that have the highest proportion of women of
color receiving benefits. Women with disabilities who are supposed to
be exempt, in many cases are being forced into work assignments, and
there is at least one documented case in New York City where a woman
died as a result. We have also learned from our network in Wisconsin
that women with disabilities have received the worst job placements--
the jobs that were left to women unable to be hired in the private
sector--and are working under conditions like the poorhouse of the
past. Welfare ``reform'' also denies the work of disability where
caring for oneself is a full-time job. Being forced to name their
child's father, who may in fact be a sperm donor, and facing the
possibility of losing custody of children to the state by a social
worker who declares them ``unfit'' is discriminatory against lesbian
mothers. In other cases, the father may seek custody on the basis that
if he is going to pay, he is entitled to raise the child. Many lesbian
and gay young people, thrown out by parents, are facing homelessness
and turn to prostitution to survive because welfare reform requires
those under 18 to live at home to receive benefits.
9. Federal legislation on welfare should include national
standards, protections and guidelines that states cannot waive out of.
The legal right of states to enslave and segregate was fought over
and defeated in the Civil War and the civil rights movement, but
welfare ``reform'' gives power back to individual states. Are women,
many Black and Latina women, in sections of the country with the
highest rates of rural and inner city poverty, to be at the mercy of a
local white male racist establishment? Are we to tolerate policies such
as TANF which promote disparities in standards of living in different
parts of the country? We say no to these, and no to any other policies
which attempt to eliminate federal standards, protections and
guidelines and turn back the clock to 1863.
Finally, we are alarmed at the reauthorization process thus far.
The HHS ``Listening Sessions'' have been government behind closed
doors: a few are handpicked to testify and in some instances half of
the slots are given to the likes of the Heritage Foundation. In other
so-called open ``listening sessions'' held only after protests on both
coasts, the testimony is token, bypassed by top HHS officials and not
even taped. This is not acceptable. HHS gives the impression that they
are listening when in fact the voices of mothers on welfare are being
shut out and shut up. We also want to know what is to happen to written
testimony, particularly from grassroots networks like ours who do not
have the money to hire experts to spend months writing testimony, and
who don't have paid lobbyists on the hill. We are the experts, we and
our children are living examples of the discriminatory effect of
welfare ``reform,'' and we are demanding that our testimony is
considered with seriousness and respect, and that our concerns be
reflected in the recommendations for reauthorization by HHS.
Attached: Testimony by EMWM members
______
Statement of Lynda Brewer, Every Mother is a Working Mother Network,
Los Angeles, California
I want to tell you a bit about myself because welfare ``reform'' is
heating up in Congress and lots of decisions are being made on behalf
of women like myself, but our voices are not being heard. I am really
worried that welfare recipients like myself are being sold down the
river by various deals going on in Washington, D.C., and that
advocates, and the so-called poverty lobby, instead of taking their
lead from women like myself who are impacted, are instead taking their
lead from what politicians are saying.
We want to speak for ourselves. It is not up to others to decide
what we should have. We know what we need, and what we need is for
advocates and the poverty lobby to support our demands. Their job
should not be to tell us what to do; we are sick and tired of that, and
we are calling them on it.
As you know, welfare ``reform'' says that I am not entitled to
anything, that I don't work, and the poverty lobby agrees with them,
since they are running around saying we need work. Let me tell you what
I do, because I am overworked.
I am caring for four grandchildren: an eleven year old, two
mentally challenged boys, and a three-year-old. I wake up at 2:30 in
the morning to wash and iron clothes for an hour or two. Then I go back
to sleep and wake again at 5:30. After I cook breakfast, I dress the
two youngest, drop the two oldest children at the bus stop, and then
rush back home to put another child on a bus that services special
education. Sometimes the school calls me to pick up one of the children
due to behavioral problems. I have to drop whatever household chores--
cleaning, vacuuming, preparing dinner, and more--to rush to two
different schools or just to perform my routine tasks of picking op the
children.
On a typical afternoon, I help the kids with their homework, and
pick the youngest up from childcare. After the evening meal, I wash the
dishes, bathe two of the kids, and after their teeth are brushed we
play games and read bedtime stories. The youngest child has insomnia
and sometimes doesn't fall to sleep until midnight. Occasionally I
spend hours in the Emergency Room with a sick child. I might have to go
to an all-night pharmacy and remain up all night with a sick child to
make sure everything is all right. On the weekends, I don't get a
break; the routine is just different. On top of all this, I take a
class at local Community College twice a week.
Every few months I get this letter in the mail. The first line goes
like this ``Congratulations, you have been chosen to participate in
GAIN.'' It doesn't matter that I already have a full-time job taking
care of my grandchildren; that doesn't count in welfare ``reform''.
Then you get another letter saying you better keep the GAIN appointment
and don't bring any children!
If you don't call what I am doing work, what do you call it? I had
to quit my outside job in the first place to meet all of my obligations
with the children. Welfare ``reform'' would rather pay someone else to
care for my grandchildren, instead of giving me the money and the
choice to care for them myself. I, who love them and understand the
challenges they face.
I am part of the Every-Mother-is-a-Working-Mother Network. We want
the right, the economic support, to be able to choose to raise our own
kids. We also want the right to choose, not be mandated to work outside
the home, and we should have quality childcare, pay equity, and
protection from discrimination. They tell us there is no money for
mothers and other caregivers, but money can be found to bomb
Afghanistan and to ``bail out'' big corporations in corporate
``welfare''. It is outrageous! Our money is spent to kill other people
while we are left destitute or criminalized. And welfare ``reform'' is
racist. Most of us impacted are Black and Latina. There is no safety
net left even for those losing their waged jobs in the current economic
crisis.
We aren't begging anyone for anything. We are not here to say:
``Just give us a chance to get a job!'' We already have a job, it is
called care giving and we are on duty twenty four/seven. If they
counted caregivers work in the gross national project it would be the
largest contribution. Even the UN has said that all governments should
value caring work. But welfare ``reform'' ignores that. The value of
our work as mothers and grandmothers must be reflected in welfare
benefits. Welfare is our right, our entitlement. Caregivers are the
heart of the economy, but we come last, we are tokenized, neglected,
abused, and discriminated against. What job is more important than
caring for children?
We are calling for the value of caring work to be reflected in
welfare benefits: an end to time limits, other punitive measures and
discrimination; an end to forced work; education and training of our
choice; and the right to benefits must not depend on immigration
status. We say invest in caring not in killing.
