[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WELFARE REFORM
REAUTHORIZATION PROPOSALS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 10, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-5
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
36-658 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
BILL THOMAS, California, Chairman
E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
WALLY HERGER, California SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
DAVE CAMP, Michigan JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
SAM JOHNSON, Texas MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona XAVIER BECERRA, California
JERRY WELLER, Illinois LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
RON LEWIS, Kentucky STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio
MARK FOLEY, Florida MIKE THOMPSON, California
KEVIN BRADY, Texas JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin
ERIC CANTOR, Virginia
JOHN LINDER, Georgia
BOB BEAUPREZ, Colorado
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
CHRIS CHOCOLA, Indiana
Allison H. Giles, Chief of Staff
Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
WALLY HERGER, California, Chairman
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington
BOB BEAUPREZ, Colorado BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
CHRIS CHOCOLA, Indiana XAVIER BECERRA, California
JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois
DAVE CAMP, Michigan
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published
in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the official
version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare both
printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of
converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Advisory of February 2, 2005, announcing the hearing............. 2
WITNESSES
The Honorable Lynn C. Woolsey, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California........................................ 10
______
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Hon. Wade F. Horn,
Ph.D., Assistant Secretary for Children and Families........... 13
______
Maryland Department of Human Resources, Kevin M. McGuire,
Baltimore, MD.................................................. 32
Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector............................... 38
Brookings Institution, Ronald Haskins............................ 48
National Partnership for Community Leadership, Jeffery M.
Johnson; accompanied by Yovani Rivera.......................... 55
Center for Self-Sufficiency, Jason A. Turner, Milwaukee, WI...... 61
______
New York City Human Resources Administration, David Hansell, New
York, NY....................................................... 77
Legal Momentum, Lisalyn R. Jacobs................................ 83
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Kathleen A. Curran.......... 96
Boston Medical Center, Deborah A. Frank, Boston, MA.............. 102
The Alliance for Children and Families, Peter Goldberg........... 106
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Advocates for Human Potential, Inc............................... 116
American Association of University Women, Lisa Maatz, statement.. 119
American Civil Liberties Union, Laura W. Murphy, statement....... 121
American Institute for Full Employment, Klamath Falls, OR, Jon
Hobbs, statement............................................... 128
American Psychological Association, Lori Valencia Greene,
statement...................................................... 130
Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore, MD, Douglas W. Nelson,
statement...................................................... 132
Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, Deborah A. Frank, statement... 134
Burg, Fred, West Long Branch, NJ, statement...................... 136
Call to Renewal, Yonce Shelton, statement........................ 139
Cato Institute, Jenifer Zeigler, statement....................... 142
Center for Community Change, Sean Thomas-Breitfeld, joint letter
and attachment................................................. 149
Center for Economic and Policy Research, Heather Boushey,
statement...................................................... 151
Center for Fathers, Families and Workforce Development,
Baltimore, MD, Joseph T. Jones, Jr., statement................. 153
Center for Law and Social Policy, Vicki Anne Turetsky, Mark H.
Greenberg, Nisha Patel, and Hedieh Rahmanou, joint statement... 154
Center for Parental Responsibility, Roseville, MN, Molly K.
Olson, statement and attachment................................ 162
Center for Women Policy Studies, Leslie R. Wolfe, statement...... 166
Chicago Jobs Council, Chicago, IL, Rose Karasti and Robert E.
Wordlaw, joint statement....................................... 169
Children's Defense Fund, Carolyn Wylie, statement................ 173
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, Sharon McDonald,
statement...................................................... 179
County Welfare Directors Association of California, Sacramento,
CA, Frank J. Mecca, statement.................................. 183
Family Violence Prevention Fund, San Francisco, CA, Esta Soler,
statement...................................................... 187
Goodwill Industries of Sacramento Valley, Inc., Sacramento, CA,
Joseph Mendez, statement....................................... 194
Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Des Moines, IA, Amy
Correia, statement............................................. 195
National Child Support Enforcement Association, statement........ 197
National Coalition for Literacy, Albany, NY, and National Council
of State Directors of Adult Education, Garrett Murphy, joint
statement...................................................... 200
National Women's Law Center, Helen Blank, statement.............. 202
New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Albany, NY,
Sherri A. Salvione, statement.................................. 207
New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance,
Albany, NY, Robert Doar, statement............................. 212
Occupational Training Institute of the Foothill-De Azna Community
College District, Cupertino, CA, Daniel W. Dishno, statement... 216
Oregon Human Rights Coalition, North Bend, OR, Maggie Bagon,
statement...................................................... 217
Palomar College, San Marcos, CA, Brenda Ann Wright, M.A., letter. 217
Presbyterian Church, Carolynn Race, joint statement.............. 218
Presbytery of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, Schaunel Lynn
Steinnagel, letter and attachment.............................. 220
Public/Private Ventures, New York, NY, Mark Elliott, statement... 222
State University of New York at Potsdam, Potsdam, NY, George
Gonos, statement and attachment................................ 225
Texas Council on Family Violence, Austin, TX, Sheryl Cates,
statement...................................................... 231
WELFARE REFORM
REAUTHORIZATION PROPOSALS
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2005
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Human Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:09 p.m., in
room B-318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Wally Herger
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]
ADVISORY FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
CONTACT: (202) 225-1721
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 02, 2005
No. HR-1
Herger Announces Hearing on
Welfare Reform Reauthorization Proposals
Congressman Wally Herger (R-CA), Chairman, Subcommittee on Human
Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the
Subcommittee will hold a hearing on welfare reform reauthorization
proposals. The hearing will take place on Thursday, February 10, 2005,
in room B-318 Rayburn House Office Building, beginning at 1:00 p.m.
Oral testimony at this hearing will be from both invited and public
witnesses. Invited witnesses will include welfare experts and program
administrators, among others. Any individual or organization not
scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for
consideration by the Subcommittee for inclusion in the printed record
of the hearing.
BACKGROUND:
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996 (P.L. 104-193), commonly referred to as the 1996 Welfare Reform
Law, made dramatic changes in the Federal-State welfare system designed
to aid low-income American families. The legislation repealed the
individual entitlement to cash welfare benefits and created the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, which
provides fixed funding to States to operate programs designed to
achieve several purposes: (1) provide assistance to needy families, (2)
end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting
job preparation, work, and marriage, (3) prevent and reduce the
incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and (4) encourage the
formation and maintenance of healthy two-parent families.
Since State and Federal welfare reforms were enacted in the mid-
1990s, national figures point to remarkable progress in combating
welfare dependence and poverty. The number of children living in
poverty has dropped by more than 1 million and the African-American
child poverty rate fell to and remains near record lows. Welfare
caseloads have fallen by 60 percent nationwide as 3 million families
and 9 million recipients have left welfare, and record numbers of
current and former welfare recipients are working.
