[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WELFARE REFORM AND CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 12, 1998
__________
Serial No. 105-103
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
63-456 WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
BILL ARCHER, Texas, Chairman
PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
BILL THOMAS, California FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
E. CLAY SHAW, Jr., Florida ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut BARBARA B. KENNELLY, Connecticut
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania
AMO HOUGHTON, New York SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
WALLY HERGER, California BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
JIM McCRERY, Louisiana JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
DAVE CAMP, Michigan GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
SAM JOHNSON, Texas MICHAEL R. McNULTY, New York
JENNIFER DUNN, Washington WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
MAC COLLINS, Georgia JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio XAVIER BECERRA, California
PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JON CHRISTENSEN, Nebraska
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona
JERRY WELLER, Illinois
KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri
A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Human Resources
E. CLAY SHAW, Jr., Florida, Chairman
DAVE CAMP, Michigan SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
JIM McCRERY, Louisiana FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
MAC COLLINS, Georgia ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma
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 June 4, 1998, announcing the hearing................. 2
WITNESSES
Arizona Department of Economic Security:
Linda J. Blessing............................................ 11
Nancy Mendoza................................................ 66
Steven J. Esposito........................................... 83
Hershberger, Winifred, Arizona State Legislature................. 58
Intertribal Council of Arizona, John R. Lewis.................... 19
Navajo Nation:
Hon. Tom Atcitty............................................. 26
Nona Etsitty................................................. 75
Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Hon. Jorge Garcia............................ 40
WELFARE REFORM AND CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
----------
FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 1998
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Human Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in
Phoenix State Capitol, Senate Hearing Room No. 1, Phoenix,
Arizona, Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (Chairman of the Subcommittee)
presiding.
[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.003
Chairman Shaw. Good morning. We are delighted to be with
you this morning. Each of us has an opening statement, and I
will defer to the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Hayworth, to
proceed first.
Mr. Hayworth. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you, very
much, for giving the voices of Arizona's experts on welfare
reform, child support enforcement, and Native American issues
such a unique and unprecedented opportunity to be heard. As
this is the very first House of Representatives Ways and Means
Committee field hearing in the State of Arizona, I am pleased
our committee has chosen to focus on issues so acutely critical
to the health and welfare of Arizonans.
Mr. Chairman, I know that both you and I are looking
forward to hearing the testimony from my fellow Arizonans who
work on a daily basis to ensure welfare benefits are
appropriately delivered and that child-support payments are
collected in the most timely fashion.
I am pleased to hear of the advances Arizona has made in
these efforts as well as the remaining problems to be
confronted and the distinctive challenges faced by Native
American communities in these efforts.
In fact, I have worked previously with a number of today's
expert witnesses to reach their respective goals. For instance,
I was pleased to work with the Arizona Division of Child
Support Enforcement to incorporate the Division's suggested
changes into legislation this subcommittee worked on that was
eventually approved by the House of Representatives.
Ms. Nancy Mendoza's input as a member of the national
committee advising on child-support enforcement was critical to
the successful drafting of federal legislation, and I know that
many families receiving child-support payments will benefit
from her efforts.
In addition, I am pleased to continue working with Navajo
President Thomas Atcitty in his pursuit of a Section 638 waiver
to the current welfare program. The Navajo Nation is prepared
to receive direct welfare, or TANF funding, in order to
administer its own program, and I think that the Federal
Department of Health and Human Services wrongly denied the
Navajo Nation's application for this waiver.
The Navajo Nation, as most of us know, transcends the
boundaries of four states. Operating under three separate state
welfare programs is an administrative nightmare that the
Department of Health and Human Services should be willing to
remedy. As I discussed with President Atcitty just this week, I
will continue to work with this subcommittee and our colleagues
in Congress to rectify this situation.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I am honored that we have here
today two bipartisan panels that include my good friend, the
Honorable Tom Atcitty, President of the Navajo Nation; Dr.
Linda Blessing, a national expert in welfare reform; and the
Honorable Winifred Hershberger, Chairwoman of the Arizona State
House of Representatives Committee on Human Services, in
addition to many other qualified witnesses.
Clearly, each of the folks testifying before us today have
many important stories and statistics to share that could
assist other states in their pursuit of these same child-
support collections and welfare-to-work transitions. I am
thankful that Arizona was chosen to showcase its strengths here
today, and I look forward to working with local, tribal, state,
and federal officials to meet current and future goals.
Once again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I had the
opportunity to serve with you on the Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Human Resources, my fellow Arizonans and I
never had the chance to have direct representation on these
issues that are, as we can see from today's turnout, so
undeniably crucial.
Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, we have never before had
the chance to directly weigh in on matters under the
jurisdiction of this important subcommittee, and I am,
personally, very grateful to you for giving us that opportunity
here today.
Chairman Shaw. Well, thank you, Mr. Hayworth. We are
delighted to be here, and I, too, want to welcome all our
guests and witnesses who are testifying today. Or more
appropriately, thank you all for welcoming this subcommittee
here to learn firsthand how the 1996 welfare reform law is
working. I also want to especially thank Governor Jane Hull,
and the Senate President, Brenda Burns for their help.
Could I ask? Are these microphones working? You can't tell
up here. They are working? Thank you.
Today's witnesses will discuss how the historic welfare
reform law passed in 1996 has helped move former welfare
beneficiaries to work. We will also hear about the tougher
child-support enforcement provisions we passed to help mothers
and children. And finally, we will examine specific provisions
we included to renew and improve our commitment to Native
Americans.
In advance of the hearing, I asked the Congressional
Research Service to summarize the ten major provisions in the
welfare law dealing with benefits for Native Americans, along
with other provisions on child care and child support.
Copies of this summary are available with the other
testimony, and I would ask unanimous consent to include this
summary in the record. These reports and testimonies are
located on the table directly outside of this hearing room.
[The Congressional Research Service summary follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.006
Chairman Shaw. This report shows the great effort that went
into these provisions, and we really worked hard with the
Native American community to write a good bill. Again, Mr.
Hayworth was a leader in bringing many of these matters to our
attention, and I want to thank him for continuing to press this
case before this Subcommittee and the entire Congress. As many
of you who know, J.D. know, he is kind of hard to say no to.
We are also interested in learning about Arizona's
remarkable turnaround in child-support collections from local
legislators who designed these programs, from administrators
who are implementing them, and from Native Americans
participating in and, in some cases, administering the
programs.
The early results of the Welfare Reform Law has been truly
amazing. Caseloads are down almost 40 percent nationwide,
including a 45-percent drop right here in Arizona, with record
numbers of welfare recipients moving to work.
There are more funds available than ever for child care,
roughly $70 billion over the next five years. This means that
with fixed, block-grant funding, you have a situation where
there are dramatically more funds for services and assistance
to those who need the most help. This is a great success story.
But we all know the story doesn't end there. Some families,
both those still on welfare and also many who have left, need
continuing support for themselves and their children. That is
why we provided generous child-care funding, expanded Medicaid
coverage for moms and kids, and strengthened child-support
collections, all to encourage work instead of welfare. And we
expanded the Earned Income Credit to reward working parents. In
fact, federal spending on Earned Income Credit now greatly
outpaces spending on cash welfare, which underscores our
emphasis on work.
So we seem to be headed in the right direction. And from
what we can tell, Arizona is a part of this success, if not a
leader in the success that we are seeing all across this
country. Still, the reason we reformed welfare was to help
those who were trapped in the old failed system.
Because of this, we are committed to understanding how
welfare reform is working, and we are keeping our minds open
about further improvements. That is the reason for this hearing
and the many others we have held and will continue to hold in
Washington and elsewhere.
So I want to thank you, again, for welcoming us here today,
and I look toward to your testimony.
Mr. Hayworth, would you like to introduce the first panel?
Mr. Hayworth. I would be honored to, Mr. Chairman.
Our first panel dealing with welfare reform and Native
American issues will include Linda J. Blessing, Director of the
Arizona Department of Economic Security; John Lewis, the
Executive Director of the Intertribal Council of Arizona; the
Honorable Tom Atcitty, President of the Navajo Nation, which
has its capital city in Window Rock, Arizona; and the Honorable
Jorge Luis Garcia, the Director of Social Services for the
Pascua Yaqui Tribe from Tucson.
So if you folks would come to the front table, we would
appreciate it very much. We thank you for your attendance and
your willingness to testify, and Dr. Blessing, we would start
with you.
Although we have a five-minute rule, we are willing to--we
will not cut you off right at five minutes. We will try to
handle that, but we are very happy to have you here and look
forward to your testimony. And if you would, please, begin.
Chairman Shaw. I would like to tell all the witnesses that
we do have your full testimony. We have all but one set of
testimony, which we will be receiving in Washington. The full
testimony will be made a part of the record if you wish to
summarize or proceed as you feel most comfortable.
And I assume Mr. Lewis is not here.
Mr. Hayworth. Dr. Blessing, we are happy to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF LINDA J. BLESSING, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMIC SECURITY
Ms. Blessing. Thank you. Chairman Shaw and Congressman
Hayworth, I am Linda Blessing, Director of the Arizona
Department of Economic Security. It is usually referred to by
its initials, DES. And on behalf of Governor Jane Hull, I want
to extend a warm welcome to you. Thank you for this opportunity
to share some of our experiences in implementing welfare
reform, especially those in----
Mr. Hayworth. Dr. Blessing, if you would just give us a
second, we are going to work out some technical bugs.
Apparently, the microphones are not working on the table here,
so we will get that done.
Now, we welcome John Lewis. Thank you, sir, for taking time
to be with us today, sir.
Okay. Apparently, I am told now, if you would just get a
little closer to the microphone or pull it up, it should work.
And if you would, resume your testimony.
Ms. Blessing. Thank you for the opportunity to share some
of our experiences in implementing welfare reform, especially
those in partnership with Native American Tribes.
Arizona has 21 federally recognized Indian tribes. Each is
unique with a distinctive history, culture, and environment.
For example, there are the Havasupais, a people who have
thrived for many years at the base of the Grand Canyon. Anyone
who hikes down to Havasupai Falls has experienced the
hospitality of this tribe.
Arizona has the Navajo Nation, a tribe of more than 200,000
members, who reside in three states on a reservation
encompassing 27,000 squares miles, about the same size of West
Virginia.
The Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community is yet
another Arizona tribe. Their reservation borders the Phoenix
metropolitan area.
As a result of much public input in developing Arizona's
plan for temporary assistance for needy families' program, we
identified three principles that were critical to the success
of the tribal programs.