Lynda Brewer is on welfare and raises her four grandchildren.
Chairman HERGER. Again, thank you for your statement, each
of you. Just to remind you, your entire statement will be
submitted for the record. It has been a long day and a long
hearing. If we could, as we see the yellow light begin to sum
up so everyone has the same 5 minutes. Thank you very much. Ms.
Kahan to testify, please.
STATEMENT OF KATE KAHAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WORKING FOR
EQUALITY AND ECONOMIC LIBERATION, MISSOULA, MONTANA
Ms. KAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Herger. My name is Kate Kahan. I
am the Executive Director for Working for Equality and Economic
Liberation (WEEL), a Montana-based organization focused on
poverty issues.
The WEEL works with people in poverty across Montana, in
the western region, and nationally. I am here today with the
Welfare Made a Difference Campaign. The WEEL has been a strong
presence in the national arena surrounding welfare
reauthorization, specifically utilizing the State experience
with welfare reform to contribute information, lessons learned,
and model policy to the national debate. Given that focus, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the
Administration and to your proposals here for welfare
reauthorization from the State perspective, a poor rural State
at that.
First, I would like to share my personal story. I am a
former welfare recipient. When I first applied for welfare at 6
months pregnant with little to no job experience, I was denied
assistance due to fact that I had $7 too much in my bank
account. Having no family or financial resources to turn to, I
married the father of my child. Less than 2 years later, I
found myself fleeing a violent home. I began receiving welfare
and going to college.
While in college I had a work study job in a field I knew I
wanted to pursue employment in after I completed my degree. The
education and experience I gained ultimately helped me move out
of poverty. Marriage was not the solution to my poverty or my
son's poverty. If I had not left that violent home, I can
assure you that I would not be here today, I would have died.
This story is reflective of many other women on welfare
today. In the past 12 months, over 50 percent of WEEL's
advocacy calls, which are specifically focused on welfare have
been domestic-violence related.
Welfare offices are focused on case load reduction and
keeping people off of welfare, and that puts women attempting
to leave violent homes in a position no one should ever have to
face. Women facing violence should never have to make the
choice between the security of food on the table for their
children and continued violence. Far too many women in poverty
are facing this devastating situation. Marriage promotion will
not help these women in crisis leave. It will only serve as yet
another barrier to leaving, and that will not under any
circumstances solve the poverty they face.
On top of the rise in domestic violence, Montana's child
poverty rate is 21 percent. That is twice the national average.
Our uninsured rate is 18, our wages are 48th in the Nation, and
we have the highest number of people working more than one job
to make ends meet in the country. These factors point out that
there is no cookie-cutter approach to poverty alleviation or to
welfare reform.
The Administration proposals to increase work requirements
without any acknowledgment of the fact that it is indeed the
quality of work, not the quantity that makes a difference is
obviously not a solution for people in poverty. In Montana,
people are working two and three jobs, and they are still poor.
Marriage is not the solution of poverty in Montana. Women
are facing domestic violence at alarming rates, and wages are
so low in Montana that two-parent households are just as poor
as single-parent households. Women make 56 cents to every
dollar men make in Montana as well. Both increased work and
marriage promotion ignore such issues.
Montana's experience is not unique. We are one of many very
poor States and 1 out of 50 States that have people facing
deeper poverty than we have seen in decades. Notice I am
talking about the depth of poverty, not the level of poverty.
It is time to move beyond oversimplified Band-Aid
approaches to welfare reform and start focusing on family well-
being by ensuring protection from domestic violence, including
access to quality education and training programs and work
supports like food stamps, transitional Medicaid, and child
care to aid families moving out of poverty. Poverty is complex.
Welfare reform must include policies that address that fact and
begin to support families.
Montana's welfare rolls have increased dramatically in the
past few months. Our Department of Health and Human Services
points out a significant factor in the increase has to do with
the fact that people have been pushed into low-wage employment,
and they aren't making it. People in poverty are facing a
striking lack of options and support for the work they are
engaged in and a lack of employment opportunities that allow
them to become economically independent. Families who are
working should not be poor.
The Administration proposal certainly does not address
poverty alleviation with any policy that will work on the State
level. The TANF reauthorization is the perfect opportunity to
create policy that addresses poverty reduction by ensuring that
families have access to quality education and training
programs, support while engaged in such programs, options to
secure care for their young children.
Montana has a program called the At Home Infant Care
program, which enables parents with kids under age 2 to care
for their children while being reimbursed the daily infant care
rate. This program makes economic sense because it offsets the
expense and difficulty of accessing infant care. In addition,
it allows parents, many of whom reside in rural areas of the
State with little or no access to resources and opportunity, to
provide infant care for their children. This is an essential
component of stable communities. I am almost done.
It is innovative programs such as At Home Infant Care that
will bring relief to poverty. States need support to address
the needs of their poor citizens, not a boost in bureaucracy
and oversimplified approaches like those in the administration
proposal. The TANF reauthorization policies should address the
poverty people face, support families working to move out of
poverty in a variety of ways including training and education,
work and caring for their children. Policies must ensure
families have options and protections while leaving violent
homes and approach child well-being through actual poverty
reduction measures rather than involving government in our
private lives through economically coerced marriage.
Finally, I appreciate the opportunity to testify here
today. I think it is essential to hear from the people who have
been directly impacted by poverty. Our experience as a group
that creates poverty alleviation policy in Montana certainly
speaks of the fact that policies that are created with the
input of the people that will be most impacted by them are the
most successful. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kahan follows:]
Statement of Kate Kahan, Executive Director, Working for Equality and
Economic Liberation, Missoula, Montana
My name is Kate Kahan, I am the executive director for WEEL,
Working for Equality and Economic Liberation, a Montana based
organization focused on poverty issues. WEEL works with people in
poverty across Montana, in the western region and nationally. WEEL has
been a strong presence in the national arena surrounding welfare
reauthorization, specifically utilizing the state experience with
welfare reform to contribute information, lessons learned and model
policy to the national debate. Given that focus, I am pleased to have
the opportunity to respond to the Bush Proposal for welfare
reauthorization from the state perspective.
First, I would like to share my personal story. I am a former
welfare recipient. When I first applied for welfare at 6 months
pregnant, with little to no job experience, I was denied assistance due
to the fact that I had $7 too much in my bank account. Having no family
or financial resources to turn to, I married the father of my child.