As originally authorized by the 1996 Welfare Reform Law, TANF and
related programs expired on September 30, 2002. The House passed
comprehensive welfare reauthorization bills in 2002 and 2003; however
the Senate did not act, resulting in a series of short-term extension
bills. On January 4, 2005, senior Members of the House introduced the
Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2005 (H.R.
240). This legislation is nearly identical to legislation which passed
the House in 2002 and 2003, which would promote more work as well as
provide funding for TANF and related programs beyond the current
expiration date of March 31, 2005.
In announcing the hearing, Chairman Herger stated: ``The House has
twice passed legislation providing full funding for welfare-to-work
programs, increased funding for child care, and specific funds designed
to promote stronger families and healthy marriages. We will continue to
push for passage of legislation that represents the next step in our
Nation's efforts to reform welfare, promote work, and strengthen
families. This hearing will give us the opportunity to hear from a
variety of interested individuals and groups about ideas for further
positive reform.''
FOCUS OF THE HEARING:
The focus of the hearing is to review welfare reform
reauthorization proposals.
DETAILS FOR SUBMISSIONS OF REQUESTS TO BE HEARD:
Requests to be heard at the hearing must be made by telephone to
Michael Morrow or Kevin Herms at (202) 225-1721 no later than 5:00 p.m.
on Friday, February 4, 2005. The telephone request should be followed
by a formal written request faxed to Allison Giles, Chief of Staff,
Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, 1102
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515, at (202) 225-
2610. The staff of the Subcommittee will notify by telephone those
scheduled to appear as soon as possible after the filing deadline. Any
questions concerning a scheduled appearance should be directed to the
Subcommittee staff at (202) 225-1025.
In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, the
Subcommittee may not be able to accommodate all requests to be heard.
Those persons and organizations not scheduled for an oral appearance
are encouraged to submit written statements for the record of the
hearing in lieu of a personal appearance. All persons requesting to be
heard, whether they are scheduled for oral testimony or not, will be
notified as soon as possible after the filing deadline.
Witnesses scheduled to present oral testimony are required to
summarize briefly their written statements in no more than five
minutes. THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE WILL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED. The full
written statement of each witness will be included in the printed
record, in accordance with House Rules.
In order to assure the most productive use of the limited amount of
time available to question witnesses, all witnesses scheduled to appear
before the Subcommittee are required to submit 200 copies, along with
an IBM compatible 3.5-inch diskette in WordPerfect or MS Word format,
of their prepared statement for review by Members prior to the hearing.
Testimony should arrive at the Subcommittee office, B-317 Rayburn House
Office Building, no later than 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 8, 2005.
The 200 copies can be delivered to the Subcommittee staff in one of two
ways: (1) Government agency employees can deliver their copies to B-317
Rayburn House Office Building in an open and searchable box, but must
carry with them their respective government issued identification to
show the U.S. Capitol Police, or (2) for non-government officials, the
copies must be sent to the new Congressional Courier Acceptance Site at
the location of 2nd and D Streets, N.E., at least 48 hours prior to the
hearing date. Please ensure that you have the address of the
Subcommittee, B-317 Rayburn House Office Building, on your package, and
contact the staff of the Subcommittee at (202) 225-1025 of its
impending arrival. Due to new House mailing procedures, please avoid
using mail couriers such as the U.S. Postal Service, UPS, and FedEx.
When a couriered item arrives at this facility, it will be opened,
screened, and then delivered to the Subcommittee office, within one of
the following two time frames: (1) expected or confirmed deliveries
will be delivered in approximately 2 to 3 hours, and (2) unexpected
items, or items not approved by the Subcommittee office, will be
delivered the morning of the next business day. The U.S. Capitol Police
will refuse all non-governmental courier deliveries to all House Office
Buildings.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS IN LIEU OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE:
Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit
for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing
page of the Committee website and complete the informational forms.
From the Committee homepage, http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select
``109th Congress'' from the menu entitled, ``Hearing Archives'' (http:/
/waysandmeans.house.gov/Hearings.asp?congress=17). Select the hearing
for which you would like to submit, and click on the link entitled,
``Click here to provide a submission for the record.'' Once you have
followed the online instructions, completing all informational forms
and clicking ``submit'' on the final page, an email will be sent to the
address which you supply confirming your interest in providing a
submission for the record. You MUST REPLY to the email and ATTACH your
submission as a Word or WordPerfect document, in compliance with the
formatting requirements listed below, by close of business Thursday,
February 24, 2005. Finally, please note that due to the change in House
mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package
deliveries to all House Office Buildings. Those filing written
statements who wish to have their statements considered for
distribution to the press and interested public at the hearing can
follow the same procedure listed above for those who are testifying and
making an oral presentation. For questions, or if you encounter
technical problems, please call (202) 225-1721.
FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:
The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the
official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the
record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will
not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to
format it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the
Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the
printed record, and any written comments in response to a request for
written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any
submission or supplementary item not in compliance with these
guidelines will not be printed, but will be maintained in the Committee
files for review and use by the Committee.
1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in
Word or WordPerfect format and MUST NOT exceed a total of 10 pages,
including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised that the
Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official
hearing record.
2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not
be accepted for printing. Instead, exhibit material should be
referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material not meeting
these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for
review and use by the Committee.
3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons,
and/or organizations on whose behalf the witness appears. A
supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the name,
company, address, telephone and fax numbers of each witness.
Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on
the World Wide Web at http://waysandmeans.house.gov.
The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons
with disabilities. If you are in need of special accommodations, please
call 202-225-1721 or 202-226-3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four
business days notice is requested). Questions with regard to special
accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee
materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as
noted above.
Chairman HERGER. I would now like to begin today's hearing
on welfare reauthorization proposals and welcome our witnesses.
Ms. Woolsey, as you will be our first witness, please have a
seat at the table. The purpose of today's hearing is to review
what has been accomplished since the historic 1996 welfare
reform law was enacted and to listen to some of the best ideas
for making further progress. Welfare reform has been an
enormous success. Since enactment in 1996, work among welfare
recipients has more than doubled. Welfare dependence has been
cut in half, and more than 1 million children have been removed
from poverty. We want to continue and expand those gains to
help more single parents move toward financial stability and
independence and a brighter future. Despite these gains, we
have seen less progress in recent years. The intent of the 1996
law was to have 50 percent of the parents working while
receiving welfare benefits--not 100 percent of parents, just
half of them. The reality is we are not meeting this modest
goal. Today, less than one in three parents on welfare is
working or training--a rate that has declined in 3 of the past
4 years. At the same time, progress on reducing dependence has
slowed, and poverty rates have started to edge up again.
In 2002 and 2003, the House passed comprehensive
legislation to extend and improve the welfare reform law so it
will continue to meet our goals of reducing poverty, increasing
independence, and prioritizing work. Each bill would have
provided additional funds to help more parents work and pay for
child care costs. Each bill would have given States new
flexibility and other tools to help more parents find jobs and
achieve self-sufficiency. Each bill would have focused the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program on
reducing poverty. Each bill would have provided States the
assurance of Federal funds for the coming 5 years. Each bill
included child support program improvements that would have
provided millions more dollars to families.