First, the state must always recognize the tribes' status
as a sovereign nation. Second, the state must provide matching
funds required for operation of tribal TANF programs. Third,
the tribes should, if they desire, have access to technical
assistance from DES to design and implement their programs.
In 1997, the Executive and Legislative Branches passed
legislation, allocating state funds to any tribe with an
approved TANF plan.
Our partnering efforts have resulted in two approved tribal
TANF plans: The Pascua Yaqui Tribe in November 1997and the
White Mountain Apache in April of 1998. Two other tribes, the Navajo
Nation and the Salt River Pina Maricopa Indian Community, have
submitted plans and currently await federal approval.
All of these tribes have designed unique programs tailored
to the specific needs of their members. Those tribes, with
operational programs, have contracted back with the Department
of Economic Security to conduct eligibility determinations and
to help provide the data needed for federal reporting
requirements. That brings me to the first barrier I wanted to
discuss and that tribes face in trying to operate their TANF
programs.
PRWORA limits funding to 1994 levels and authorizes no
extra funding for program start-up costs. Like states, tribes
need sophisticated, automated systems to comply with PRWORA's
extensive data reporting requirements. In order for tribes to
start their own TANF programs, they must have additional
funding to cover the development of social services
infrastructure, planning, and automated systems.
In addition, tribal members often face greater barriers to
self-sufficiency. Many tribes are located in remote geographic
areas of the state, far removed from urban population centers
with well-developed economies. There is a severe lack of
economic opportunity on many reservations.
Transportation, child care, lack of job opportunities,
these are common obstacles faced by all welfare recipients
toward achieving self-sufficiency, but they are greatly
amplified for tribal members living on reservations.
Some tribal members live far removed from paved roads. They
have neither telephones nor electricity. They receive their
mail at a chapter location which is like a community center.
And in winter, the dirt roads on which they must travel become
impassable due to snow and rain. There is no public
transportation. Finding a job, reaching an employment site, and
arranging child care may be overwhelming barriers.
We must work together to overcome these barriers and ensure
that tribal members have equal opportunity to self-sufficiency
in a way that respects the tribal status as sovereign nations
and respects and preserves cultural diversity.
I would like to give you a few recommendations. First,
tribes need some incentives and opportunities currently
available only to states. Tribes must have the option to carry
over TANF funds to the next fiscal year. They could use these
funds to meet some of the needs I described earlier or to set
aside in a rainy-day fund. Tribes should also have the right to
compete for federal-incentive dollars, such as funding
available to states that reduce their percentage of out-of-
wedlock births.
Next, as I mentioned earlier, state-matching funds are
essential to the tribes to operate their own TANF programs.
Federal authorities should assist tribal efforts by allowing
states to use the dollars--count the dollars used for tribal
matching funds towards state maintenance of effort
requirements. Some recent proposed federal regulations would
prohibit states from doing this.
We understand that there have been some discussions about
reducing the TANF block grant and other federal funds. I urge
you to maintain funding at current levels so states can
continue to meet the needs of our vulnerable populations.
Third, the tribes that elect to operate their own TANF
programs need federal funds for start-up costs.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.011
Mr. Hayworth. Thank you, very much, Dr. Blessing, and right
there on time, the bell rings. While you would never know the
preparation involved, Dr. Blessing just has a great sense of
timing, as does our good friend who has joined us now to
testify, the Executive Director or the Intertribal Council of
Arizona, John Lewis.
And John, before you begin the testimony, I see my former
colleague from broadcasting will move the microphone down so
that he can record your words for his radio audience, and we
appreciate all of that help and what has become a very
collegial effort among members of the fourth estate and those
of us involved in government.
And with that, John, thank you for joining us, and we would
be pleased to hear your testimony, sir.
STATEMENT OF JOHN R. LEWIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERTRIBAL
COUNCIL OF ARIZONA
Mr. Lewis. Good morning. My name is John Lewis, and I am
the Executive Director of the Intertribal Council of Arizona,
an organization of nineteen tribal governments. We appreciate
the opportunity to respond to the subcommittee's question
whether the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF, and
Child-Support Enforcement Programs are providing the help they
should to American Indians.
With TANF, the tribal governments are just beginning to
evaluate the potential impacts of the new policies on their
membership. With regard to child-support enforcement, there
continues to remain major impediments to collections for Indian
families due to lack of resources for tribes to enforce child-
support orders.
The State of Arizona receives federal funding to conduct
child-support enforcement activities. The tribes do not. Only
recently has the Navajo Nation entered into an
intergovernmental agreement with the state to enforce child
support. There needs to be direct funding to the tribes to
develop their codes and their enforcement systems.
The major welfare reform issue is lack of employment
opportunities on Indian reservations. Indian families in
Arizona experience extreme poverty, and there are few
jobs.While the Indian population comprises 5.6 percent of the
population in Arizona, approximately fifteen percent of the recipients
of TANF, or 20,000 individuals, are Indian people who reside on the 21
Indian reservations in the state.
Of this population, an estimate of 13,221 individual
recipients are children, and an estimate of 6,778 are adults,
according to a September 1997 report from the Department of
Economic Security.
While the state of Arizona, particularly Maricopa County,
has experienced economic growth and labor-market expansion to
support some of the concepts of welfare reform, such as JOBS
training, work participation, and time-limited benefits, Indian
reservations continue to be economically depressed.
Nine of the reservations in Arizona have jobless rates of
more than 50 percent, resulting in those populations being
exempt from time limits on their benefits as provided for in
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, P.L. 105-33.
Few resources exist for economic development initiatives in
many reservation communities. While gaming enterprises have
improved economic conditions and provided jobs in some
communities, the level of resources varies from tribe to tribe.
There is a great need for infrastructure development:
roads, telephones, water systems, and skilled labor force in
order to attract and retain private industry; and this is not
easily accomplished in rural, often isolated, reservation
communities.
These kinds of resources have simply not been available in
the past; and for some reservations, continue not to be
available. For those tribes with incomes from gaming, it will
take time to build infrastructures due to the many years of
neglect.
The successful creation of sustainable jobs is also reliant
on many other factors. These include personal supports such as
reliable child care, transportation, education, skills
development, and livable wage.
The State Legislature and Department of Economic Security
are commended for their special attention to address the public
assistance needs of the tribal TANF population in Arizona, for
providing matching funds to those tribes which opt to
administer their programs, and for exempting individual
recipients from loss of benefits in geographical areas where
extreme economic hardship exists.
In general, the tribes support the findings of the Rural/
Native American and Safety Net Issues Working Group established
by the Welfare Reform Joint Committee and Task Force of the
43rd State of Arizona Legislature.
I think that part of the success of the tribes in Arizona
and the state in responding to welfare reform legislation has
been a long-standing working relationship and the recognition
of the intergovernmental nature, of the importance of that, and
the sovereignty of the tribal governments. And we have gone
through, over the years, a unique way of working together and
one that I don't think is duplicated in any other state.
Because of the recognition of the tribal sovereignty,
because of the government relationship with tribal governments,
we are--we have built and institutionalized within the
Department of Economic Security a very good working
relationship, that when something like welfare reform is
initiated, we are able to coordinate our efforts to work
together and share information and, I think, learn from the
capacities of the responsive entities to address these issues.
So I think that is the key to what has happened in Arizona.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.016
Mr. Hayworth. John, thank you, very much, for your
testimony. We appreciate it.
And we should note that after we hear from all of the
panelists, then we will have time for questions.
I guess it is time to move the radio mike on down so that
we can hear from our friend, the President of the sovereign
Navajo Nation, who joins us from Window Rock and points beyond,
our good friend, the Honorable Tom Atcitty. Mr. President,
thank you for coming.
Mr. Atcitty. Yateeh.
Mr. Hayworth. Yateeh.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM ATCITTY, PRESIDENT, NAVAJO NATION, WINDOW
ROCK, ARIZONA
Mr. Atcitty. The Honorable Chair Shaw and Congressman J.D.
Hayworth, it is good to see you again. I was just visiting with
you the other day in your office. Seems like everywhere I go, I
run into you. I guess that indicates that you are working--
hard-working Congressman. Somebody had told us in the hallway
of your building over there in Washington, J.D. works at night,
and sometimes they wonder if he even sleeps.
We appreciate the opportunity and also the willingness to
show a little latitude and not necessarily limiting us to the
five minutes, although you did come out all the way to Arizona,
which is somewhat unusual. We are usually asked to come to
Washington, and we are required to stay within five minutes,
and we are shut up and have to leave. But anyway, I appreciate
your being here in the Southwest in the warm Arizona.
We are talking about impacts of welfare reform in the
Navajo Nation. In October of 1997, the Navajo Nation submitted
an application for TANF program under Public Law 93-638; and
the following month, on November '97, we got a letter from
Donna Shalala denying our request. There are a number of
reasons that we felt that we needed to submit aspecial request
of this type.
Presently, we find ourselves in three different regions.
Our reservation, as was stated, borders into three different
regions: Dallas, Denver, and San Francisco, so we find
ourselves in an unwieldy situation to have to deal with those
different regional offices, so coming with one application
under the Navajo Nation would keep us working with one region.
Presently, we find ourselves having a good relationship with
the San Francisco regional office, so that--just for your
information, that is what we have experienced in the past.
After the denial of our request of our application, we
appealed to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals for a hearing,
and that appeal was denied. And the next bout was that we
submitted an appeal further to the Arizona District Court, and
that is where it presently is. And the Department of Human
Services has made a motion to dismiss our requests, and that is
still under litigation, presently.
We feel that we need to be given a fair opportunity to--our
argument and our concerns need to be addressed, as we push for
a fair hearing and consideration as to how we feel that this
program could be administered, through a Public Law that is--
has been made available to Native Americans through 93-638.
There are some advantages that we have experienced under
638, and we--and we have had many experiences with that--
contracting under that Public Law. And we would--for those
reasons, we would like to continue to see how we can still work
under that arrangement.
Presently, we understand that the Indian input on the rules
and regulations for the TANF--tribal TANF program is still
under review; and as yet, Native Americans have not been
requested to participate in the rule-making dialogue. So we
believe that if we are going to be a participant and a--
participant in the federal program, that we should have a voice
in how those rules and regulations are developed.
We also noticed that there is also a lack of coordination
when we talk about the implementation of the TANF programming,
that the various entities are working separately. The Human
Services Department is not necessarily communicating with the
Department of Labor, which comes down into the Navajo Nation;
our education and training element of our Navajo program comes
out of the Department of Labor are not necessarily--they feel
that they are not necessarily a part of--a contributing part
of--should be a contributing the TANF program; same way with
the Department of Transportation, the ISTEA Program.