Less than two years later, I found myself fleeing a violent home. I
began receiving welfare and going to college. While in college I had a
work-study job in a field that I knew I wanted to pursue employment in
after completing my degree. The education and experience I gained
ultimately helped me move out of poverty. Marriage was not the solution
to my poverty or my son's poverty. If I had not left that violent home,
I can assure you I would not be here today, I would have died.
This story is reflective of many other women on welfare today. In
the past 12 months, Over 50% of WEEL's advocacy calls, which are
specifically focused on welfare, have been domestic violence related.
Welfare offices are focused on case load reduction and keeping people
off of welfare and that puts women attempting to leave violent homes in
a position no-one should ever have to face. Women facing violence
should never have to make the choice between the security of food on
the table for their children and continued violence. Far too many women
in poverty are facing this devastating situation. Marriage promotion
will not help these women in crisis leave, it will only serve as yet
another barrier to leaving and that will not, under any circumstances,
solve the poverty they face.
On top of the rise in domestic violence, Montana's child poverty
rate is 21%, our uninsured rate is 18%, our wages are 48th in the
nation and we have the highest number of people working more than one
job to make ends meet in the country. These factors point out that
there is no cookie cutter approach to poverty alleviation or to welfare
reform. Bush's proposal to increase work requirements, without any
acknowledgement of the fact that it is indeed the QUALITY of work, not
the QUANTITY that makes a difference, is obviously not a solution for
people in poverty. In Montana, people are working 2 and 3 jobs and they
are still poor. Marriage is not the solution to poverty in Montana,
women are facing domestic violence at alarming rates and wages are so
low in Montana that two parent households are just as poor as single
parent households. Montana's experience is not unique; we are one of
many very poor states and one out of 50 states that have people facing
deeper poverty than we have seen in decades. It is time to move beyond
oversimplified, band aid approaches to welfare reform and start
focusing on family well-being by ensuring protection from domestic
violence, including access to quality education and training programs
and work supports like food stamps, Medicaid and child care to aid
families working to move out of poverty. Poverty is complex, welfare
reform must include policies that address that fact and begins to
support families.
Montana's welfare rolls have increased dramatically the past few
months. Montana's Department of Health and Human Services points out, a
significant factor in that increase has to do with the fact that people
have been pushed into low-wage employment and they aren't making it.
People in poverty are facing a lack of support for the work they are
engaged in and employment opportunities that allow them to become
economically independent. Families who are working should not be poor.
The Bush proposal certainly does not address poverty alleviation with
any policy that will work on the state level.
TANF Reauthorization is the perfect opportunity to create policy
that addresses poverty reduction by ensuring that families have access
to quality education and training programs, options to secure care for
their young children: Montana has a program called the At Home Infant
Care Program which enables parents with children under age 2 to care
for their children while being reimbursed the daily infant care rate.
This program makes economic sense because it offsets the expense and
difficulty of accessing infant care. In addition, it allows parents,
many of whom reside in rural areas of the state with little or no
access to resources an opportunity to provide infant care for their
children. This is an essential component of stable communities.
It is innovative programs such as At Home Infant Care that will
bring relief to poverty. States need support to address the needs of
their poor citizens, not a boost in bureaucracy and over simplified
approaches like those in the Bush Proposal. TANF Reauthorization
policies should address the poverty people face, support families
working out of poverty in a variety of ways including training and
education, work and caring for their children. Policies must ensure
families have options and protection when leaving violent homes and
approach child well being through actual poverty reduction measures
rather than involving government in our private lives through
economically coerced marriage.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today. I think it is
essential to hear from the people who have been directly impacted by
poverty. Our experience as a group that creates poverty alleviation
policy in Montana certainly speaks to the fact that policies that are
created with the input of the people that will be most impacted by them
are the most successful.
Thank you.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Ms. Kahan, and I
would just like to comment that it is certainly not my intent
or anyone I know on this Committee who in any way have
legislation that would somehow perpetrate or encourage--that is
probably not the right term, but allow abusive behavior within
a married couple or within any couple. Certainly we are very
sensitive to this, and anything we are doing, the goal is to
try to attempt, in situations where it is possible and where it
can be encouraged, to be able to allow our children to be born
into two-parent, married homes, but we are certainly aware that
that is not possible in every situation.
I want to thank you again very much for each of your
testimonies this evening. I thank you for your patience, and
with that we will call up panel 10. Yasmina Vinci, Executive
Director, National Association of Child Care Resources and
Referral Agencies; Paul Marchand, Co-chair of TANF Task Force,
Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities; Sean Cahill,
Director of Policy Institute, National Gay and Lesbian Task
Force; Sharon McDonald, Policy Analyst, National Alliance to
End Homelessness; David Beckmann, President, Bread for the
World; and Bich Ha Pham, Executive Director, Hunger Action
Network of New York State. Ms. Vinci.
STATEMENT OF YASMINA S. VINCI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF CHILD CARE RESOURCES AND REFERRAL AGENCIES
Ms. VINCI. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
testify and for your stamina in willing to listen to this many
voices of everybody who wants to weigh in on your proposals.
As Executive Director of the National Association of Child
Care Resources and Referral Agencies, I represent the wisdom
and expertise of a national network of nearly 750 local
resource and referral programs across the United States. In 1
year those programs help 1,650,000 families looking for child
care, and of those, 750,000 are low-income, and half a million
are TANF-receiving families. So, this hands-on work along with
the very careful documentation of the supply and demand of
child care gives the members of our network a very deep insight
into the child care needs of families and communities.
I recall vividly the moment in the previous welfare reform
debate when Congressman, then Chairman, Shaw stated that we
simply could not have welfare reform without child care, and,
of course, he was right. At the time we only had an inkling of
the unintended consequences on child care in the communities,
and here are some of the learnings since then.
One, we knew then that the pressure on supply of care would
increase significantly, and that much of that pressure would be
care for infants and toddlers, for babies. We did not know that
because of constant turnover of inadequately trained and poorly
compensated providers, the need for continuous supply building
would be so intense. Just last year, the members of our network
created 500,000 slots, and 70 percent of the calls looking for
child care are from parents looking for care for babies, so
that means that the need continues.
We also knew that most jobs for people leaving TANF would
not be the 9-to-5 jobs. We did not know then that in many case
places, like in Shasta County, in your district, as many as
one-quarter of all requests to early childhood services, which
is the local resource and referral program, would be for child
care during evenings, nights, and weekends. All over the
country calls for providers who can accommodate rotating
shifts, seasonal care are flooding the resource and referral
programs.