Three years after the House first passed such legislation,
we are still marking time. It is a disgrace that a successful
program is languishing through eight short term extensions of
current law. Had our 2002 bill been enacted, by now States
would have received $1.8 billion more in additional child care
funds. Instead, child care funding has stayed the same, and
work by welfare recipients has actually dropped. Looking ahead,
there is no assurance of maintaining the same level of Federal
funding, even though the President's budget proposes level
funding for TANF and child care. That is the starting point for
our deliberations, not the final word. In today's budget
climate, it is not guaranteed that we can match the support
these programs might have been provided if Congress had acted
anytime since 2002. The longer we delay, the more funding will
be at risk.
On January 4th, my colleagues and I reintroduced
comprehensive welfare reauthorization legislation. This bill,
H.R. 240, expresses our continued support for more work,
stronger families, and better outcomes for children. Those are
values we all can support. I welcome Dr. Wade Horn here to
discuss the Administration's welfare reauthorization proposals
and what we have learned over the past few years. I look
forward to the testimony from our witnesses today, starting
with my colleague Representative Lynn Woolsey of California. I
especially appreciate the interest in today's topic expressed
by a range of groups and individuals who have submitted
testimony for the record. We have invited several of those
groups to testify before us today. Without objection, each
Member will have the opportunity to submit a written statement
and have it included in the record at this point. Mr.
McDermott, would you care to make a statement?
[The opening statement of Chairman Herger follows:]
Opening Statement of The Honorable Wally Herger, Chairman, and a
Representative in Congress from the State of California
Welcome to today's hearing on welfare reauthorization proposals.
The purpose of today's hearing is to review what has been
accomplished since the historic 1996 welfare reform law was enacted,
and to listen to some of the best ideas for making further progress.
Welfare reform has been an enormous success. Since enactment in
1996, work among welfare recipients has more than doubled. Welfare
dependence has been cut in half, and more than one million children
have been removed from poverty. We want to continue and expand those
gainsto help more single parents move toward financial stability and
independence and a brighter future.
Despite these gains, we've seen less progress in recent years. The
intent of the 1996 law was to have 50 percent of parents working while
receiving welfare benefits. Not 100 percent of parents--just half.
The reality is we're not meeting this modest goal. Today, less than
one in three parents on welfare is working or training today--a rate
that has declined in three of the past four years. At the same time,
progress on reducing dependence has slowed, and poverty rates have
started to edge up again.
In 2002 and 2003, the House passed comprehensive legislation to
extend and improve the welfare reform law so it will meet our goal to
continue reducing poverty, increasing independence and prioritizing
work.
Each bill would have provided additional funds to help transition
to higher work goals and to address child care costs. Each bill would
have given states new flexibility and other tools to help more parents
on welfare find jobs and achieve self-sufficiency. Each bill would have
focused the TANF program on reducing poverty. Each bill would have
provided States the assurance of Federal funds for the coming five
years. And each bill included child support program improvements that
would have provided millions more dollars to families.
Three years after the House first passed such legislation we are
still marking time. It is a disgrace that a successful program is
languishing through eight short-term extensions of current law. Had our
2002 bill been enacted, by now States would have received $1.8 billion
in additional child care funds. Instead, child care funding has stayed
the same, and work by welfare recipients has actually dropped.
Looking ahead, there is no assurance of maintaining the same levels
of Federal funding, even though the President's Budget proposes level
funding for TANF and child care. That's the starting point for our
deliberations, not the final word. In today's budget climate it is not
guaranteed that we can match the support these programs might have been
provided if Congress had acted anytime since 2002. The longer we delay
the more we jeopardize level-funding of the program.
On January 4, my colleagues and I reintroduced comprehensive
welfare reauthorization legislation. This bill, H.R. 240, expresses our
continued support for more work, stronger families and better outcomes
for children. Those are values we all can support.
I welcome Dr. Wade Horn here to discuss the Administration's
welfare reauthorization proposals and what we have learned over the
past few years. I look forward to the testimony from our other
witnesses today, starting with my colleague Rep. Lynn Woolsey from
California. I especially appreciate the interest in today's topic
expressed by a range of groups and individuals who have submitted
testimony for the record. We have invited a representative sample of
those groups to testify before us today.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry,
Ms. Woolsey, that you are going to have to listen to another
Congressman read a speech at you, but I want to say at the
outset that I am looking forward to working with Wally in this
Committee. I hope that we can lead this Committee in a way that
will be done in a bipartisan way, that will put America's
interests really above political interests. I really think that
we are at a crossroads. The gap between the rich and the poor
in America continues to grow, and economic mobility is
diminishing. Economic insecurity is growing.
The number of people in poverty, including millions of
children who do not have enough to eat, continues to rise year
after year. The number of Americans without health care
continues to grow. We are now over 44 million in this country.
Every 30 seconds in America, in the richest, most powerful
Nation on Earth, someone declares bankruptcy because they have
simply fallen sick and cannot pay their bills. As a nation and
as people, we are not taking care of each other.
Now, with the party in power running the House and the
Senate, America is turning from a nation, in my view, of ``we''
to a country of ``me,'' where citizens are rewarded for looking
out for themselves. I regret to say that under this rule the
Federal Government is turning really a blind eye to America's
most needy and most vulnerable citizens, even as they fall
deeper into poverty. The President's budget priorities are as
clear as they are disturbing, in my view. They tender lucrative
deals to defense contractors for unnecessary weapons systems.
They enrich America's top 1 percent with tax cuts that increase
their personal gain and increase America's deficits. The
President's number one domestic goal is to turn Social Security
into social insecurity. He proposes to remove the safety net
under senior citizens that keeps millions of our elderly out of
poverty when they retire.
Make no mistake: The President and his supporters are
attacking the very means by which you and me value our
responsibility to each other. America was founded on the
bedrock principle ``we,'' not ``me.'' We are duty-bound not
only ourselves but to each other. We have always been proud of
this. It has made America stand so tall in the world. Today
this hearing really focuses on Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families. The TANF goal should be to provide vulnerable
Americans with the opportunity to reach economic security and
self-sufficiency. TANF ought to stand for ``Toward a New
Future'' because that is what I want for these people . . . a
path to skills and new economic opportunity.
Despite what confronts us, the Republican refrain so far is
the same: under-fund and under-concern. The result--the
children go missing in the foster care system, are placed in
unsafe child care settings, and consistently go without a
nourishing meal. Just when you think it cannot get any worse,
well, they propose something new. H.R. 240, recently introduced
in the House, is a perfect example. It is the same bill that
was introduced 3 years ago. The bill was bad policy then, and
it remains the wrong approach today. Rather than focusing on
moving welfare recipients into wage-paying jobs, this
legislation emphasizes putting them into unpaid make-work.