And if we are going to have an effective job development,
there has to be a coordination and communications across the
board with all departments that are providing the assistance
and programs to Native Americans. There needs to be a
cooperation and communication across the board with the various
federal programs.
So it has been also said that we need to also seek ways in
which that financial support for planning and implementation
phase and the tribal TANF program from the federal government
be a part of the consideration as well. There is also a
provision in--with the states under the Section 412 that the
states get a bonus consideration for complying with the
provisions of the TANF program.
However, this program does not--seems to exclude the
tribes, and we feel that if there is going to be some incentive
provided for the states, those same kind of incentives ought to
also be provided to the tribes that are participating in this
kind of programs. So finally, we would like to recommended that
we--that the United States government, that we must continue to
work and contract directly with Indian tribes.
And presently, in our situation on the Navajo, to deal with
three different states located in three different regions is
certainly creating an unwieldy situation, and we need to look
at it from the government--the government relationship with
Washington.
A federal partnership certainly would be one that would
lend to a better coordination, a better implementation of the
program. So in order that we all provide that needed assistance
and the programs to those people that we are trying to bring
from welfare to work, there has to be a total cooperation, a
total communication so that we do achieve.
We, on the Navajo, want to put the Navajos to work, and we
also need to develop those jobs. We have a big land base, and
economic development is most lacking, and we have to--we are
assuming that that is one of our responsibilities, and we hope
that with the various federal departments that we can work
together in initiating some economic-development opportunities,
which certainly equates to employment. So we simply are
suggesting and asking that we continue to solicit your support.
And I appreciate our Congressman, here, suggesting that our
requests for '638 application was certainly not all that out of
order, and we hope that you will continue to hold that
position, and I think we can work on an agreement that
certainly would be beneficial to the population that we are all
aiming to assist.
With that, I appreciate your kind attention, and we look
forward to continuing to working together. Thank you, very
much.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.027
Mr. Hayworth. Mr. President, we thank you for your
testimony and look forward to exploring some of those special
challenges a bit further in just a moment.
Now, as the microphones are moved down, we will hear
testimony from our final witness as part of this panel, our
friend out of Tucson, who is the Director of Social Services
for the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Honorable Jorge Luis Garcia.
Mr. Garcia, thank you for joining us.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JORGE GARCIA, DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL
SERVICES, PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE, TUCSON, ARIZONA
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, bienvenidos to
Arizona--welcome to Arizona. Mr. Hayworth, welcome back.
The Social Services Department with the tribe is the tribal
agency assigned to administer the Pascua Yaqui TANF plan. Ms.
Irma Valencia, the department's associate director, and myself
have been involved in the planning, implementation, and
administration of the tribal TANF plan since its beginning.
My thanks to Representative Mark Anderson, Representative
Freddy Hershberger, Representative John Loredo, Senator Tom
Paterson, Senator Joe Eddie Lopez, and their colleagues for
having the vision and the legislative fortitude to assure that
tribes have access to state-matching funds to implement TANF on
Indian land. My thanks to the Governor Symington for having
signed the legislation.
If matching funds were not available to tribes, I would not
be here. In spite of all the potential negative consequences, I
would find it very difficult to recommend to the tribal
chairman and the council that they should pick up the $350,000
maintenance-of-effort tab to have a tribal TANF plan,
especially when it has never been an expense to the tribe
before.
I thank Dr. Escalante--Fernando Escalante, tribal vice-
chairman, for nudging me to explore the possibilities and
practicalities of implementing a tribal TANF. It was his
insistence that pulled me out of the welfare-reform shock.
I also want to thank Dr. Blessing and her staff for
entering into an intergovernmental agreement, which has become
a partnership. I refer to it as a partnership because as
partners, we problem-solve differences rather than ignoring
them.
Dr. Blessing, it is a breath of fresh air dealing with your
staff. I only pray that your leadership in state-tribal
relationships rubs off on other state agency directors.
The Pascua Yaqui TANF began on November 1, 1997, and I am
here to report to you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hayworth, that there
is success, and more importantly, that there is an
unprecedented optimism for moving families from welfare to
employment.
At Pascua, we have melded the funds from JOBS and Welfare
to Work with support from JTPA into a concerted effort in
getting people employed. In the past seven months, fourteen
persons have entered jobs, most of them at Casino of the Sun.
On April 6th, three persons entered certified nursing
assistants' training at Pima Community College and are expected
to sit for their exam in July. On April 14th, eight persons
entered a two-year computer tech training course that the
Department put together and combines work experience with
community college course work.
In getting people from welfare to work, our objective is to
prepare the head of household for employment into the twenty-
first century. Our next task is to develop a linkage with the
optics industry.
But not all is rosey. We can pass ourselves off as
successful at this point only because we are creaming. The
challenge for us is to instill motivation and desire in that
TANF subset, which is in danger of being sanctioned for
noncompliance.
Over two years ago, the Wall Street Journal reported on
Marriott's pioneering efforts in moving people from public
assistance into employment. The conclusion, as I recall it, is
a very difficult, trying, and time-consuming effort and well
worth it, and such is welfare reform. It is trying, difficult,
but it is a well-worth-it process.
As a social worker who responds to his veteran social
workers, we cannot forget that TANF subset which has completely
dropped out instead of dealing with another caseworker who
tells me that I have to get my act together.
At Pascua, we have the services to help the adult who wants
help, provided that she still has Medicaid. The subset that has
dropped out has probably lost all Medicaid coverage, and it is
our obligation to be there if and when she wants to begin the
most difficult journey of her life.
On the administrative side, tribal TANFs are at a distinct
disadvantage. I am cheering my Navajo brothers' fight to '638,
the TANF program, because that will, indeed, bring sorely
needed administrative dollars for tribal TANF.
On an annual basis, Pascua will receive approximately one
point four million dollars from both the state and the feds for
its TANF. One point three million will go to cash assistance,
and the balance is budgeted for reimbursement to the state for
eligibility determination, which means there is no money to
hire a staff person to administer the tribe's entire welfare-
to-work effort. So it becomes an added burden and sometimes a
neglected burden of myself and soon to be transferred to the
associate director.
I recognize that the federal rules will allow tribes to
charge a larger administrative cost, currently set at eight
percent and proposed to be at twenty percent. But the fallacy
here is that the increase must come from the existing funds,
which means that the administrative increase must come from the
available cash assistance. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not a
realistic option.
My recommendation is to award additional dollars to tribes
to the administration of TANF plan. I suggest twelve percent.
Secondly, currently, states have the TANF block-grant funds
available to them until they are expended. Tribes only have the
funds available two years, and unexpended funds revert to the
Treasury.
If the premise is that the money be available to states for
the anticipated bad economic times, then it should follow that
the money should be available to the tribes when the tribe
encounters a downturn in its economic times. Fair is fair, and
this is downright unfair, particularly when tribes are
subjected to the same performance requirements as states are.
Recommendation: Change the law to permit tribes to have
TANF block-grant funds available until expended.
Pascua needs more money in its child-care block grant. We
currently have forty families on the waiting list for child-
care assistance. Tribes are not and will not be as fortunate as
the states are in having unexpended TANF block-grant dollars
that can be used for expanding the availability of child care.
My recommendation is to increase the child-care block-grant
award to tribes who need it and can use it.
Thanks to the state legislators, the tribe will receive
approximately $12,000 to use as transportation assistance,
something that we have not even skimmed the surface of.
Pascua's decision to subcontract with the state for
eligibility determination and benefit issuance was a matterof
economics and good practice. Currently, an individual using the same
application form can apply for TANF, medical assistance, and food
stamps in one location with the state agency. Economies of scale do
indeed work.
My thanks to Representative Anderson for planting the seeds
in law that permit the state, with appropriate federal waivers,
to subcontract the medical assistance and food stamps
eligibility functions with tribes with an approved TANF plan.
I will be calling on Mr. Hayworth's office to encourage the
Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of
Agriculture to approve Arizona's request for the waivers.
Another welfare-related program that the Pascua Yaqui Tribe
has a burning interest in accessing is Title IV-E foster-care
dollars. The fact that IV-E dollars are directly related to the
receipt of TANF assistance makes it a natural progression of
services to the tribe to directly assume from the federal
government.
Recommend to make Title IV-E dollars directly available to
tribes with an approved TANF plan; also recommend the
improvement of IDAs. Individual Development Accounts can assist
a family's transition from dependence to total sufficiency.
My congratulations to those thrifty families who manage to
make contribution to an IDA. And for many of those who make the
sacrifice but may not be able to achieve ownership, the family
should be allowed to move into better housing. And that is why
I am recommending that the first and last months' rent should
be an eligible IDA expenditure.
In closing, I wish to thank you for giving me the
opportunity to share the tribe's infant but mature TANF
experience, and I look forward to working with you and your
staff to implement the above recommendations.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.034
Mr. Hayworth. Thank you for your testimony. And Mr. Garcia,
why don't we just start, since the microphones are there and
you are right there and you really help set the pace for what
has transpired here in the state of Arizona.
Let me ask about the big picture. If you had to prioritize
what is working best in your mind right now, even taking into
account the challenges that you have outlined here, what has
been the central feature that has led to initial success for
your tribe?
Mr. Garcia. I think a realization that there is an ending
time on public assistance that motivates the individual head of
household and also puts a challenge to the social worker to
make sure that that person is not left hanging in the end of
five years.
Mr. Hayworth. So the deadline really--or the limitation
really has prompted--served as a catalyst to move people from
welfare to working.
Mr. Garcia. In my mind, it has.
Mr. Hayworth. You did mention something that I think for
all of us is a bit disconcerting because, even with these
deadlines, you mentioned dropouts, those who choose to drop out
of the system, are unaccounted for.
Do you have any numbers of people? Is there an empirical
study to show how many people are just washing their hands, not
trying to make the transition from welfare to work?
Mr. Garcia. Mr. Shaw, Mr. Hayworth, in our limited
experience in the past seven months, we have documented ten
families who have, basically, dropped out.
Mr. Hayworth. With those ten families, follow-up contact
has been made. Has there been any reason that they give for
choosing not to participate?
Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chair, Mr. Hayworth, there has been no
formal contact because there has been no provisions to do that.
The contact that is made has come through other case workers
who work with the Department, whether they be Child Protective
Services or our treatment personnel; and their data is
basically that the family is not willing to try.
And I can tell you that the unwillingness has to be--is due
more to a historical, in their life, okay, the consequences of
living in poverty.
Mr. Hayworth. Conversely, you mentioned folks reaching out
for training, finding economic opportunities empirically. I
think you had some numbers there for us, the numbers of folks
who are moving into work programs. Could you repeat those for
me, because I heard those earlier in your testimony? I think
they bear some amplification.
Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hayworth, yes, that is
correct. There were ten people--I mean, fourteen persons who
have entered jobs. They have become employed primarily at the
casino, three folks who have entered the certified nursing
training program at Pima Community College, and persons who are
in a two-year computer tech program.
In looking back, what we have is, if you look in the two
groups, the two subsets, you have a subset who is primarily
younger, perhaps a little bit more easily to be motivated.
Whereas the group who has dropped out is primarily older, and
it is much more difficult to target this, to get this head of
household to look beyond, you know, today, you know.
Where it is much easier to go out and say to the younger
adult, say, look, you need to look at this, you know. No
longer--you know, you are not going to have it like so-and-so,
you know. Five years down the road you are going to be off, and
our job is to get you there and make sure that you have a job
that is going to give you a decent living, and we are going to
make sure that the IDA that you are going to start is going to
be able to get you into home ownership.
Mr. Hayworth. You also mentioned, and as we heard from the
other panelists, one of the challenges, certainly there is a
myth of the monolith, I would call it, that surrounds the
perception of Native Americans. Tribes confront different
circumstances. Those in an urban setting, perhaps, can face
different challenges from the sovereign Navajo Nation, given
its size and rural setting, if you will.
But you mentioned something else about Tucson that I am
interested in and that is the growth of optical programsthere,
and that will be your next area of emphasis, based on what is emerging
as a solid foundation of the economy in the Tucson area.
Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hayworth, that is correct. We
see that as--I personally see that as a good career, where we
can train folks into entry positions; and then it is only up to
their individual efforts to--whether to excel in them or to
just founder in them.
Mr. Hayworth. Thank you, sir.
If I could, let me have the microphones moved down to my
good friend, the President of the Navajo Nation, Mr. Atcitty.
Mr. President, I think it bears some amplification. You
brought it forth in the testimony, and I am not sure how many
people are aware. The tribal boundaries, the reservation
boundaries transcend the borders of four states.
And when it comes to temporary assistance for needy
families, you have to work with three regional offices, given
the geographic placement of the sovereign Navajo Nation. So you
are working with Denver, Dallas, and San Francisco.
Mr. Atcitty. That is right. Utah is in the Denver region,
Arizona is in the San Francisco region, and New Mexico is in
the Dallas region.
Mr. Hayworth. Well, just given those logistics, it makes it
very--it is almost like having your shoelaces tied right there
at the starting line, in terms of travel budgets and how to
coordinate and----
Mr. Atcitty. And the other concern that we have, also, is
that the law has a five-year sunset. And Arizona and Utah began
a lot--two years earlier than New Mexico. So--and in fact, they
all start--entered the program at different times, so they will
be terminating.
Arizona and Utah are for, I believe, two or three years;
and New Mexico, I think, was going two years, but then the
Legislature intervened and is going for five years, as I
understand it.
Mr. Hayworth. So just as the state borders, it almost
offers a--I hate to use this term; I don't mean to be--almost a
crazy quilt. You have got different limitations, different
requirements to meet, based on working with the respective
states, which you find--in which you find parts of your
reservation.
Mr. Atcitty. That is right. The effective dates and the
terminating dates are all different.
Chairman Shaw. Would the gentleman--do you mind if I----
Mr. Hayworth. Gladly.
Chairman Shaw. While we are trying to simplify things, that
sounds like it is a complication that was unforeseen.
What would prevent HHS from designating one regional office
to cross the border of various states where you have one
entity, such as one Indian Nation to administer? I mean this is
a nightmare----
Mr. Atcitty. Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Shaw [continuing]. Of the bureaucracy.
Mr. Atcitty. Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hayworth, we have
had--participated in various programs across the country that
are also represented by three different regions. And because of
that realization, we went straight to Washington to get
straight funding, rather than through an agreement with the
states and so forth or working through the region.
But in some cases, though, where regional office contact
was deemed necessary or important, that we went ahead and
worked with one region. And I think in most cases, we worked
with the San Francisco regional office.
Chairman Shaw. Now, that is in other programs. With the
TANF program, you haven't had that result though; is that
correct?
Mr. Atcitty. Like the OEO, back in the OEO days----
Chairman Shaw. Yeah.
Mr. Atcitty [continuing]. We had direct funding. We had
what we call ONEO, which got direct funding to the Navajo,
and--but we worked with the San Francisco regional office in
that instance.
Chairman Shaw. But TANF, you are having to work with three
offices.
Mr. Atcitty. With the TANF, there is no provision. I think
those could be written out if we are included in the rules
and--negotiated rule making--a participant in that exercise.
Chairman Shaw. That is something I want to get into, too,
because to me, that is unconscionable, that you are not
included.
Congressman Hayworth and I sat down with governors all
across this country and made them part of the project of
drawing up welfare reform, which I think has been the most
successful piece of legislation written this century by the
United States Congress.
For instance, for the first time, we are trying to simplify
things, and we are trying to make things work. And I think the
fact that you are not included in the rule making simply is
going in the wrong direction. Because in drafting the
legislation, we included the governors, Democrats and
Republicans, all across this country, and we got great
cooperation. And as a result, we got a great program that is
really working.
Now, I think in the instance of working with Native
Americans that are part of--very much a part of this TANF
program and coming up with the rules and regulations within
that, I think it is very important that HHS include you in that
process.
And I am sure J.D. will want to start that, at least let
them know what the feeling in Congress is about that, and I
certainly will join in his effort in doing that.
Mr. Atcitty. I will be making a separate plea, also, to HHS
for inclusion in the rule-making process so that our peculiar
situation certainly ought to be aired in those committees, and
accommodations ought to be provided.
Mr. Hayworth. Just to echo the Chairman's point--and this
is something we have seen and perhaps, Mr. Chairman, it will
call--it could call for oversight hearings from our
subcommittee--we have noticed in a variety of different areas,
for example, our friends from the Intertribal Council and from
these two sovereign Indian Nations will note, that in the 104th
Congress, we were active in housing in addition to welfare
reform, the Hayworth/Lazio Indian Housing Act.
And sadly, what happens is that when we try to redesign to
put power in the hands where it belongs, in the hands of tribal
leaders and the respective tribally appointed entities or
elected entities, a funny thing happens on the way to self-
determination.
It seems that Washington forces its way in, in terms of the
bureaucracy, to say, well, let us write these. Let us take care
of these. And you agree with us, don't you?
And it is almost, dare I say--and I am not here to hurl
partisan brick bats, but almost a type of paternalism seemsto
envelope a number of solutions that Washington tries. And I dare say,
sadly, with HHS, again, we are seeing this in the waiver that the tribe
wants, and I believe deserves, and we will continue to work in that
regard, Mr. President, to get that done.
In a broader sense, we take a look at the Navajo Nation,
indeed other tribes, and here is a report from the
Congressional Research Service talking about federal programs
of assistance to Native Americans.
If you go through this, by my count, there are about 250
programs stretching across more than twenty-five federal
agencies, all designed to try and help Native Americans with
housing, food, health care, a variety of other needs. This in
fact, is probably a partial list.
And Mr. President, during your testimony, you were talking
about that lack of federal cooperation and communication, not
only among departments but certainly, as we have seen once
again, with the sovereign tribal governments.
Mr. President, I believe your testimony this morning very
eloquently compels us to work with you and other tribal leaders
and, of course, with the good input we have from the
intertribal council here in Arizona, to try and find a better
way to coordinate, whether it is total block granting or some
system that works, to make sure that those of you charged and
tasked constitutionally by your sovereign governments with
dealing with these challenges have an effective way to deal
with these problems. What are your thoughts on that?
Mr. Atcitty. That certainly would be something that we
would appreciate. The less strings attached and the less
restrictive regulations and the opportunity for us to address
the real needs and concerns in the way we see and the way we
understand the people's needs, I think, would be a lot more
beneficial to the people, rather than somebody telling us, you
know, this is the way you need to administer it, whether it is
appropriate or not.
And I think that we need--not every situation is the same.
Not every tribe is the same, just like not every city or state
is the same. I think that is--we need to approach it in our own
unique, distinctive, individual tribal manner.
Mr. Hayworth. I think that is well said, Mr. President.
Mr. Chairman, do you have any questions for Mr. Atcitty?
Chairman Shaw. No, but I would like to go back to Dr.
Blessing, if I could, for a moment.
In the recommendations that you have made to the
legislation, you were talking about start-up costs, and we have
heard this from the other witnesses too. What would you
estimate that to be?
Ms. Blessing. Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to estimate,
because each tribal government is able to design their program
to their own specifications, so it is really hard to project.
But certainly, significant automation systems that we have
developed statewide cost many millions, sometimes ten to twenty
million, to serve the statewide population for a sophisticated
automation system like our child-support enforcement system or
our child-welfare system.
So depending on the complexity of the policies that the
tribal government proposed, I think it could be substantial
amounts of money.
Chairman Shaw. I think in your testimony you talked about
how many of the tribes are doing their own TANF program. What
was it? Twenty of them statewide?
Ms. Blessing. Mr. Chairman, running their own program, so
far, there are two tribes in Arizona that have received federal
approval to do that. Two more tribes are pending approval, but
we do have twenty-one tribes within the state.
Chairman Shaw. And would you anticipate that all twenty-one
would want to pursue that course?
Ms. Blessing. Not necessarily, Mr. Chairman. We have one
tribe that is in very good shape financially for its tribal
members because of Indian gaming, for example, they have
essentially no members on public assistance. So--and some of
the tribes are better situated with economic development; some
are not.
But I would point out that of the twenty-one tribes in
Arizona, nine of them were exempted from some federal time
limits as a result of over fifty percent unemployment.
Chairman Shaw. Yeah.
Ms. Blessing. So by far, we have more tribes that have
challenges than not. I think many of them will pursue their
separate plans, and we are eager to work with them as a
department.
Chairman Shaw. Is there any practical way they could use
some of the state resources to get those programs started up?
Ms. Blessing. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Shaw. Something that you indicated in your
testimony is not going to happen if all twenty-one decided they
wanted to go it alone. Then you would have twenty-one programs,
twenty-one start-up costs. And all of a sudden, you see that--
and then you start spreading that nationwide, and you say,
whoa, wait a minute. We are out of funds here.
Ms. Blessing. Yes, Chairman Shaw. There is one mitigating
factor. Already the two tribes that are operational in Arizona
have opted to contract with the Department to determine
eligibility and handle some of the federal data reporting. So
that substantially reduces the automation needs.