We also knew then that States would be making multiple
policy tradeoffs in order to stretch the resources to make them
go all the way, but we did not anticipate the extent to which
families would be faced with impossible tradeoffs between
paying for child care and other most basic needs. For instance,
a parent in Shasta County earning a minimum wage needs half, 50
percent, of her annual income to pay for licensed care for a
baby, and at the same time she needs 53 percent of her income
for her housing. That adds up to 103 percent. As one of your
constituents has said, this is a direct quote, ``For the price
that some centers will charge to care for my two school-age
children plus the baby, I would need to bring toothbrushes and
move in because I could not afford child care and rent, too.''
Mr. Chairman, I am sure that these were not the kinds of
choices and options for parents that were envisioned in the
1996 legislation.
One more thing. Since 1996, with the scientific evidence
that 90 percent of the brain is formed by the age of 5, we have
even more understanding of the importance of quality of the
child's early experience for the ability to learn in school,
and we are very glad that the administration has been focusing
national spotlight on this important fact. What we face,
though, is that children under 5 are in a variety of places.
They are in centers, family child care homes, nursery schools,
public preschools, Head Start, with relatives, friends, and
neighbors, and the conundrum could be how to achieve quality
across all those settings.
Fortunately, we think the vehicle to employ a variety of
strategies to support and to improve the quality in different
community settings does exist already. It is called child care
resource and referral, and the fact sheet that we have enclosed
with our activity shows in hard figures that investments that
many States have already made in child care resource and
referral systems with CCDBG, TANF, and State funds have been
effective.
So, our recommendations for Congress based on frontline
wisdom and experience are: One is to increase investments in
child care subsidies sufficiently so that families
transitioning into work as well as low-income working families
can have choice of child care that is reliable and also helps
children to become learners.
Two, we think it is equally important to make substantial
investment in the strategies that support the availability and
quality of care. If quality sufficient to get all children
ready for school is to be achieved in all the settings where
the children are, Congress should increase the set-aside for
quality to 12 percent and strengthen the capacity of proven
quality-buildings systems.
Finally, information technology and local presence of
resource and referral have created an opportunity for regular,
sustained collection of reporting of local reality-based data
on the supply, demand, and price of child care so that State
and federal level decisions on child care can be informed by
up-to-date, solid data that represent the same marketplace that
the families are experiencing. In fact, an investment in
activating and sustaining this capacity would supply a degree
of increased accountability for the Nation's largest single
funder of child care, the Federal Government. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Vinci follows:]
Statement of Yasmina S. Vinci, Executive Director, National Association
of Child Care Resources and Referral Agencies
Mr. Chairman and Members of the House Ways and Means Human
Resources Subcommittee,
Thank you for inviting me to testify about the Welfare Reform
Reauthorization Proposals. This is an important occasion, allowing us
to look at the results and accomplishments of Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act and at the lessons learned in
its implementation, and an invitation to us all to do even better in
the years to come.
As Executive Director of NACCRRA, the National Association of Child
Care Resource and Referral Agencies, I represent a national network of
nearly 750 local resource and referral (R&R) programs across the United
States, such as Early Childhood Services in Shasta County and the
Baltimore City Resource Center in Maryland. Collectively, in one year
community-based R&R programs help 1,650,000 families to find child care
needed in order to work or get training. Of those families, one million
are low income families and half a million are families who are
receiving TANF. R&R programs have had a very up front and close
experience with the families who are starting to work and stay working,
and child care has been an important piece of that effort. R&R programs
throughout the country also maintain detailed data on the supply and
demand of child care and early education programs. And so, my
knowledge, deriving from the local R&R expertise, is in this arena, and
that will be the focus of my testimony.
I recall vividly the moment in the early welfare reform debates
when Congressman Shaw stated that we simply could not have welfare
reform without child care. He was right, and we all knew that he was
right, but at that time we only had an inkling of the unintended
impacts on child care in the communities. Here is what we have learned:
1. LWe anticipated that with many more mothers required to work
we would have significant pressure on the existing supply of
child care. What we did not know is that even with R&Rs
feverishly building the supply (last year, 500,000 new slots
were created by R&Rs) the supply would keep vanishing as a
result of the turnover of underpaid, undervalued providers.
2. LWe knew that, by and large, the available jobs for the new
entrants in the workforce would not be the 9:00 a.m.--5:00 p.m.
jobs. However, we underestimated the high percentage of those
jobs that would be during non-traditional hours. In Shasta
County, for example, almost one-quarter of all requests are for
care during non-traditional hours--evenings, nights, and
weekends. We knew little then about rotating staffing schedules
for many employees, and yet the calls for providers who can
accommodate rotating schedules have been the fastest growing
type of requests for R&Rs in many areas. The issues of how to
build and maintain the supply of seasonal child care, whether
for people working in Colorado resorts or packing eggs in Iowa,
were not fully clear to us.
3. LAnother thing that was unclear then was the balancing
between: a.) the need of states to stretch the money available
for child care subsidies to as many families as possible; b.)
the necessity to make those subsidies sufficient for parents to
be able to afford the care; and c.) the assurance that the
available care would be safe and good for the children. States
have been addressing this dilemma in several ways. First, the
eligibility for subsidy may be set too low. Few states allow
families to qualify for subsidy at the level allowed under
federal law (85% of state median income). Next, they may set
the rates well below the market rates, and thus preclude
parents from accessing the market of licensed care.
Alternatively, the co-payment fees may be too high. Thirty-five
states required families earning $7,075 a year for a family of
three to pay a fee even though this is income at half of the
poverty level. Finally, to make up for low fees and gain access
to care, parents often have to reach into already meager
resources to supplement their co-pay rates and the state
subsidy rate with yet another fee.
L As a result of such multiple policy tradeoffs, all too
often we find that parents do not have the choice or the
options that the original legislation envisioned as priorities.
The R&R counselors hear daily of instances where families are
either struggling to remain employed with the unreliable
informal care that they are able to afford, or are unable to
take even a slight salary raise because it would mean getting
over the income eligibility threshold and losing the child care
subsidy altogether.
4. LFinding affordable child care is even harder for working
parents who are not on TANF and do not receive subsidies. For a
Shasta County working poor parent, earning a minimum wage,
paying for full-time licensed care in a center for an infant,
would take up 50% of the annual income. For a single mom, this
would be a true Sophie's choice since her rent would be 53% of
her annual income. As a mother of three said, ``For the price
that some centers would charge to care for my two school-age
children plus the baby, I would need to bring toothbrushes and
move in because I could not afford child care and rent, too.''