Instead of increasing State flexibility to move welfare
recipients toward self-sufficiency, Republicans stick the
States with huge unfunded mandates. Rather than empowering the
welfare recipients to climb out of poverty, they are restricted
in their access to education and training.
Incredibly, the proposal is funding only 10 percent of the
urgent need for child care so that working mothers can work
without fearing for the safety of their children. They offer $1
billion in this budget. Now, the nonpartisan Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) says the real figure is $11 billion. Those
are not my numbers. Those come out of CBO. On the issue of
child care, I want to highlight three charts that expose some
troubling facts, if someone will put those charts up. The first
shows that our current effort to provide child care to needy
families is grossly insufficient. According to the data from
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), only
about one quarter of the children who are eligible for child
care under State eligibility criteria actually receive
assistance. That is not a high level. Many States are very low,
but even those do not have it. The fraction drops to roughly 1
out of 7 if you use Federal eligibility requirements. These
numbers clearly show we are falling short, and the proposal
that we have before us makes it worse.
The budget released on Monday by the Bush Administration
leaves no doubt, as illustrated by the second chart, the
Administration budget projects the number of people receiving
child care assistance will decline by over 300,000 over the
next 5 years. There is only one conclusion you can draw from
that chart: the President supports and intends to cut child
care coverage, even as his Administration proposes tougher
requirements that will keep working mothers away from the home
longer. Make longer hours that the mother has got to be out of
the home, but do not provide the child care.
My friends on the other side of the aisle might suggest
that this bill is minimally more generous on child care than
the Administration's budget. The CBO makes quick work of that
fiction and CBO ran the numbers, and you can see the results in
the third chart. The calculation simply looks at the cost of
the work requirement proposed in the Republican bill plus the
cost of keeping Federal child care funding constant with
inflation. The bottom line is a deficit--that red block at the
bottom--of $10.6 billion.
Now, the question you have to ask yourself and we have to
ask ourselves is: How are the States going to respond to this
huge shortfall? I fear the answer will be deeper cuts in child
care assistance for the working poor. Many of us believe there
is a better way, and along with my Democratic colleagues on
this Subcommittee, I am introducing legislation today that
squarely focuses on moving welfare recipients into real jobs
and ultimately out of poverty. The bill has meaningful work
requirements along with necessary resources to implement them.
One unique feature of our bill is a provision that would
allow States at their option to be judged solely on their
progress in moving welfare recipients into employment, into
jobs. Other improvements in our bill include increasing access
to skills training and restoring benefits to immigrants who
have come to this country legally. ``Toward a New Future,''
that is what TANF means to Democrats, and that is where
Americans will end up under our bill.
I invite all of our witnesses today to look at our bill,
submit any thoughts and suggestions you have to me in writing,
and beginning today we can discuss what is needed to do truly
welfare reform. We can develop an action plan. We can better
care for each other. Thank you.
[The opening statement of Mr. McDermott follows:]
Opening Statement of The Honorable Jim McDermott, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Washington
Mr. Chairman, I want to say at the outset that I look forward to
working with you. I hope that, together, we can lead the HR
Subcommittee in a bi-partisan spirit that puts America's interests
ahead of political interests.
I believe that we are at a crossroads. The gap between rich and
poor Americans continues to grow. Economic mobility is diminishing.
Economic insecurity is growing. The number of people in poverty--
including millions of children who don't have enough to eat--continues
to rise year after year.
The number of Americans without health care continues to grow--now
over 44 million.
Every 30 seconds in America, the richest, most powerful nation on
earth, someone declares bankruptcy because they have simply fallen
sick.
As a nation, and as a people, we are not taking care of each other.
With Republicans running the House, Senate, and White House,
America is turning from a nation of ``we'' to a country of ``me'' where
citizens are rewarded for looking out only for themselves.
I regret to say that under Republican Rule, the federal government
is turning a blind eye to America's most needy and most vulnerable
citizens, even as they fall deeper into poverty.
The President's budget priorities are as clear as they are
disturbing:
Tender lucrative deals to defense contractors for unnecessary
weapons systems;
Enrich America's top 1% with tax cuts that increase their personal
gain and increase America's deficit pain.
The President's number one domestic goal is to turn Social Security
into Social Insecurity. He proposes to remove the safety net under
senior citizens that keeps millions of our elderly out of poverty when
they retire.
Make no mistake, the President and his supporters are attacking the
very means by which we--you and me--value our responsibility to each
other.
America was founded on a bedrock principle--``We'' not me. We are
duty-bound not only ourselves, but to each other. We've always been
proud of this. It's what made America stand so tall in the world.
Today, this hearing will focus on the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families program. TANF's goal should be to provide vulnerable
Americans with the opportunity to reach economic security and self-
sufficiency. TANF ought to stand for: Toward A New Future, because
that's what I want for these people . . . a path to skills and new
economic opportunity.
Despite what confronts us, the Republican refrain, so far, is the
same.
Under fund and unconcerned.
The result: children go missing in foster care systems, are placed
in unsafe childcare settings, and consistently go without a nourishing
meal.
Just when you think it can't get any worse, Republicans propose
something new.
H.R. 240 recently introduced by House Republicans is a perfect
example. It is the same bill that was introduced three years ago. The
bill was bad policy then, and it remains the wrong approach today.
Rather than focusing on moving welfare recipients into wage-paying
jobs, the Republican legislation emphasizes putting them into unpaid
make-work.
Instead of increasing State flexibility to move welfare recipients
towards self-sufficiency, Republicans stick the States with huge
unfunded mandates. Rather than empowering welfare recipients to climb
out of poverty, Republicans restrict access to education and training.
And, incredibly, Republicans propose funding only 10% of the urgent
need for the childcare, so that working mothers can work without
fearing for the safety of their children. Republicans offer $1 billion.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says the real number is
$11 billion.
On the issue of childcare I want to highlight three charts that
expose some troubling facts. The first shows that our current efforts
to provide childcare to needy families are grossly insufficient.
According to data from HHS, only about one-quarter of the children
who are eligible for child care subsidies under state eligibility
criteria actually receive assistance. This fraction drops to roughly
one out of every seven children if you use the federal eligibility
standard for day care assistance. These numbers clearly show we are
falling short. And Republicans propose to make it much worse.
The budget released on Monday by the Bush Administration leaves no
doubt.
As illustrated by the second chart, the Administration's budget
projects the number of people receiving child assistance will decline
by 300,000 over the next five years.
There's only one conclusion to draw: The President supports and
intends to cut childcare coverage--even as his Administration proposes
tougher requirements that will keep working mothers away from home
longer.
My friends on the other side of the aisle might suggest their bill
is minimally more generous on childcare than the Administration's
budget. The CBO makes quick work of that fiction. CBO ran the numbers
and you can see the result in the third chart. The calculation simply
looks at the cost of the work requirements proposed in the Republican
bill, plus the cost of keeping federal childcare funding constant with
inflation. The bottom line: a deficit of $10.6 billion.