But there still are other start-up issues: planning, staff,
people who could design the policies; some other infrastructure
issues: office space, perhaps. So it can be mitigated to the
extent tribes choose to work with existing state systems.
Chairman Shaw. Mr. Lewis, would you like to comment on the
start-up cost and what is involved? And then, also, I want to
get to talk to you a minute about the road problem that you
mentioned in your testimony.
Mr. Lewis. Okay. Well, with the start-up costs, I think
that area is something that is very, very critical and for
tribes to really consider.
I think, first of all, the big hurdle was the matching. And
even with that, the state provides eighty percent of the 1994
level. And I think it would be really important if the policy
could be made to extend that to a hundred percent. Again, that
would help in the start-up costs.
The other is that the state match for the tribes that has
been provided should be credited to the state, which it is not,
and that enables the state to continue to provide additional
support to tribal governments and other communities in the
state.
So I think those two resources are there, and I think there
is--you know, that is an oversight in terms of the legislation.
Those things could be remedied, and those couldbe a good base
for starting and looking at where do we get those costs. But as has
been mentioned, the tribes are relatively small and have relatively low
numbers in terms of TANF recipients, and so they would not be seen as
taking on that responsibility.
But if some of these other--the needs are there; and what
TANF has done is to allow tribes to have that option and to be
able to design what could best work for them in a way that best
works for them, and that is a very important principle, and to
allow some of their own tribal members to design and work with
them. That is important, and that could be extended in terms of
some of the tribes to do intertribal efforts in terms of--like
you had mentioned. And I think that is a possibility.
But some of the basic start-up costs and where it comes
from needs to be answered. Some of the remedies are here, and I
think that is where we can begin.
Chairman Shaw. Under welfare reform, and it seems that what
I am hearing is that you are talking about one of the biggest
advantages of being able to have your own program and setting
up your own program is because you can design it to best fit
the needs of the people it is going to serve.
Under the Welfare Reform Bill, we gave the states
flexibility of designing different programs within their own
state. There is nothing that would say that one shoe fits all,
that all across the state of Arizona, all the programs have to
be the same.
You can set them up regionally, or I would think, under the
legislation, that if a tribe wants to design a program within
their tribe with the cooperation of the state, they could
stipulate--operate under the, say, TANF program and have their
own design.
We tried as hard as we could, and I think that is part of
the success of this legislation, we got away from what we call
the Beltway mentality, and that is why we are out here, by the
way, to get away from the Beltway mentality and let Mr. Atcitty
proceed longer in his testimony than he could have in
Washington.
But it is important that we know what is out here, that we
know the true feelings, and that we come out and collect this
information. I think this has all been tremendously helpful.
Mr. Hayworth. I just have one question for my friend John
Lewis from the Intertribal Council representing nineteen
tribes.
We have heard about economic development, job development,
Pascua Yaqui. We know about the special challenges confronted
by the Navajo Nation.
And while we are in that neighborhood, we tip our hat,
rhetorically, to our friend Congressman Bill Redmond of New
Mexico, who has worked very hard on a variety of projects
economically with the Navajo Nation, I think, in particular,
the processing plant for the potato farm, working very hard
there, that President Atcitty has worked very hard with
Congressman Redmond and others on.
But I am interested in the big picture as we shatter that
myth of the monolith and know that there are different tribes
with different circumstances. John, I think perhaps you are in
a better position to give us the big picture.
In terms of the job development side of the welfare-to-work
equation for the different tribes represented and participating
in the Intertribal Council, where do you think we need to head
with that? Or how do you see economic and job development
proceeding with the nineteen tribes?
Mr. Lewis. I think, to begin with, some of the existing
federal programs that Congress certainly has oversight on or
can be creative in making them work better. And I think part of
that is some looking at how they can be better coordinated in
terms of policy, how tribes can take all those different
programs and, in a sense, maybe head towards a block grant in
terms of what is available now, and much--I think the type of
thought that went into creating TANF and the need for that,
focusing on the individuals and moving them towards work.
The other part of that picture is to create--help create an
economic environment where there are jobs and to help stimulate
that and to help to identify what it is that moves individuals.
And I think there are a lot of good programs, a lot of the good
efforts out there in our communities, I think, to help do that,
but a lot of times, just making it more accessible and more
easily administrated through some coordinated policy or some
block-grant approach would help.
The other is with the state itself, the state here in
Arizona looking at work-force development. And again, this is
the approach that has been taken here. And I understand that we
are in the process of really a model development towards work
force development.
We are doing that in the state, looking at all these
programs, coordinating them, putting some focus on relating
them to the private sector and their priorities and then,
including the tribes in terms of that effort--so as part of the
statewide economic picture or regional picture, and doing that
sort of assessment and analysis and focus is needed.
And that effort is an ongoing effort, and it is going to
take a number of years to do that, but it has started here in
Arizona, and the tribal governments are a part of that, so that
is a good aspect; likewise, with the tribes, the tribes
themselves are taking a look at their administrations, their
resources, and coordinating them as well.
But there also has to be some access and communication in
working relationships, particularly with the private sector,
with financial institutions, and other things that have been to
some degree related.
So there has to be some real sit down and talk in terms of
how best to build those relationships. There may be a role for
Congress, in terms of its policies, in guiding some of those
relationships and working relationships, but they are being
established.
So it is going to take that sort of interest and efforts
on--from the federal level, state level, and tribal level to
have that creation, because the tribes, as I mentioned in
testimony, have--had not been--had the access to many resources
and have not been integrated into a lot of ongoing plans on a
regional or statewide basis. And some of the legislation in
Congress has not recognized that.
The USDA has initiated a program in terms of developing
empowerment areas or regions. Nationally, they are only going
to be funding one, possibly two, out of five hundred and some
odd tribes. But those are efforts that really do bring a
comprehensive approach, really do bring a cooperation in terms
of the initial planning and development with all sectors of the
tribe and external relationships. Those are the types of things
that need to happen.
Here in the state, we have the Greater Arizona Development
Authority, which is focusing on rural areas andbuilding and
providing an opportunity for them to take a look at themselves and
build those linkages and stimulate their economies. But that has been a
special effort by the State Legislature to do that, and the private
sector, to bring that about. So those are the types of things that are
going to be needed and more of them.
Mr. Hayworth. Thank you, Mr. Lewis, very much.
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Shaw. Thank you. I just want to mention one thing
to you, Mr. Lewis, and this probably applies to some of the
other tribes. In the ISTEA Bill, the highway bill, there was a
small portion of funds--I say small; it is big in terms of
dollars, but in terms of Washington spending, it may have
slipped by, particularly the size of that bill that was
monstrous--there is welfare--there is some money in there that
is going to be available for transportation to help people out
of welfare.
And I would strongly suggest that in some of these dirt
roads that you spoke about, that you take a close look at that
bill and see what is in there and compete for some of those
funds, because I think they would be very helpful.
Having gone to Arizona rules instead of Washington rules,
we are going to run out of time if we continue with this panel,
because we have another panel that we want to hear from.
But we very much appreciate each of your testimony. I have
learned a lot, and I think this will be very helpful in
improving this legislation and assisting Congressmen in getting
some of these changes and some of these rule-making conferences
on a better track, and I thank each of you for being with us
this morning.
J.D., would you like to introduce the next panel?
Mr. Hayworth. I would be honored to. Mr. Chairman, we are
very pleased to welcome our next panel, which will deal with
the topic of welfare reform and child-support enforcement. And
I am especially pleased to first call forward the Honorable
Winifred Hershberger, State Representative from our State
Legislature right here.
And as Freddy comes up, I just want to take time to
congratulate her on having been selected the 1997 legislator of
the year by the National Child Support Enforcement Association.
We know that is an honor for you personally, Representative
Hershberger, but also for the state of Arizona. And we would
like to thank you for your wonderful service and look forward
to your testimony as it comes to us.
And also welcome, Mr. Chairman, and those who join us
today, someone who has joined us in Washington to testify, but
we are pleased that she gets to play a home game, as it were,
and the Chairman is playing on the road, our Assistant Director
for the Division of Child Support Enforcement, Nancy Mendoza
from the Arizona DES, or Department of Economic Security.
Also we are pleased to have a tribal advocate from the
Navajo Nation Department of Justice in Window Rock. Nona
Etsitty joins us. And Nona, we thank you for coming.
And the administrator from the Division of Child Support
Systems and Automation from the Arizona Department of Economic
Security Steve Esposito is here as well. So Steve, if you will
come up front and center, please; and begin with our legislator
of the year, Freddy Hershberger. Representative Hershberger.
STATEMENT OF WINIFRED HERSHBERGER, STATE REPRESENTATIVE,
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Ms. Hershberger. Thank you, Chairman Shaw and Congressman
Hayworth.
And I have got to say, first, I thank you for those nice
remarks, but Nancy is the one who should have won the award.
Mr. Hayworth. We will let you share it with her, and that
will be a part of our record today. Let the record reflect that
Freddy believes that Nancy should share in those accolades and
that honor.
Ms. Hershberger. I am Freddy Hershberger. I have been a
member of the Arizona State Legislature since 1993. I currently
serve as chairman of the Human Services Committee of the House,
and this committee deals with many of the same issues at the
state level as your committee does at the national level.
In addition to child-support enforcement, which is the
subject of today's hearing, the Arizona House Human Services
Committee serves as the committee of reference for child-
welfare issues, and I know you share my deep commitment to
addressing the needs of children.
In my role as chair of the House Human Services Committee,
I cochair the state's Child Support Coordinating Council, which
has served as a unique forum for the resolution of issues for
both IV-D and non-IV-D child-support matters. Perhaps our model
can serve as an example of how other states can resolve
differences among the stakeholders in the child-support
programs.
As you are well aware, the child-support-enforcement
program affects parties with competing interests, requires the
involvement of several levels of government, and impacts
significantly upon employers and others in the private sector.
It can be very difficult to achieve a measure of consensus
among these different interests.
And in the light of the complexity of the issues at stake
and in recognition that public stewardship on these matters was
needed, the Legislature created the Child Support Coordinating
Council in 1994. It is cochaired by a member of the Senate and
a member of the House. The current cochairman of the Senate is
Senator David Petersen, who is also Chair of the Senate Family
Services Committee.
The Council is comprised of twenty-two members, including
representation from the Department of Economic Security, which
administers the IV-D program; the Attorney General's Office,
the courts, the governor's office, custodial and noncustodial
and joint-custodial parents, business community, and
legislators from both parties and both Houses.
The council serves as a forum for all system stakeholders
to develop and coordinate policies and strategies to
improvechild-support enforcement. It has been extremely successful in
dealing with many potentially controversial and divisive issues and has
performed an enormous service by bringing forward solutions for
legislative consideration.