5. LAnother unanticipated barrier to families transitioning to
work has been the dire shortage of care for infants and
toddlers. With 6.8 million children under the age of 3 living
with employed parents, the demand for this, most expensive type
of care, remains unmet in ways that are inimical to the well-
being of children and families. We know the demand on parents
for infant and toddler care--last year, 70% of all calls to
R&Rs were requests for children under 3 years of age.
6. LOne thing that we overlooked in 1996 while concentrating on
child care as a support to working families was the enormous
importance of the early experiences for the growth, development
and readiness to learn of the children whose parents were going
off to work. Since then, new insights into brain development
have confirmed the imperative for good quality early
experiences, regardless of the setting in which the child is
spending time. We know now that 90% of an individual's brain
develops by the age of 5. We commend the attention that the
Bush Administration has focused on education and on the key
role that early learning plays in education reform. In fact,
the express overarching goal of the new Administration for TANF
reauthorization, `to promote the well-being of children,'
represents a very important commitment for the nation.
President Bush has made a further commitment, ``we must make
sure that every child enter school ready to learn--every
child--not just one, not just a few, but every single child.''
There are two essential components that must be in place in order
to ensure that children enter school ready to learn: one is the
acknowledgement that we must invest in a well qualified, well-trained,
and well-compensated early care and education workforce. It is
difficult, however, to attract individuals into the responsible,
demanding profession of caring and educating children (let alone to
retain them) when the average salary is $16,350 with few benefits.
The second component addresses the reality of the daily experiences
that children have while their parents work. Across the country,
children are being cared for in a variety of settings, including
centers, family child care homes, state and private pre-school and
after-school programs, Head Start programs, and in the homes of
relatives, friends, and neighbors. If we wish to make sure that
children are nurtured and educated wherever they are spending their
time, there must be an intentional investment in a system of community-
based, locally-driven supports for caregivers and teachers in the
various settings as well as for the families. Luckily, that system,
thoroughly tested for nimbleness and an ability to deliver help needed
for states to implement welfare reform, already exists. It is called
child care resource and referral (R&R). The 750+ resource and referral
programs (located in family service agencies, public school systems,
local government offices, faith-based agencies, community colleges,
community action programs, or as free-standing non-profits), have self-
organized from the need of employers, communities and states to make
child care work for both the families and communities. As is evident
from the attached fact sheet, they have been a critical support for
successful welfare reform in most states.
In states where resource and referral is adequately funded and
well-coordinated, the access of families to good information and
consultation is demonstrably better, the providers are supported with
information and expertise, and the communities are equipped with the
capacity to bring together various interested parties to work on
planning to meet the needs of local families, and to promote decision-
making based on solid, real-time, locally-collected R&R data.
In conclusion, at this time we know appreciably more than in 1996
about what works and what needs to happen for everyone to work.
Implementation has confirmed the concept that quality child care is
essential if people are to leave TANF and stay employed. It has also
given us valuable insights into what makes child care work for
families, employers, and communities. We know for sure from the
experience of the last five years that child care as a support to
working families and as a place where children will develop to be
happy, healthy, and ready to learn can be done, and can be costly. The
front line wisdom and evidence from the communities tell us that in
order to take welfare reform to the next stage and maximize its
benefits to the children, it is important for Congress and the
Administration to:
Make sufficient investments in child care subsidies
so that families transitioning into work as well as low-income
working families can find and afford care that is reliable and
helps the children to become learners. Even before recent tough
budget cuts in states, and even using transfers from TANF and
considerable state investments, states have not had sufficient
resources to provide child care subsidy for all families who
need it in order to work. The proposal to increase the work and
participation requirements, whether it means more training,
community service or drug rehabilitation, is likely to result
in an increased demand for child care during those additional
hours. Recognizing that fact and making sure that the funding
is there for parents to be able to cope with this additional
requirement, seems to be a first step in ensuring that the plan
has a chance of working. Keeping in mind that care for infants
and toddlers and children with special needs is the hardest to
find, afford, and trust, is the next level of anticipating and
addressing unforeseen barriers.
It is equally important to make sufficient
investments in the strategies that support the availability and
quality of care. A variety of these activities, including
supply building, professional development and compensation,
licensing, and information to parents have been funded by the
4% set aside for quality authorized in the Child Care
Development Block Grant. If quality sufficient to get all
children ready for school is to be achieved in all settings, we
must have serious and systematic work done and serious
investments are necessary, including an increase of the set
aside for quality to 12%.
Finally, information technology and local presence of
resource and referral have created the promise for regular,
sustained collection and reporting of local, reality-based data
on the supply, demand, and price of early care and education
options, so that state-and federal-level decisions on child
care can be informed by up-to-date, solid data that represents
the same marketplace that the families are experiencing. An
investment in activating and sustaining this network would
supply increasing accountability for the nation's largest
single funder of child care--the Federal Government.
Thank you for the time and opportunity to share the wisdom and
experience of the nation's network of resource and referral agencies.
______
A GREATER GOOD
FACTS AND FIGURES ON THE IMPACT OF R&R
In one year, 733 local resource and referral (R&R) programs in the
USA----
Work with families
R&Rs help parents take the guesswork out of choosing care,
equipping them with referrals and information about elements of quality
care and state licensing requirements, as well as availability of child
care subsidy.
; LHelp 1,650,000 families to find child care;
750,000 are referrals for low income families; 500,000 for
TANF-receiving families
; LSupport another 4,440,000 parents in raising
happy, healthy children, with parent education (62%), support
for stay-at-home parents (45%), and linkages with health (66%)
Build the supply of child care
In most communities, the demand for child care far outweighs the
supply and staff turnover is high, creating a constant need for new
providers. R&Rs create an entry point for providers, helping them get
licensed and helping them meet the urgent need for infant and toddler,
bilingual, special needs and non-standard hours care.
; LDevelop 500,000 new child care slots
Improve the quality of early care and education
Across the country, R&Rs provide ongoing professional development
opportunities, including training and career advising, and supporting
accreditation and credentialing programs.
; LTrain or connect to training 1,200,000 child care
workers
; LProvide 1,240,000 technical assistance
consultations
; LSupport accreditation and/or credentialing of
programs and providers (97%)
; LProvide or facilitate training on caring for
infants and toddlers (83%)
; LEmploy innovative strategies to improve quality
of license-exempt care (89%) and care by relatives (84%)
Bridge child care and education
R&Rs help to create the kinds of child care settings that help
children grow and learn, and are dedicated to informing communities
about the important links between early learning and later success in
school.