How are States going to respond to this huge shortfall? I fear the
answer will be deep cuts in child care assistance for the working poor.
Mr. Chairman, many of us believe there is a better way.
Along with my Democratic colleagues on this subcommittee, I am
introducing legislation today that squarely focuses on moving welfare
recipients into real jobs, and ultimately out of poverty.
The bill has meaningful work requirements, along with the necessary
resources to implement them.
One unique feature of our bill is a provision that would allow
States, at their option, to be judged solely on their progress in
moving welfare recipients into employment--into jobs.
Other improvements in our bill include increased access to skills-
training, and restored benefits to immigrants who have come to this
country legally.
Toward A New Future. That's what TANF means to Democrats and that's
where Americans will end up under our bill.
I invite all of today's witnesses to look at our bill and submit
any thoughts or suggestions to me in writing.
Beginning today, we can discuss what is needed to truly reform
welfare. We can develop an action plan. We can better care for each
other. Thank you.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. McDermott. Before we move
on to our testimony, I want to remind our witnesses to limit
their oral statements to 5 minutes. However, without objection,
all of the written testimony will be made a part of the
permanent record. Additionally, as today's hearing will
conclude by 4:30 p.m., we will have one round of questions per
panel. Members are welcome to submit additional written
questions to the witnesses for inclusion in the hearing record.
I would like to thank the Honorable Lynn Woolsey from
California for joining us. Please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. WOOLSEY. Chairman Herger, Ranking Member McDermott, and
Subcommittee Members, thank you very much for the opportunity
to testify today on this absolutely critical issue of welfare
reform. I come to you today not just as a concerned legislator,
but as someone who knows firsthand what it is like to depend on
public assistance for the very survival of my family. I was 29
years old when my husband left and did not leave a time to help
me raise and support my three children. They were 1, 3, and 5
years old at the time.
I had a job, but it did not pay nearly enough to support
us. I had no choice but to go on welfare--Aid to Families with
Dependent Children--in order to afford child care, health care
coverage, and the food stamps that we needed. I continued in my
job, however. It was very difficult. I cannot tell you what a
painful period it was, but eventually I was able to work my way
out of poverty and achieve self-sufficiency. I would not be
here today if it were not for the generous, compassionate
welfare system that was in place 36 years ago, and you know I
have paid back to the system.
I tell you this story in part to combat the crude
stereotype of welfare recipients as hopeless cases who are
leeching off the system. There are thousands and thousands of
success stories like mine, or more. At its best, welfare is a
lifeline, not a lifestyle. It is to be an emergency support
that helps people until they are able to put their lives
together and stand on their own two feet. Believe me, no one
wants to be on welfare. Anybody that thinks they do has to be
on welfare themselves for just a year.
The enemy is not welfare. The enemy is poverty. Too often,
when I hear people brag about welfare reform, the statistic
cited is the number of people who have been dropped from the
rolls, but that should not be the measure of success. What we
should be talking about is the number of people who have been
able to move out of poverty. As we prepare to again reauthorize
welfare reform, I sincerely hope that we will remember the
lessons learned over the past 8 years. One lesson, of course,
is that a strong economy can make some of the complexities of
welfare reform go away. During the boom of the mid-1990s, there
were jobs for people when they left welfare. Today, many of
those people are going back onto welfare because the economy is
no longer creating the same opportunities.
Which leads me to my first priority--education and
training. These priorities are key to successful welfare
reform. I believe strongly that going to school--getting
General Educational Development (GED), learning English as a
second language, attending a community college, getting an
advanced degree--must satisfy the work requirements under this
or any new bill. We need to give people the chance to receive
an education and to learn the skills that will allow them to
earn a living that will support their families. My second
priority is adjusted benefits based on the cost of living in a
particular community. Welfare recipients in my district of
Marin and Sonoma counties in California--where rents can begin
at $1,000 a month at the very bottom--need more to get by than
welfare recipients in less expensive parts of the country.
Third, this new bill must address the shortage of safe,
affordable child care. If we truly believe in family values,
then we cannot punish single parents for choosing not to work
if it means leaving their children in a dangerous care
situation.
Child care--instructor training and facility construction
among other things--is actually a centerpiece of a legislative
package I introduced last Congress called the Balancing Act.
You see, I do not think we should be satisfied with passing a
mediocre welfare reform bill. I believe we need an ambitious,
comprehensive effort to help families balance work and family.
In addition to child care provisions, the Balancing Act
includes expanded family and medical leave, universal voluntary
preschool, improved school nutrition, better after-school
programs and benefits for part-time and temporary workers.
There is no ``ownership society'' without these integral
building blocks. With that, I urge Members of the Subcommittee
and all of my congressional colleagues to remember our
obligation to those who have been dealt a poor hand and need a
``leg up'' with their government's help. We can start by
passing a welfare reform bill that empowers people rather than
punishing them. I thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Lynn C. Woolsey, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Chairman Herger and Subcommittee members . . . thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on this critical issue of welfare reform.
I come to you today not just as a concerned legislator, but as
someone who knows firsthand what it's like to depend on public
assistance for the very survival of your family. I was 29 years old
when my husband left and didn't leave a dime to help support our three
children ages 1, 3, and 5.
I had a job, but it didn't pay nearly enough to support us. I had
no choice but to go on welfare (Aid to Families with Dependent
Children) in order to afford childcare, health coverage and food
stamps. It was a difficult, painful period, but eventually I was able
to work my way out of poverty and achieve self-sufficiency. But I
wouldn't be here today if it weren't for a generous, compassionate
welfare system--and certainly 36 years later I have paid back the
system.
I tell you this story in part to combat the crude stereotype of
welfare recipients as hopeless cases who are leeching off the system.
There are a lot of success stories like mine. At its best, welfare is a
lifeline, not a lifestyle . . . as an emergency support that helps
people until they can put their lives together and stand on their own
two feet. Believe me, no one wants to be on welfare.
The enemy is not welfare; the enemy is poverty. Too often, when I
hear people brag about welfare reform, the statistic they cite is the
number of people who have been dropped from the rolls. But that
shouldn't be the measure of success. What we should be talking about is
the number of people who have been able to move out of poverty.
As we prepare to again reauthorize welfare reform, I sincerely hope
that we will remember the lessons learned over the past eight and a
half years. One lesson, of course, is that a strong economy can mask
some of the complexities of welfare reform.
During the boom of the mid-1990s, there were jobs for people when
they left welfare. Today, many of those people are going back onto
welfare because the economy is no longer creating the same
opportunities.
Which leads me to my first priority--education and training, which
are key to successful welfare reform. I believe strongly that going to
school--GED Studies, English as a Second Language, community college,
and advanced degrees--must satisfy the work requirement under any new
bill. We need to give people the chance to receive an education and to
learn the skills that will allow them to earn a living that supports a
family.