Among the many accomplishments of the Council, I would like
to highlight a few. First, and probably of greatest interest to
you, Mr. Chairman and to Congressman Hayworth, is the work
performed by the Council in considering the child-support
enforcement state law changes required by the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
for welfare reform.
Following the passage of the final federal legislation, DES
began bringing bill drafts to the Council to obtain feedback
and to identify areas where state discretion was allowed. Many
revisions were made prior to the bill being introduced in the
State Legislature. I am that sure you have followed the
struggles in many states in getting conforming legislation
enacted.
In Arizona, we passed our bill with only three dissenting
votes in both chambers. I credit the work of the Council in
obtaining stakeholder consensus prior to the session with our
ability to have such a successful outcome.
I would like to comment specifically on one provision of
the federal welfare reform requirements where I believe that
the Council and Arizona have overcome problems being
experienced in other states. I am referring to our requirement
that the processing of child-support payments be centralized
for both IV-D and non-IV-D cases.
In Arizona, as in many other states, non-IV-D payments are
processed by local Clerks of the Court. In recognition that
having several locations to which payment must be sent is a
burden to employers, the Council had begun considering
centralization prior to the federal requirement and had reached
a consensus on the need for centralization. The legislation
necessary to achieve this was included in the welfare reform
conforming bill.
However, we went one step further than did Congress. The
Council felt that centralizing only payments for cases with
post-1994 orders, as required by Congress, would leave
confusion in the system and a twelve-year burden to employers
as the older cases age out. In order to truly simplify and
streamline payment processing, all payments need to go to a
single location. I encourage you to reconsider the effect of
the limitation the federal law has imposed.
The centralization of payment processing is extremely
difficult. The Child Support Coordinating Council is serving as
the facilitator of this process by working with the Clerks'
Association, the IV-D Agency, and the Administrative Office of
the Courts to convert to centralized payment processing for all
IV-D and non-IV-D payments this fall. We have overcome the
concerns raised in other states about this process.
The key is that we select an approach which will enable all
the Clerks of the Court to continue providing customer service
to their constituents by affording them on-line access to the
state computer system, ATLAS. Using ATLAS, the clerks will be
able to determine the payment status on their cases at any time
and to print pay histories as needed for court proceedings.
I think that you can appreciate the many benefits that we
in Arizona have reaped by having a forum for cooperative
decision making. We think it ultimately results in a better
system through which our children can be served.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.039
Mr. Hayworth. We will now pass the radio microphone and the
public-address system to our friend Nancy Mendoza. We would be
very happy, Nancy, to have your testimony now, please.
STATEMENT OF NANCY MENDOZA, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC
SECURITY
Ms. Mendoza. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman
Hayworth. My name is Nancy Mendoza. I am Assistant Director for
the Department of Economic Security, and in the capacity, serve
as the director of child-support enforcement.
I would like to express my appreciation to the subcommittee
for the recognition you have given to the role that child-
support enforcement plays in welfare reform. By including the
many significant enhancements to the child-support program in
the Welfare Reform Act, you sent a strong message that personal
responsibility applies not only to welfare recipients but also
to the noncustodial parents of their children.
In Arizona, we have come to realize that even when welfare
participants comply with all requirements in obtaining
employment, the income from one salary may not be sufficient to
meet the family's needs. Indeed, many families today depend
upon two incomes. A reliable income stream from the
noncustodial parent may mean the difference between welfare
dependency and self-sufficiency.
I would like to describe how the child-support program is
configured in Arizona. As you will note on attachment A tomy
statement, several different entities are involved. The elected county
attorney operates the program in six counties. The DES division of
child-support enforcement operates the program in seven counties. In
two counties, the program is operated by a private vendor under
contract to DES.
In the area which comprises the Navajo Reservation, the
Navajo Tribe will be operating the program through an
intergovernmental agreement with DES. This important milestone
was reached last November at a signing ceremony in Window Rock.
An office in Chinle, Arizona will be opening later this
summer. We also have an agreement with the Colorado River
Indian Tribe in which the La Paz County Attorney is authorized
to bring actions in Tribal Court. Discussions with several
other tribes have been held, including the Haulapai, Hopi, and
the Salt River Pima.
We have been assisted in making progress in the delivery of
service to tribal members by the provisions you enacted both in
August of '96, by establishing the authority for state/tribal
cooperative agreements, and--the additional clarification
regarding the scope of such agreements which you passed last
year.
The Arizona Child Support Enforcement Program has made
significant improvements in recent years. Arizona was ranked
first in the nation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services for increased collections between 1992 and '96.
Just last month, the White House announced that between
1992 and '97, national child-support collections increased
sixty-eight percent. Arizona's collections during that time
increased by one hundred eighty-four percent.
Also announced by the White House was the national increase
in paternity establishment between '92 and '97 of a hundred
fifteen percent. Arizona's paternity establishment increase was
two hundred forty-two percent for the same time period.
With regard to federal automation requirements, although
most states were unable to meet the federal deadline of October
'97 to have their systems operational, Arizona achieved federal
certification of our automated system in July of 1996.
While we are understandably proud of these accomplishments,
we recognize that many children still lack the financial
support to which they are entitled. We continue to work
aggressively on behalf of those children.
I would like to mention our progress in the implementation
of welfare reform changes. With the support of the Governor's
office and the State Legislature, Arizona has enacted all of
the changes to state law required by welfare reform as well as
other acts that we passed last summer.
The vast majority of these changes will be implemented over
the next few months, including the centralization of payment
processing for all child-support cases, establishment of the
mandatory new-hire reporting requirement for all employers in
Arizona, the establishment of a state case registry containing
both IV-D and non-IV-D orders, the issuance of income
withholding orders automatically upon receipt of information
from the new-hire directory.
These are just a few of the major changes underway to
comply with the new requirements. I would encourage the
Subcommittee to recognize the magnitude of these reforms and
the challenges they create for the state child programs across
the country. I hope that you can defer making additional
changes to the program to allow time for these new initiatives
to be implemented and their impact evaluated.
At your May oversight hearing, you heard from several
witnesses regarding the role of the private sector in the
child-support program. In Arizona, we have entered into several
public/private partnerships.
In 1994, we engaged the services of private collection
agencies to assist in our more difficult cases. We refer these
cases to the vendor automatically through our overnight batch
processing.
The partnerships of the private sector make the skills and
capacities available to the child-support program. At the same
time, the requirements for data security and privacy are
maintained because they are operating under contract to the
states.
While Arizona aggressively pursues the payment of support,
we also recognize that nonpayment is not always willful. The
root cause of nonpayment may stem from the noncustodial parent
being unemployed or underemployed. We have recently expanded
our services to noncustodial parents by working with several
community agencies to provide job training and job placement
through a referral from the child-support program.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.046
Mr. Hayworth. Thank you, very much, Nancy, for your
testimony.
And now, we can turn the radio mike just a little bit and
we can hear from Nona Etsitty. Nona, thank you for joining us.
And you might want to pull the public address mike a little
closer to you--the other microphone too. That is great.
STATEMENT OF NONA ETSITTY, TRIBAL ADVOCATE, NAVAJO NATION
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WINDOW ROCK, ARIZONA
Ms. Etsitty. Before I begin, I think it is appropriate for
me to introduce myself. My mom is a Cherokee from Oklahoma. My
father was a Navajo, so that means I am a Cherokee born for the
Navajos. I have lived all my life on the Navajo reservation, so
I am very much a part of the Navajos.
To begin with, the Child Support Enforcement Program came
about because the Office of Navajo Women saw a need for the
Navajo Nation to take forth legislation to the state of New
Mexico.
Prior to the enactment of the Navajo Child Support
Enforcement Act, the Navajo Nation had no means to collect
support by the Navajo Nation. There were no general laws for
paternity or adult responsibility for the care and support of
the children.
Navajo children living on the Navajo Nation did not enjoy
the same benefits and protections provided by laws to children
living off the Navajo Nation. So the Navajo Nation--on December
14th of 1994, Navajo Nation Council passed the Navajo Nation
Child Support Enforcement Act. July 25th 1996, the Judicial
Committee of the Navajo Nation Council passed the Navajo Nation
Child Support Guidelines.These two legislations on the Navajo
Nation gave the Navajo Nation tools to work with by the enactment of
these laws.
Prior to 1994, the state of New Mexico and probably most
states surrounding the Navajo Nation had virtually no
collections for child-support enforcement in the Navajo Nation.
After the signing of the agreement with the Navajo Nation and
the state of New Mexico, we have been in existence four years.
I would like to focus on the problems that we have with
funding, because funding is a major part of our existence. We
are funded completely by the state funding. We don't have any
of our own tribal funds that are allocated to fund child-
support enforcement. So the states--having our
intergovernmental agreement with the state is vital for us in
the way of our funding.
What is happening in New Mexico, we were awarded $150,000
through the New Mexico Human Services budget. On the other
hand, Senator Pinto, State Congressman (sic), approached the
State Legislature for an additional hundred and fifty to
increase our budget to $300,000. Federal matching would have
brought our budget up to $884,000 to work with. That would have
have been an increase to the Navajo Nation.
Now, statistically, in 1995, our collections in New Mexico
were $3,500, and we are very new and beginning. In 1996, our
collections went to 110,000. In 1997, our collections were
294,000. This year, 1998, we project 400,000 plus. So it is
kind of hard for us to understand why we are not given the
opportunity to increase our budget in the state of New Mexico.
While in Arizona, we have a different scenario. In New
Mexico, when we got the funding of $144,000, that was to handle
1,500 cases that were transferred from the Farmington office.
In Arizona, we have a budget of $375,000 to handle 12,000
cases, and I feel like this funding is very much unfair and
will allow us to do an adequate job but by a miracle will allow
us to get by.
So in the future, we would like to have the states at least
look at increasing that funding as we start our Arizona
project, because it is fairly new.
Another problem that we have are infrastructures. As was
mentioned about roads and buildings, we don't have adequate
infrastructures to house the offices of Child Support
Enforcement. If the budget is passed in New Mexico, that means
that we would be housing close to nine maybe eight more child-
support enforcement officers, and so we have outgrown the
building there. With Arizona, we plan to grow as well, and
infrastructures and building is a necessity. We don't have
those available to us now.
Computerization, it is very important for us to have the
technology and assistance from the state, but like it was
mentioned before, we have three regions. Arizona is governed by
San Francisco, New Mexico is Dallas, and--there is another
one--Utah. So we are kind of, like, stretched apart again in
child-support enforcement.