; LConduct public awareness campaigns on early
learning (81%)
; LUndertake initiatives that promote early literacy
(31%)
; LProvide kindergarten transition activities (35%)
Document child care needs and trends
What makes R&R unique throughout the nation is their ability to
gather information through contact with parents and providers and turn
this information into reports on the supply, demand and gaps in child
care for state and community planning. Through collection and
interpretation of data, R&Rs are able to alert policy makers to the
changing needs of constituents.
; LDevelop and disseminate regular supply and demand
reports (70%)
Engage new partners
By reaching out to a wide range of stakeholders, from business
leaders to law enforcement to public school teachers, R&Rs help
articulate why child care is an issue entire communities need to care
about. In addition, they collaborate with a wide range of other family
support services to promote a holistic vision of child care that
includes health, literacy, mental health, and special needs.
; LConvene local coalitions (75%)
; LParticipate in community coalitions (95%)
Tell the child care story:
By documenting community child care needs and creating new ways to
meet those needs, R&Rs bring voices to children, families, and child
care providers to the public through their publications and through
interviews with the media. In addition, when policy-makers need up to
date information about the state of child care, they turn to R&Rs.
; LRegularly field questions from the media (67%)
Source: Preliminary results--2002 NACCRRA COUNTS
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Ms. Vinci. Mr. Marchand to
testify.
STATEMENT OF PAUL MARCHAND, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
POLICY AND ADVOCACY, ARC, AND CO-CHAIR, TANF TASK FORCE,
CONSORTIUM FOR CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES
Mr. MARCHAND. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
this opportunity. I am Paul Marchand, and I am the Director of
Governmental Affairs for The Arc, which is the Nation's
organization that deals with mental retardation policy. I am
accompanied this evening by Laurel Stine from the Bazelon
Center for Mental Health Law, and together we cochair the
Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities (CCD) Task Force on
TANF.
Our consortium is made up of 100 national organizations
that deal with disabilities from the perspective of parents,
consumers, service providers, and professionals. We work in a
variety of contexts in addition to TANF, such as employment and
training, Social Security policy, housing, long-term services
and supports, and disability rights. We have major policy goals
of self-determination, independence, empowerment, community
integration, and inclusion as vital outcomes for our
constituents. For the first time in our 26-year history, CCD is
paying attention to TANF, and I will explain why in a second.
Our full testimony raises a number of serious concerns
about the current TANF implementation, analyzes some of the
proposals to extend TANF, and makes recommendations for program
improvement. However, there is one absolutely critical message
we hope you will hear tonight and throughout the
reauthorization process, and that is that a very significant
proportion of adults and children remaining on the TANF rolls
have disabilities, and their meeting the employment goals in
TANF is an ongoing challenge to the States, to the local
providers, to the local governments, and individuals and
families themselves.
Much to our surprise the recent data from the U.S. General
Accounting Office and other sources indicates that about 44 to
45 percent of TANF recipients have disabilities in their
families. That may be a surprise to you also. Mr. Chairman, you
count votes. Today I counted the number of witnesses. I am the
42nd out of 45 witnesses. Only three of those experts in this
field mentioned disability as an issue today and tonight.
Assuming the success of further reducing the TANF rolls
continues, that percentage of people with disabilities will
likely rise since they have significant barriers to employment,
and most need longer and more expensive job training and other
supports to be successful.
We believe that all people with disabilities must have the
opportunity to maximize their potential, including the ability
to find and keep a good job, and that all levels of government
have the legal obligation that these individuals have equal and
meaningful access to programs that help them get those jobs.
Previous Congresses have enacted the Americans with
Disabilities Act and section 504. Both of those disability
rights laws are incorporated in TANF. However, the worthy goal
of jobs for people with disabilities in our Nation has not been
realized by many Americans. Federal Government and other
statistics indicate that over two-thirds of working-age people
with disabilities who want to work today cannot find jobs. This
is bad for those individuals. This is bad for our Nation.
Working together we must figure out how this TANF
reauthorization can be part of the solution to this national
dilemma. We have crafted a set of principles to guide TANF
reauthorization from a disability perspective and a number of
policy recommendations, and they are incorporated in our
testimony. We hope to work with you and Congress so that the
concerns, needs, and aspirations of our constituents are met.
It is important to note that there are parents with
disabilities, and there are parents caring for children with
disabilities who are involved here. All of these families have
multiple barriers to work and to comply with TANF rules. A few
examples: A parent is ready and able to work, but they cannot
find child care or a child care provider who will deal with
their child with a disability; a parent with a disability, able
to work, but the community does not have accessible and
affordable transportation for them to get back and forth to a
job; a parent with a disability who has tried to work, but has
been unsuccessful because of the lack of on-the-job supports
needed for them to keep that job; a parent with a disability
who cannot get needed job training because they are deemed not
disabled enough for vocational rehabilitation, but they are
deemed too disabled for the one-stop job training centers.
There are countless other scenarios that pose other types
of serious impediments for TANF recipients with disabilities to
find employment. It is vital that States and localities find
solutions to these problems and that the TANF reauthorization
address them as well.
We are very concerned that the administration's proposal,
if adopted, will pose even greater barriers for people with
disabilities to leave the TANF rolls through the increased work
requirements and the elimination of assessments. We have a
number of recommendations in our statement, and we hope that we
can work with you on those.
We thank you very much for your patience this evening. We
look forward to working with you and this Committee to enact a
TANF reauthorization that helps our constituents who can and
want to work do so so that all of us are enriched. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marchand follows:]
Statement of Paul Marchand, Assistant Executive Director, Policy and
Advocacy, Arc, and Co-Chair, TANF Task Force, Consortium for Citizens
with Disabilities
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am Paul Marchand, the
Assistant Executive Director for Policy and Advocacy at The Arc, and
co-chair of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities' TANF Task
Force. I am accompanied today by Laurel Stine, the Director of Federal
Relations at the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law,
and co-chair of the CCD TANF Task Force.
The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) is a coalition
of approximately 100 national consumer, advocacy, provider and
professional organizations headquartered in Washington, DC. We work
together to advocate for national public policy that ensures the self
determination, independence, empowerment, integration and inclusion of
children and adults with disabilities in all aspects of society. The
CCD advocates on behalf of people of all ages with physical and mental
disabilities and their families through organized Task Forces on such
issues as housing, health care, education, and welfare reform. The CCD
TANF Task Force seeks to ensure that families that include persons with
disabilities are afforded equal opportunities and appropriate
accommodations under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block
grant.