My second priority is adjusted benefits based on the cost-of-living
in your community. Welfare recipients in my district of Marin and
Sonoma Counties in California--where rents can begin at $1000 a month--
need more to get by than welfare recipients in less expensive parts of
the country.
Third, this new bill must address the shortage of safe, affordable
childcare. If we truly believe in family values, then we cannot punish
single parents for choosing not to work if it means leaving their
children in a dangerous care situation.
Childcare--instructor training and facility construction among
other things--is actually a centerpiece of a legislative package I
introduced last Congress called The Balancing Act. You see, I don't
think we should be satisfied with passing a mediocre welfare reform
bill. I believe we need an ambitious, comprehensive effort to help
families balance work and family. In addition to childcare provisions,
the Balancing Act includes expanded family and medical leave, universal
voluntary preschool, improved school nutrition, better after-school
programs and benefits for part-time and temporary workers. There is no
``ownership society'' without these integral building blocks.
With that, I urge members of the subcommittee and all of my
congressional colleagues to remember our obligation to those who've
been dealt a poor hand and need a ``leg up'' with their government's
help. And we can start by passing a welfare reform bill that empowers
people rather than punishes them. Thank you very much.
Chairman HERGER. I thank you for your testimony. Are there
any questions?
Mr. CARDIN. I would just like to point out----
Chairman HERGER. The gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you. I appreciate it. I have had the
opportunity to be the ranking Democrat on this Committee for
the last couple Congresses, and I just really want to thank
Lynn Woolsey for her help and input into the work of this
Committee. She has been a real leader in trying to understand
the importance of welfare, the sensitivity to people that go on
welfare, and our objective to try to help children
particularly. I just really wanted to thank her for her help
and leadership in this area.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Cardin. Actually, as
the Ranking Member on one of the Education and Workforce
Committees, I will be working with you hand in hand through
this process, too, and I look forward to that.
Chairman HERGER. The gentleman from Washington is
recognized.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. I listened to your speech, and I thought I
was hearing the agenda of the Workforce Committee. [Laughter.]
We are going to hear testimony from a number of Republicans in
administrative spots--mayors, Governors--that say that the
problems are not fixed by the bills we have before us. We have
got some work to do between now and----
Ms. WOOLSEY. I look forward to working with you, Mr.
McDermott, and you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey, for your
testimony. With that, we will move to our next witness. I would
like to welcome Dr. Wade Horn, Assistant Secretary for Children
and Families at HHS. Dr. Horn, please proceed with your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WADE F. HORN, PH.D., ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Dr. HORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. McDermott, and the
rest of the Members of the Committee. I am very pleased to
appear before you today to discuss the next phase of welfare
reform. I want to particularly take a moment to congratulate
you, Mr. McDermott, for assuming the Ranking Member position on
this Subcommittee. I look forward to finding common ground for
us to work together, small as that may be at the outset, but I
am convinced that we can find places where we can work
together, and I look forward to that.
I also would like to take the opportunity to express my
thanks to everyone on this Committee for their leadership and
their unceasing efforts to further improve the lives of low-
income Americans. Your initial work in enacting the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA)
has had a profound, positive effect on our Nation's vulnerable
families. Building on this success, President Bush laid out a
clear path for the next phase of welfare reform. I would like
to briefly highlight key provisions of the President's welfare
reform package and update you on the important progress we have
made in strengthening families. I will begin with TANF, the
cornerstone of our welfare reform efforts.
TANF is a remarkable example of a successful Federal-State
partnership. States effectively emphasized work while providing
families with needed training, job opportunities, and work
supports. As a result, welfare caseloads have decline by over
60 percent. Employment among never-married mothers has grown to
unprecedented levels. Child poverty rates have declined about
14 percent, and birth rates for teenagers continue to decline.
States still face many challenges. A majority of adult TANF
recipients are not engaged in employment-related activity.
States have been less effective in placing clients with
multiple barriers in work. More effective models of post-
employment supports that lead to career development and wage
progression are needed.
In addition, given what the research tells us about the
benefits of healthy marriages to children and adults, we need
to promote policies that support the formation and stability of
healthy marriages and that provide a strong and nurturing
environment for raising children. Consequently, our efforts to
reauthorize TANF buildupon our past success and address current
challenges by: strengthening the Federal-State partnership; by
requiring States to help every family they serve achieve the
greatest degree of self-sufficiency possible; by helping States
find effective ways to improve child well-being through
programs aimed at promoting healthy marriages and encouraging
responsible fatherhood; and by permitting States to better
integrate welfare and workforce assistance programs.
I would also like to briefly recognize the importance of
other programs embraced by the President's proposal in
improving a family's ability to achieve and maintain self-
sufficient: child support enforcement, child care, and
abstinence education. Like TANF, PRWORA has had an enormous
impact on the success of child support. Collections in fiscal
year 2003 were more than $21 billion, and the number of
paternities established or acknowledged reached over 1.5
million. The child support enforcement proposals being
considered as part of this welfare reform reauthorization build
on that success by strengthening enforcement tools and
directing more of the support collected to the families. Under
the proposal, families and children will benefit financially.
Equally important, children will see that their parents support
and care for them. The pass-through and disregard proposal and
the proposal to revise and simplify distribution rules will
increase the amount of collections going to families by more
than $1 billion over the next 5 years.
Access to child care assistance also can make a critical
difference in helping low-income families retain employment.
Therefore, our proposal maintains the underlying structure and
financing of these essential child care programs at the
historically high level of funding. Specifically, $2.1 billion
is proposed for the Child Care and Development Block Grant and
$2.7 billion for the child care entitlement program, a total of
$4.8 billion. In addition, States continue to have the
flexibility to use TANF funds for child care, both by
transferring up to 30 percent of TANF funds to child care
programs and by spending additional TANF money directly on
child care. When TANF funds are considered, as well as Head
Start and other State and Federal funding sources, over $18
billion is available annually for child care and related
services for kids.
The final piece of our strategy supports the
reauthorization of the State Abstinence Education Program. In
2000, there were almost 19 million new cases of sexually
transmitted diseases in the U.S., and historically about one
quarter of those cases have been teenagers. We know without any
doubt that those teens who choose to abstain from sex will not
contract such diseases and will not become pregnant. We have
seen the benefits of a strong abstinence message, and it is
clear that the State program needs to be reauthorized. Mr.
Chairman, I come before you today with a spirit of willingness
to work on a bipartisan basis with this Committee to ensure
that this year we take the opportunity before us and
reauthorize these very important programs.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Horn follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Wade F. Horn, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary,
Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services
Mr. Chairman, Mr. McDermott, and members of the Committee, I am
pleased to appear before you today to discuss the next phase of welfare
reform. Shortly after the President outlined his reauthorization
proposal ``Working Toward Independence'' in February of 2002, and again
early in 2003, this Committee and the House passed bills that would
achieve the necessary next steps outlined by the President. Most
recently you affirmed your commitment to America's families by
introducing H.R. 240 the very first day that this Congress convened. I
would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt thanks to
you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership and to the Committee for your
unceasing efforts to enact the next phase of welfare reform to further
improve the lives of low-income Americans.