We have a system that we are using in New Mexico called
CHEERS, and then we are having another automated system in
Arizona that is not--that is different from CHEERS. So
computerization and having one system would be important for
us. Child-support incentives of the 400,000 that we collect in
New Mexico, we don't get any. The state gets all of it.
And in closing, the Navajo Nation would recommend that--we
know that regulation being--are in the making. Direct funding
with no matching funds would be a recommendation from the
Navajo Nation. Taking into account infrastructures that we
don't have, that would be another account. The technical
assistance and equipment should also be considered in
allocations when it is given.
The Navajo Nation has been with its child-support
enforcement program--it has been in existence four years, and I
believe that we are ready to take the step to do our own child-
support-enforcement program. Hopefully, this would do nothing
to take away from our intergovernmental agreements because we
still need the help of Arizona, and we still need the help of
New Mexico. So with that in mind, we would ask that you take
these things into consideration.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.052
Mr. Hayworth. Nona, we thank you, very much. And we
appreciate also your acknowledgment of your unique background
as Oklahoma Cherokee as well as Navajo. And since the Chairman
of the committee has a bit of Cherokee in him--I guess Carolina
Cherokee--we appreciate that. I guess a little meeting of the
minds and similar cultures here.
With that in mind, we will turn now to our friend Steven
Esposito, the Systems and Automation Administrator from the
Arizona Department of Economic Security.
And once again, we transfer the microphones over and want
to make sure they are right in front of you, Steve, because we
very much want to hear what you have to say.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN J. ESPOSITO, ADMINISTRATOR, DIVISION OF
CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEMS AND AUTOMATION, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMIC SECURITY
Mr. Esposito. Thank you. I am Steven Esposito. I am the
Systems and Automated Administrator for the Division of Child
Support Enforcement. Since 1991, I have been responsible for
implementing, enhancing, and maintaining ATLAS, Arizona's
statewide automated system.
We are aware that Congress is focusing on the financial
penalties being assessed against states that fail to meet the
required automation deadline. As Nancy mentioned in her
testimony, Arizona is not subject to these penalties because we
achieved federal certification before the deadline. We believe
our success was due to certain principles and strategies that
can be used in other states.
Our experience has shown that a single, statewide system
for the processing of child-support payments was an extremely
sound concept. Children benefit from increased financial
support. Custodial parents benefit from timely and uniform
processing of their cases. Noncustodial parents benefit from
accurate accounting of payments. Taxpayers benefit by limiting
the need for public assistance. Arizona and the federal
government benefit from cost-effective use of limited technical
resources.
For any project of this size to be successful, there must
be full involvement from all stakeholders. Federal guidance
must be clear and consistent. State leadership must be strong.
County partnerships must be amicable and focused on the people
that we serve. And finally, the vendor relationship must be one
of mutual trust and respect. Arizona was fortunate and
persistent enough to be successful on all fronts.
The federal staff assigned to Arizona were true partners in
the development of the project and were invested in the quality
and success of our work.
The General Accounting Office recently published a study
that was critical of federal leadership and control of
automation projects. Arizona's experience bore little
resemblance to the findings in the GAO report.
Support for initiatives of this size must come from top
state officials. Child-support-automation projects are
difficult and sometimes politically charged. There was strong
support for the implementation of ATLAS from the governor's
office, the State Legislature, the director's office, and the
DES executive management.
For a single automated system to succeed, we needed a solid
partnership with our political subdivisions. In Arizona, we
forged a strong alliance with our court clerks and county
attorney officials. We attribute much of the success and the
quality of the implementation to the contributions of these
partners.
The relationship between the state and its implementation
vendor is critical. Arizona was fortunate to have a talented
and dedicated vendor team, coupled with an equally talented and
dedicated state staff.
We believe that states that were successful in implementing
certified systems are especially well positioned to implement
the provision of welfare reform. Arizona has already
implemented some of the early enhancement and found that we
have a solid foundation upon which to build.
Our success in implementing ATLAS has established a very
favorable reputation for our ability to manage and implement
complex change on time and within budget. Welfare reform has
given much more responsibility to the IV-D program.
All child-support payments, both IV-D and non-IV-D, will be
processed by ATLAS. All support orders will be loaded into a
state case registry within ATLAS. Many new mandated data
exchanges will be automated in the next two years. I believe
DES has earned the confidence of the Legislature, county
leadership, and federal government that we will be equally
successful in implementing welfare reform.
I have participated in two major phases of the
implementation of federal child-support legislation. Based on
this experience, I have identified six areas that make
implementation difficult from the automation perspective:
First, federal delays in publishing final regulation and
policy; second, limited private sector knowledge of child
support; third, the reasonableness of the time lines imposed by
legislation; fourth, the lack of alignment between new
legislation and other existing federal legislation; fifth, the
size and political composition of the state; and sixth, the
competition for top technical staff with Year 2000 projects.
Arizona is pleased to be among the nation's leaders in
implementing child-support and welfare-reform-automation
initiatives mandated by Congress. We have found the effort to
be great but the reward to be greater.
Child-support agencies have been given unprecedented
authority and access to information to aggressively enforce the
payment of child support. Automation has contributed to the
most significant improvement in the enforcement of child
support the nation has ever seen.
Those of us responsible for our state's automation project
look forward to the challenge of welfare reform and are proud
of our role in improving the lives of our nation's children and
families. Thank you.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]63456A.059
Mr. Hayworth. Steve, we thank you for the testimony, and I
just wanted to return to, as you very succinctly outlined, some
of the challenges that a lot of different folks are facing.
Even as Arizona has success in implementing ATLAS, I just
wanted to return and revisit, briefly, the success story here
in Arizona. You mentioned a lot of different factors coming
together. But could you isolate for us the key factors that led
to the success? What would that be? And what lessons could
other states draw from the Arizona experience?
Mr. Esposito. Well, first of all, I would like to mention
that Arizona has a proven track record and methodology--a
structured methodology for project control and project
management. But if I were to pick out a key factor, it was the
partnership that we developed with our counties.
The people who do child support are passionate about their
business. They have knowledge about it. They have opinions
about the best way to do their jobs. We found that no one
person knows how to run child support.
What we did was we put together, fundamentally, a board of
directors that had members of the counties on them. That board
of directors was key to our ability to communicate, to get
input, and to build a quality system that met everybody's needs
but balance the needs versus the wants and the scope of the
project and the budget of the project with what wastechnically
feasible and just plan old how many cases we benefitted by the things
we were automating.
The cost and the constant communication could not have been
done without it. Without the collaboration, without the
commitment, a successful implementation would have been
compromised.
Mr. Hayworth. One of the unique things about Arizona is we
take a look at political subdivisions. I think about the six
congressional districts and square mileage about the size of
the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I also look at the fact that
in Arizona, comparatively speaking, we have very few counties
as opposed to many of our eastern neighbors with counties
numbering over a hundred.
Was that the unique blessing as well in terms of that
county coordination--having fewer counties and perhaps fewer
people with which to deal in the mix?
Mr. Esposito. There is no doubt that some of the larger
states that are set up differently, that have more counties,
that have counties with extremely powerful county seats and
elected officials make the implementation much more
problematic.
My opinion, though, is still that if you bring those people
beforehand, if you get their consensus, if you share
information with them, a number of the obstacles can be
overcome. Notwithstanding all the other technical and political
realities, I still think a statewide system is the way to go.
Mr. Hayworth. Thanks. Let me turn to Nona, again, because
we hear echoes of President Atcitty's testimony in your
testimony, Ms. Etsitty, in terms of the challenges we talked
about, the county situation and the state implementation of
ATLAS, the success rate that we have here in near Arizona.
Your challenges, again, seem to be compounded by the
fractured nature of supervision and administration, and again,
just as part of the record, even as you are dealing with--you
talked about the contrast between Arizona and New Mexico.
In your mind, to solve the problem, again, is a direct
grant called for, or do we need to continue this shoulder-to-
shoulder partnership, if you will, with the respective states?
Ms. Etsitty. Given the experience that we have in the past
four years, direct funding would--we are ready for it. We would
be ready for one system that we can all use within the Navajo
Nation.
Right now, like you say, we use ATLAS in Arizona. We use
CHEERS in New Mexico. And probably if we were to enter an
agreement with Utah, we would use another one. It makes our
work diverse among the states that we work in.
Mr. Hayworth. And again, just to revisit your success rate,
I want to make sure I understood the figures exactly; from
initial accumulation of some, what, very modest, only $3,000 to
now projected in excess of $400,000 in terms of child-support
collections.
Ms. Etsitty. That is right. Since 1994 up to 1998, we have
increased collections: $3,500 in 1995 to a projected 400,000
this year, from the time we started.
Mr. Hayworth. Nona, if you could, pass the radio mike to
Nancy. I think she still has the PA mike right there.
Nancy, you offer a cautionary note in the midst of your
upbeat testimony. I heard that caution about hold on a second;
be careful in drafting of further rules and regulations. Let's
revisit that and amplify that from your perspective.
Ms. Mendoza. Chairman Shaw, Congressman Hayworth, I hope
that I was not perceived as disrespectful in that comment.
You have given us extreme amounts of new opportunities
through the welfare legislation, all the way from payment
processing to these national registries to the financial
institution data matches that we will be doing with financial
institutions.
All of those changes have automation implications and
training implications for our staff. And so we would like an
opportunity to implement all of those innovations and see what
impact they have on our program before we add more new, good
things.
We certainly welcome and were appreciative of all the new
authority that we received. We would like an opportunity to be
successful with that before we take on any new ventures.
Mr. Hayworth. To draw a historical analogy, Nancy, my
profession of broadcasting, I recall the history of the Federal
Communications Commission before it tried. Now, it appears Mr.
Chairman the FCC wants to get in the business of taxation. But
back in the early 1950s, there was a freeze put on the number
of licenses granted for television stations. Are you
suggesting, in essence, a regulatory freeze to evaluate?
Ms. Mendoza. Chairman Shaw, Congressman Hayworth, no, there
are always more and better ways to do child-support
enforcement, and a lot of great ideas can come forward; but
there is a critical mass that is reached in any kind of
innovation where more change may not be effectively
implemented.
And I certainly don't mean to say that the bill that you
are currently considering, HR 3130 that is before the
conference, I am not in any way wanting to dissuade you from
the completion of that important work, which sets forth the new
incentive formula for the programs. As a matter of fact, I hope
that the conferees will adopt the measures related to the
streamlining of medical-support enforcement and financial data
matches at the national level.
But what I am thinking about are things that might have any
additional automation implications or that would perhaps in any
way reverse course in anything that we are just getting up and
running at this time.
Chairman Shaw. I think what she said is if it is not broke,
don't fix it.