Included in my written statement is the governing document for our
task force. Principles Guiding the Reauthorization of TANF spells out
the key principles that we believe should underlie improvements in TANF
reauthorization from a disability perspective. The recommendations
included in my statement also appear in a second governing document for
the task force; these recommendations describe the steps we believe are
needed to implement those principles in ways that will help parents
with disabilities and parents caring for children with disabilities to
be able to maximize their potential through the TANF program.
We start from the premise that all people with disabilities must
have the opportunity to maximize their potential--including to be able
to work--and that it is the legal obligation of the government--
federal, state and local--to ensure that people with disabilities have
equal and meaningful access to all programs receiving federal funds.
This is the promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, both of which Congress
specifically incorporated into the TANF statute in 1996 at Section
408(c), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 608(c).
It is still common for policymakers not to realize that many people
with disabilities are in the families being served by TANF programs.
Early in the process of welfare reform, the thinking among many state
level policymakers was, if the person was really disabled then she
would be receiving Supplemental Security Income. And, for some parents
and children on TANF, it is true that they should be receiving SSI and
may need their state's help in securing these benefits. But, the SSI
eligibility criteria require a severe disability and we are finding
that there are many who do not meet the SSI test but who clearly are
disabled for TANF purposes. The studies now show that many parents on
TANF have disabilities and other health conditions that inhibit their
ability to work, but who with appropriate supports and services, could
be working. Last fall, the General Accounting Office found that 44
percent of parents receiving TANF had at least one physical or mental
health impairment, three times higher than the rate of such impairments
among adults not receiving TANF benefits.1 This confirmed
earlier findings from the Urban Institute and others.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: More
Coordinated Federal Effort Could Help States and Localities Move TANF
Recipients with Impairments Toward Employment, October 2001, available
at http://www.gao.gov.
\2\ Sheila R. Zedlewski, Work Activity and Obstacles to Work Among
TANF Recipients, Urban Institute, Series B, No. B-2, September 1999,
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/anf--b2.pdf. For a discussion of
numerous studies that have reported on the status of parents with
disabilities in state TANF programs, see Eileen P. Sweeney, Recent
Studies Indicate that Many Parents Who are Current or Former Welfare
Recipients Have Disabilities or Other Medical Conditions, Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, February 2000, http://www.cbpp.org/2-29-
00.htm. See also, Heidi Goldberg, Improving TANF Program Outcomes for
Families with Barriers to Employment, Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, January 2002, http://www.cbpp.org/1-22-02tanf3.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The studies show that parents on TANF have mental impairments such
as severe depression, general anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress
disorder, learning disabilities, mental retardation, and physical
impairments. These impairments can make it difficult for a parent to
work or to understand and comply with state rules. Many families have
multiple barriers to work, one or more of which is a disability or
health condition.3 In many instances, parents would like to
work but will need intensive supports and services if they are to
succeed. Some examples of these supports include training designed to
take into account the person's disability, counseling, substance abuse
treatment, on-the-job supports, child care and transportation. For
some, full-time work may be the long-term goal, but there will need to
be numerous smaller steps taken over time before such a goal can be
reached. For others, part-time work in a supportive setting may be the
ultimate goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Sandra Danziger, Mary Corcoran, Sheldon Danziger, et al.,
Barriers to Employment of Welfare Recipients, University of Michigan
Poverty Research and Training Center, February 2000, http://
www.ssw.umich.edu/poverty/pubs.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There also are children with disabilities in TANF families. Some of
these children receive SSI--the Urban Institute has reported that about
four percent of children in TANF families receive SSI children's
disability benefits4--while far more have health conditions
that do not rise to the SSI level of severity but who nevertheless
require constant parental care and attention. For example, the Manpower
Demonstration Research Corporation, studying TANF recipient families in
four urban counties--Los Angeles, CA, Philadelphia, PA, Miami-Dade, FL,
and Cuyahoga County, OH (Cleveland)--found that one-fourth of non-
employed mothers receiving TANF had a child with an illness or
disability that limited the mothers' ability to workor attend
school.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Zedlewski, 1999.
\5\ Denise Polit, Andrew London, and John Martinez, The Health of
Poor Urban Women: Findings from the Project on Devolution and Urban
Change, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, May 2001, http://
www.mdrc.org/Reports2001/UC-HealthrReport-FullRpt2001.pdf. See also,
Barbara W. LeRoy, Donna M. Johnson, Sharonlyn Harrison, Open Road or
Blind Alley? Welfare Reform, Mothers and Children with Disabilities,
Skillman Center for Children, Wayne State University, Occasional Paper
Series 2000, No. 4, November 2000, http://
www.skillmancenter.culma.wayne.edu/OP%202000-4.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our sense it that the picture over the past five years as it
applies to people with disabilities is mixed. Some parents with
disabilities are now working but many others have been inappropriately
sanctioned and lost TANF or have not received the services and supports
they will need--often on a long-term basis--in order to take the steps
that will ultimately allow them to work or achieve a greater degree of
independence. Even among those who are working, we are concerned that
some may be struggling to hang on to jobs and need additional supports
and services to succeed. We were very pleased last year when the Office
for Civil Rights at HHS issued guidance to states and counties
explaining how the ADA and Section 504 apply in the TANF
program.6 This important step has helped to alert states and
counties to their obligations to assist people with disabilities and to
focus their attention on the types of policy changes that will be
needed to ensure that people with disabilities are fully protected and
served in their programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Prohibition Against Discrimination on the Basis of Disability
in the Administration of TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families), 2001, http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/prohibition.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is some evidence that some states are taking steps to assist
people with disabilities in their TANF programs--and some of this
evidence pre-dates the OCR guidance. But, the research reflects that
these efforts are still very much in their infancy and that parents
with disabilities and parents caring for children with disabilities
continue to be at a disadvantage in most state TANF programs. We know,
for example, that significant numbers of parents with disabilities are
among those who have been sanctioned off of state TANF programs--often
because their disability prevented them from complying. MDRC found
that, ``[w]elfare recipients with multiple health problems and with
certain health problems (notably, physical abuse, risk of depression,
having a chronically ill or disabled child) were more likely than other
recipients to have been sanctioned in the prior year.'' And, among
those who had left welfare, ``[w]elfare leavers with multiple health
problems were more likely than other women who had left welfare to say
that they had been terminated by the welfare agency rather than that
they left on their own accord.'' 7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Polit, London, and Martinez, May 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also know of numerous disturbing examples of families with a
member with disabilities where the system has failed them--as well as
some for whom the system has worked. Consider, for example, these two
parents' stories, included by the Colorado Governor's Task Force on
Welfare Reform in their report, Moving Forward with Welfare
Reform:8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Governor's Task Force on Welfare Reform Report, Colorado,
September 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Client A:
L``A client was tested and had an IQ of 67. She was sent to
Vocational Rehab and then instructed to seek work. She received child
care for two occasions and then was sanctioned in Colorado Works. Her
family became homeless in November 1998 and the children were placed in
foster care in December 1998.''