It has been three years since President Bush first proposed his
strategy for reauthorizing TANF and the other critical programs
included in welfare reform. During this time, the issues have been
debated thoroughly but the work has not been completed and States have
been left to wonder how they should proceed. We believe it is extremely
important to finish this work as soon as possible and set a strong,
positive course for helping America's families. Secretary Leavitt and I
are convinced that working together with you, we will be successful.
Your initial work, the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, has had a profound,
positive impact on our nation's vulnerable families. With our State
partners, our accomplishments have far surpassed even the most
optimistic goals. With heightened expectations of personal
responsibility and greater opportunities, millions of families have
moved from dependence on welfare to the independence of work. We have
provided the necessary work supports, child care, and transportation to
ensure that parents can get to work and stay there without worrying
about the safety and well-being of their children. We also have
collected record amounts of child support on behalf of children with a
parent absent from the home.
Building on these successes, President Bush laid out a clear path
for the next phase of welfare reform. The proposal is guided by four
critical goals that will transform the lives of low-income families:
strengthen work, promote healthy families, give States greater
flexibility, and demonstrate compassion to those in need. These are the
guideposts that shaped the Administration's proposal for TANF, child
support, child care and abstinence education. This framework has not
changed.
As we prepare jointly to move forward on making the President's
welfare reform proposals a reality, I would like to use my time today
to highlight the key provisions of the President's welfare reform
package and update you on the important progress we have made in
strengthening families since the President's proposal was unveiled. I
will begin with TANF, the cornerstone of our welfare reform efforts.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
As the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, I have heard
one consistent theme about the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
program--TANF is a remarkable example of a successful Federal-State
partnership. This Committee and Congress granted States tremendous
flexibility to reform, design, and operate their welfare programs.
Initially, some questioned the wisdom of this course of action and
expressed concern about a potential ``race-to-the-bottom.'' Instead,
States effectively emphasized work, while providing families with
needed training, job opportunities and work supports. In looking at
State reported data on TANF recipients for FY 1998-FY 2003, States have
reported an average of 843,000 newjob entries each year. As a result,
millions of families have been able to end their dependency on welfare
and achieve self-sufficiency. The welfare caseload has declined by 61.4
percent and the total number of families receiving assistance is now
lower than at any time since 1970.
Some other positive outcomes we have seen since the law's passage
include:
Employment among never-married mothers has grown to
unprecedented levels. For example, between 1996 and 2003, the
employment rate for never-married mothers increased 28 percent, from
49.3 percent to 63.2 percent.
Contrary to critics who claimed that welfare reform would
impoverish one million children, the child poverty rate declined about
14 percent, with 1.6 million fewer children in poverty. Overall child
poverty rates declined from 20.5 percent in 1996 to 17.6 percent in
2003. Over this same period, the poverty rate among African American
children declined from 39.9 percent to 33.6 percent--lower than at any
time before welfare reform was enacted, when child poverty rates for
African American children were 40 percent or higher. Similarly, the
poverty rate among Hispanic children declined from 40.3 percent to 29.7
percent. Although the poverty rate has increased some since 2000 as a
result of the recent recession, the surge in job creation over the past
20 months portends renewed improvement in poverty rates.
The birth rate for teenagers continues to decline, as
does the number of births to unmarried teens.
But even with this notable progress, much remains to be done, and
States still face many challenges. While the basic structure and goals
of TANF remain strong, we are concerned about some unfavorable trends.
Despite the success in moving families from welfare to work, a majority
of adult TANF recipients are not engaged in employment-related
activities. In FY 2003, States reported that only 31 percent of
families with an adult recipient participated in the required 30 hours
of TANF work activities. We need to reverse this trend so that all TANF
recipients are given the opportunity to become self-sufficient.
States also have been less effective in placing clients with
multiple barriers (such as mental health issues, addiction, learning
disabilities, and limited English proficiency) in work. We need to
ensure that these barriers are addressed and that every family is given
work opportunities leading to self-sufficiency. But our efforts cannot
stop there. We also need to develop more effective models of post-
employment supports that lead to career development and wage
progression, programs that sustain and keep families together, and
programs that enable low-income, non-custodial fathers to help their
families both financially and in non-financial ways.
In addition, given what the research literature tells us about the
benefits healthy marriages confer on both children and adults, we need
to promote policies that support the formation and stability of healthy
marriage, and provide a strong and nurturing environment for raising
children.
Consequently, our efforts to reauthorize TANF build upon our past
success and address current challenges by:
strengthening the Federal-State partnership;
requiring States to help every family they serve achieve
the greatest degree of self-sufficiency possible through a creative mix
of work and additional constructive activities;
helping States find effective ways to improve child well-
being through programs aimed at promoting healthy marriages and
encouraging responsible fatherhood;
improving program performance and, therefore, the quality
of programs and services made available to families; and
permitting States to integrate the various welfare and
workforce assistance programs operating in their States.
I would like to offer some detail on each of these elements.
Strengthen the Federal-State Partnership
Although national caseloads are now less than half of what they
were when the TANF block grant was first established, we propose to
maintain the current level of support for TANF of $16.5 billion each
year for block grants to States and Tribes and an additional $319
million for annual Supplemental Grants to States that have experienced
high population growth and have historically low funding levels. This
will allow States to maintain investments they have made in supporting
families' transition from welfare to work, strengthening families, and
providing other benefits and services that support the goals of the
TANF program. It also will permit them to develop innovative programs
to address remaining challenges.
Other key policy changes that will increase State flexibility
include: eliminating limitations on services for the unemployed by
defining ``assistance'' so that rules tied to such spending will not
apply to child care, transportation and other support services;
allowing States to designate and obligate ``rainy day funds''; and
revising current restrictions on funds carried over from one year to
the next by allowing such funds to be spent on any service or benefit
that achieves a TANF purpose.
Maximize Self-Sufficiency Through Work
A key component of our reauthorization proposal is to maximize
self-sufficiency through work. States will be required over time to
make certain that the percentage of TANF recipients engaged in work and
productive activities grows and that the primary focus is on
participation in work--subsidized or unsubsidized employment, on-the-
job training, and supervised work experience or community service.
States also will be required to engage all TANF families with an adult
in self-sufficiency activities and they must develop, and regularly
monitor progress on, individual plans for each family that include
appropriate activities leading to self-sufficiency.
The current caseload reduction credit, the effect of which has been
the elimination of the participation rate requirement in most States,
will be phased out and replaced by an employment credit. The result of
these policy changes will be to reinstitute a meaningful work
participation rate requirement while increasing flexibility in how
States can achieve that standard.