Mr. Hayworth. That is a good policy. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for the translation. It is good to know that our
friends from Florida can cut through in much the same way our
Arizonans have the ability to cut through a maze.
Let me move the mike down to my friend Freddy, or
Representative Hershberger, to maintain the formality of our
gathering here today.
Again, to note to all our panelists, your entire statements
will be included in the record.
And again, Representative Hershberger, we want to
congratulate you on the work for which you have been recognized
as the legislator of the year with regard to child support.
A comment in your statement that I would like you to
amplify a little bit; we are taking a look at strengthening the
ties between fathers and families. I think we are all drawn to
the pictures and the stories of families that appear very
prominently in local newspapers where the question manyof my
constituents have as they look at the picture of a mom struggling with
several children, where is the father?
And we have heard about the strides made in establishing
paternity. We have introduced a bill in Washington, HR 3314,
that seeks to support such efforts by providing two billion
dollars in new federal funds for states to support private,
including faith-based groups, to run programs to help promote
the importance of fatherhood.
Could you tell me more about the campaign here in Arizona
and what has been working here in our backyard in that regard?
Ms. Hershberger. Congressman Hayworth, Mr. Chairman,
perhaps we should refer back to the bill that came out of the
child-support council last year, which was the education of
parents who are in divorce as to how to handle their children.
And that, indeed, has been very effective, we think, so far.
The first year's reports have been excellent. It has
brought the fathers into the picture, because both parents
realize that the children need two parents. It has given the
noncustodial parent the opportunity to participate in his
child's life through support, perhaps, but it has also really
provided an avenue, and I think that is working very well.
Perhaps you referred to the covenant marriage, and I think
you should talk to my friend Dave Petersen about that since I
was not an avid supporter of that bill. I believe I entered
into a covenant 52 years ago, and my church called it a
covenant, and I don't think we need state legislation, either,
to go along those lines. I think that is up to faith-based
organizations, and I think most of them do do that kind of
thing.
So I think we are making headway. And through the paternity
establishment as well for these children who are being brought
up by a single mom, that is helping to identify somebody else
is responsible and to bring them into the picture.
Mr. Hayworth. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Shaw. I think, to follow up on what Congressman
Hayworth is talking about, we have a huge problem, which
everyone in this room knows about, and that is the tremendous
number of kids that are being born out of wedlock.
One thing we found out in welfare reform was that one of
the big problems that we had was that people--and one of our
witnesses was talking about earlier, we are creaming the system
now; we are getting the easier cases out of the way. And even
though we have had great success in putting people back to
work, we know full well it is going to get tougher when we get
down towards the bottom.
That is one of the reasons why Congressman Hayworth and I
are steadfastly opposing any attempt to cut TANF funding,
despite the fact that those caseloads are coming down, because
the states are going to have to spend more money per client in
order to start with training: teach somebody the simple things
that most of us were raised knowing how to do: how to shake
hands, how to show up on time, how to follow directions, how to
do a job.
And we found that there were so many people that were born
in a house and even in a neighborhood where nobody was working.
They had no model. They had nothing to relate to. So you have
got to start with the very basics.
We found the same thing is happening with regard to young
boys growing up without fathers. They don't have a clue of what
it is like to be a father. I mean, they know what brings babies
into the world, but after that, they think that is the end of
it, and it is very important that on we go, just like we did in
welfare reform, and go in and attack the root of that problem
and try to train these young men to accept the responsibility
of being a father, not only the financial responsibility but
the spiritual and the whole wonderful life of being a father
and what all that involves, including giving some of their
time.
And I think we have looked at some of the programs around
the country, and they have been very successful, and we feel
that this is important. That is the bill Congressman Hayworth
is referring to. It is one that is also before our
subcommittee, which I believe you cosponsored.
Mr. Hayworth. That is correct. Yes, sir.
Chairman Shaw. We have cosponsored that together, and we
are going to try to work that through; and if we are
successful, we will be coming back to you as the state
legislator. Maybe we can make you the legislator of the year
for fatherhood or something. And hopefully, you will take the
lead on that, because it is a very good program, and it is
something we desperately need to address.
I want to go back to Nona and talk to her just a moment, if
I could. If you could, pass that microphone back, please.
I want to know a little bit more about child-support
enforcement among Native Americans. Is out-of-wedlock births as
big a problem among Native Americans as it is the rest of the
American population?
Ms. Etsitty. It is. We have the same problem.
Chairman Shaw. Now, when you get into child-support
enforcement and you get into the reporting requirements, the
law that we have in place provide for the registry. I think
Steve was talking about how that works. And I think Nancy was
talking about keeping those records, not to go change the way
the thing is working, and we have no intention of doing that.
Now, the Native American or the figures that you gather,
then, would go--as I understand it, into the state's data
system. Isn't that correct?
Ms. Etsitty. It will.
Chairman Shaw. So that in trying to track the fathers--
generally, it is the fathers for child support--we can track
them across state lines.
Ms. Etsitty. Right.
Chairman Shaw. And I think that is tremendously important.
Do the Native Americans have the same--use the same courts as
the rest of us do, or is it a special court that is set up
within the Indian Nation?
Ms. Etsitty. It is an administrative process that Navajo
Nation courts in the seven districts agreed that they didn't
want to handle the child-support enforcement area, and so an
administrative process, which is very simple, quick, fast, and
it allows us the tools to make collections easier just as the
state. So it is----
Chairman Shaw. What court? Does the same administrative
body make the orders as to what payments are to be made for
child support?
Ms. Etsitty. No.
Chairman Shaw. Or does that go into the Arizona or New
Mexico court system?
Ms. Etsitty. No. It is our own system. What it is is we
have the court system over here, our seven judicial. And then
we have the Court of Appeals, and then we have a lot
ofadministrative--like, we have the Navajo Nation Labor Commission. We
have our grievances for our--the people who need--who are fired from
the government. They take the grievances to a hearing body, and it is
called the Office of Hearings and Appeals. They are the ones that do
the cases for us.
Once an administrative order is entered, the next remedy
for the person to appeal would be our Navajo Nation Supreme
Court. So it is a whole separate administrative body.
Chairman Shaw. So a man and a woman who want to be
divorced, they go before this administrative body, and if----
Ms. Etsitty. No.
Chairman Shaw. Well, where do they go?
Ms. Etsitty. Okay. They would go to the district court.
This----
Chairman Shaw. The court that everyone else goes to?
Ms. Etsitty. Right.
Chairman Shaw. So that the child-support order, then, comes
out of that court.
Ms. Etsitty. Right.
Chairman Shaw. Then how would that make it into your
system?
Ms. Etsitty. Once an order is entered into our court, we
take the order, and we have the child-support enforcement
program.
Chairman Shaw. Uh-huh.
Ms. Etsitty. The mother gives us--well, say the father is
delinquent. The mother gives us her public assignment to go
after the father. And say dad works maybe in the president's
office. Let's pick on Mr. Atcitty.
Chairman Shaw. That is a good place to start.
Ms. Etsitty. Our child-support enforcement program would
initiate what we call a very simple Notice of Public Assign--
Notice of--what is it? NPA--Notice of Public Assignment.
And when the father receives that, then he either, through
our administrative process, will answer; or if he doesn't
answer, we will end up defaulting him, and then we will go use
tools that are there available to do withholdings or anything
we can to execute on the child-support enforcement order.
Chairman Shaw. Now, what happens when he crosses state
lines or somebody comes from another state into your
jurisdiction? How do you work that?
Ms. Etsitty. Okay. With the agreements that we have--let's
say Flagstaff is close to home but it is not on the Nation. Say
the mother lives on the Nation and the father works in
Flagstaff. What happens is we would take that court order that
is entered, and we would ask the State of Arizona to enforce it
for us, and they would take it as a UFRISA [sic] Package, send
it up to Flagstaff, and enforce it there. And the collections--
--
Chairman Shaw. That would be the state.
Ms. Etsitty. Right. The collections go to Arizona, and then
they send it to the mom.
Chairman Shaw. And that is the same if they take off to
Florida, New York, or wherever.
Ms. Etsitty. Right, uh-huh. But when it comes into the
Navajo Nation, we domesticate their orders. We don't change
anything. We don't do anything with the order. We just
domesticate it and enforce it with the tools that we have.
Chairman Shaw. Do you have anything else?
Mr. Hayworth. No, sir.
Chairman Shaw. I want to thank this panel, as well as all
the witnesses that we have had. We certainly learned a lot. I
can say I certainly have, as Chairman of the committee; and
look forward to going back to Washington.
Unfortunately, I didn't plan this trip very well. I flew in
last night and have to fly out about 1:30 today. So I think
J.D. thinks I am a little nuts for not trying to stay over the
weekend. I wish my time was where I could.
But I certainly think this has been tremendously worthwhile
for me. And J.D., I want to thank you for bringing the
committee out here. We came out with both Democratic and
Republican staff persons so that the hearing will be reported
in a very balanced way.
And these are areas where I might say the Republicans and
Democrats have come together, and we are working closely
together, particularly in this area of child support. We have
had wonderful bipartisan support in this whole area, and I can
assure you that we are going to do everything we can to get
this rule making pushed forward as quickly as possible and with
the participation and input of the Native Americans, who are
most intimately involved in having to enforce it.
And again, if I may call you Freddy, it is a great honor to
be with you as the legislator of the year.
And Nancy, it is great to see you back here on your home
turf and away from Washington. I think, as J.D. said, Nancy has
testified before us in Washington, and we always learn a great
deal.
And thank you for--all of you who have taken time out of
your day to join us here today on something that is a most
important subject, because here we are dealing with kids, and
we are dealing with the future of this country.
J.D., do you have anything you would like to say before we
close?
Mr. Hayworth. Mr. Chairman, my wife Mary always reminds me
there is a lot to be said for brevity--think about that--and I
will try to follow her advice in this rare instance, Mr.
Chairman.
Again, simply to thank you and our staff members for
bringing this hearing outside the belt way, and then some, to
Arizona, to understand what has worked, where the challenges
remain, and certainly the special relationship and the treaty
and trust obligations confronting Native Americans.
I look forward to working with you as we deal aggressively
with trying to address some of the problems that transcend
state lines and on the boundaries of the sovereign Navajo
Nation and many other of our tribes here in Arizona and,
thereby, across the country.
And so thanks to the witnesses, thanks to those who have
joined us here in this hearing, and we will continue to work on
this. And most of all, thanks to you, Mr. Chairman, for joining
us here in Arizona today.
Chairman Shaw. Thank you. The hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 12 noon, the hearing was adjourned.]