Client B:
L``A client has an IQ of 67 and is a victim of domestic violence.
There is suspicion of brain damage as a result of abuse. She cannot
communicate well, she is conscientious but has few skills. She has an
anxiety disorder which cannot be treated because of her heart problem.
She sees a physician weekly to manage blood thinning medications. She
had surgery for a valve replacement one year ago. She was assigned to a
community college program which reported that she would be doing fine
but then the next day she couldn't remember what she had learned. It
takes the parent approximately one month to learn a bus route. The
county required that she find a job in six months. Later that
expectation was lowered to ten hours of time within her supported
living program.''
The description of the steps the state took to help Client--
provides a sense of the types of steps that states will need to take in
order to help some parents with disabilities to maximize their
potential. Unfortunately, no steps--not even ongoing child care for her
children--were taken to assist Client A, with the tragic consequence
that she was sanctioned, lost her home, and then lost custody of her
children. It should not be acceptable to the Congress that even one
parent with disabilities or one parent caring for a child with
disabilities faces these types of consequences in TANF. Unfortunately,
the research suggests that problems like this are all to frequently
occurring across the country, at great personal expense to parents and
children.
The CCD TANF Task Force recommends that Congress take the following
steps to ensure that parents with disabilities and parents caring for
children with disabilities are able not only to fully benefit from the
TANF program but also not harmed by policies that do not take into
account the impact of their disabilities on their ability to comply
with program rules:
Screening and Assessment
Ensure that TANF beneficiaries have access to
screening carried out by trained personnel who use appropriate
tools to identify barriers to employment, including cognitive
and learning disabilities, physical impairments, mental health
and substance abuse disorders.
Ensure TANF beneficiaries that are identified as
having such barriers to employment have access to comprehensive
assessments by qualified professionals.
Ensure all screening and assessments are voluntary on
the part of TANF beneficiaries; TANF beneficiaries should not
be subject to a sanction or closure for failing to participate
in a screening or assessment.
Ensure that case workers inform TANF beneficiaries of
the purpose of screening and assessment including the
possibility that modification of requirements may be made to
accommodate identified disabilities.
Ensure results of screening and assessments are
maintained in accordance with professional standards of
confidentiality.
States should consider other documentation of the existence of a
disability in a family.
Services
Ensure qualified professionals are responsible for
the development of tailored Individual Responsibility Plans for
families that have been identified as including a person with a
disability. Such plans should include a list of services the
state must provide to ensure people with disabilities have the
access to services, supports and treatment that will allow them
to address their barriers to work and be successful in the
workplace, consistent with their abilities and capabilities.
Encourage agencies administering TANF to facilitate
inter-agency collaboration and explore co-location of services
to facilitate access to the services, support and treatment
that TANF beneficiaries require to address their barriers to
work.
Repeal the provision in current law that prohibits
those convicted of a drug felony from receiving TANF
assistance.
Require states to ensure that an adequate network of
service providers with specialized experience and expertise are
available and accessible to meet the needs of TANF
beneficiaries with disabilities.
Work Requirements/Work Participation
Provide flexibility to states and qualified
professionals to ensure reasonable accommodation for
individuals with disabilities by allowing activities that
address employment barriers to count towards meeting work
participation requirements.
Activities should include substance abuse treatment,
mental health counseling, education, vocational training,
provision of child-care, and other activities considered
appropriate by the state.
Modify work participation requirements to address and
accommodate the impact that variations in types and severity of
disabilities have on work and support needs, including the
reality that some persons with disabilities currently may not
be capable of meeting the generally applicable work
requirements and for some persons with disabilities the ability
to work varies over time because of the episodic nature of
disability. Flexibility must be provided to take into account
that some individuals with disabilities are currently not
capable of working. Others are capable of working only on a
part time or limited basis that may not meet the generally
applicable work requirements. Still other are capable of
meeting the generally applicable work requirements but not
within the timeframes, or given the nature of the services,
supports, and treatments available. Others may not be capable
of meeting generally applicable work requirements because the
individual is a parent of a child with a disability and the
individual is unable to obtain appropriate child care services.
Ensure that states receive appropriate credit for
providing reasonable accommodations to people with disabilities
and ensure that states are not penalized for failing to meet
work participation rates due to (1) the state making reasonable
modification for persons with disabilities, (2) the state
making reasonable modification for a parent with a child with a
disability, and (3) the reality that certain individuals
currently are not capable of meeting the generally applicable
work participation requirements.
Time limits
Ensure that a state makes reasonable accommodations
for individuals with disabilities regarding TANF time limits.
More specifically, the provision in the statute concerning time
limits should be modified to require a state to disregard
months of assistance received by an individual identified as
having a significant barrier to employment during any period in
which the state did not provide necessary services and supports
to the individual. Significant barriers include physical or
mental impairments (including substance abuse disorders) that
substantially impair an individual's ability to engage in
generally required levels of work and a parent of a child with
a disability if the child's need for parental care results in
the parent being unable to engage in the generally required
level of work.
In addition, the state should be required to
disregard months of assistance during which an individual is
unable to engage in the generally required levels of work.
Sanctions and Closures
Remedy the disproportionate sanctioning of people
with disabilities and prohibit states from sanctioning
individuals with identified disabilities who have not been
accommodated. In other words, states should be prohibited from
sanctioning an individual if the state fails to offer
appropriate screenings and assessment or fails to provide an
individual with necessary services and supports that the state
knew or should have known were needed to work or comply with
other requirements in the individual's plan.
Require states to adopt procedures to ensure outreach
and assistance are provided before and after the implementation
of a sanction or a closure to help a family become compliant
and prevent people with disabilities from losing access to the
services, support and treatment they may require to
successfully transition to work.