Promote Child Well-Being, Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Marrages
Our proposal seeks to improve child well-being through programs
aimed at encouraging responsible fatherhood and healthy marriages.
Indeed, we establish improving the well-being of children as the
overarching purpose of TANF, recognizing that the four goals of TANF
are important strategies for achieving this purpose. In support of this
overarching goal, we target $100 million from the discontinued Out of
Wedlock Birth Reduction Bonus for broad research, evaluation,
demonstration and technical assistance, focused primarily on healthy
marriage and family formation activities. These demonstration efforts
will be carefully evaluated and information about successful programs
will be broadly disseminated. Our proposal also redirects $100 million
from the current law High Performance Bonus to establish a competitive
matching grant program for States and Tribes to develop innovative
approaches to promoting healthy marriages and reducing out-of-wedlock
births.
Additionally, we will provide $40 million in mandatory funding for
the promotion and support of responsible fatherhood and healthy
marriage programs to reverse the rise in father absence and its
subsequent impact on our nation's children. This funding will provide
for demonstration projects to test promising approaches to promote and
support involved, committed and responsible fatherhood, and to
encourage and support healthy marriages between parents raising
children. Funds also will be used to identify, test, and publicize
community-based programs and activities that effectively encourage and
support responsible fatherhood and that can be replicated in other
communities, including two multi-city, multi-State projects.
Improve Program Performance
Under TANF, States have become great innovators. But, the shift in
focus to a work and family support program has presented management
challenges. Therefore, our fourth reauthorization component highlights
improving program performance and accountability. For example, we
replace the current High Performance Bonus with a $100 million Bonus to
Reward Employment Achievement. Targeted on meeting the employment goals
of TANF, it will reward States for successful job placements, sustained
work and wage growth.
Program Intergration
For any organization to succeed, it must never stop asking how it
can do things better. Using the flexibility under programs such as TANF
and the One-Stop Career Center system, States have made great strides
towards transforming and integrating their public assistance programs
into innovative and comprehensive workforce assistance programs. But,
with greater flexibility even more can be accomplished. The final key
element of our TANF proposal, therefore, seeks to enable far broader
State welfare and workforce program integration through the
establishment of new State program integration demonstrations to show
the mutual benefit that could result from broad flexibility in program
integration. The proposed demonstrations could modify all aspects of
selected Federal programs, including funding and program eligibility
and reporting rules, enabling States to design fully integrated welfare
and workforce investment systems that could revolutionize service
delivery.
I would like to turn now to another program that offers a vital
connection to a family's ability to achieve self-sufficiency: child
support enforcement.
Child Support Enforcement
Child support is a critical component of Federal and State efforts
to promote family self-sufficiency and to provide for the well-being of
children. Like TANF, the child support program has been very
successful. On a national basis, the program's effectiveness in
collecting support has greatly improved. Total collections have
increased 47.6 percent in just five years, and the number of cases for
which child support was collected has increased by 78.7 percent. In FY
2003, we collected more than $21 billion of support for children--an
all-time high and a 5 percent increase over FY 2002, even while the
caseload decreased.
The child support enforcement program uses a number of tools to
ensure that children receive the support they deserve--many of which
were implemented as a result of the original welfare reform
legislation. Tools such as the National Directory of New Hires and the
Federal Case Registry, the passport denial program, the financial
institution data match, and license revocation have made a tremendous
difference in improving State performance and strengthening child
support collection efforts. Equally important, PRWORA streamlined
paternity establishment, particularly voluntary paternity
establishment, to encourage fathers to take the first step toward
providing their children with financial and emotional support. The
impact of these changes has been dramatic. The number of paternities
established or acknowledged has reached over 1.5 million. Of these,
over 860,000 paternities were established through in-hospital
acknowledgement programs.
The child support enforcement proposals being considered as part of
welfare reform reauthorization build on our success by focusing on
increasing child support collections and directing more of the support
collected to families. This focus on families represents a major shift
away from the historic purpose of the child support enforcement program
which was heretofore aimed at recouping Federal and State welfare
outlays.
Directing More Support to Families
Under current law, States and the Federal government can keep some
of the child support collected on behalf of current or former TANF
recipients to defray costs of welfare. We are proposing a change to
give States an incentive to send more child support directly to the
family. Families and children will benefit financially and, equally
important, the children will see that their parents support and care
for them.
Currently, almost half the States pass through a portion of child
support collections to TANF families. Under our proposal, the Federal
government will share in the cost of amounts passed through to families
and disregarded for purposes of determining TANF eligibility of up to
the greater of $100 per month or $50 over current State efforts.
Federal contributions to the pass-through of collections to TANF
families will provide a strong incentive to States to begin to pass-
through additional support to these families, or increase the amount of
the current pass-through. Moreover, these increased pass through
amounts will be disregarded in determining TANF eligibility, thus
providing greater financial resources to help children in need. This
proposal will increase collections going to families by $169 million
over five years.
States also will be given the option to adopt simplified
distribution rules under which families that have transitioned from
welfare will receive all of their child support collections. This
proposal will increase collections going to families by $984 million
over five years and eliminate the need for States to use complex
distribution rules.
Increasing the Amount of Child Support Collected
The second prong of our strategy for child support enforcement is
to increase the amount of support collected by adding to our existing
cadre of enforcement tools. For example, we will expand our successful
program for denying passports to parents so that it covers parents
owing $2,500 or more in past-due support. The passport denial program,
run jointly by HHS and the Department of State, currently works to deny
passports to delinquent parents owing more than $5,000 in past due
support. In FY 2004 alone, individuals with child support arrearages
paid $12.5 million in lump sum child support payments in order to renew
or obtain their passports. Under the current threshold of $5,000, there
are approximately 3.5 million cases certified at the Department of
State for passport denial. Lowering the threshold to $2,500 will likely
add an additional 500,000 cases.
Also, to ensure that child support orders are fair to both
custodial parents and children as well as noncustodial parents, we will
require States to review and adjust as appropriate, child support
orders in TANF cases every three years. These reviews will ensure that
orders reflect any changes in the needs of the child and/or the ability
of the non-custodial parent to pay.
In addition to proposals to enhance State efforts to secure child
support collections we are seeking to improve children's access to
health insurance. For example, we will require States to look to either
parent when considering the health care coverage needs of a child
rather than focusing solely on non-custodial parents as under current
law. Research shows that more health insurance is provided by custodial
parents and stepparents than is provided by non-custodial parents.
Under this proposal, States could improve their efforts to place
responsibility on parents, rather than the government, for meeting
their children's health care needs.
User Fee
In addition to our proposals for increasing support and directing
more of the support collected to families, State agencies will be
required to collect a $25 user fee for families that have never
received welfare when child support enforcement efforts on their behalf
are successful. Because the fee is collected only when the State is
successful in collecting support and represents a fraction of the cost
of the services families receive, we are confident it will not pose a
barrier to families seeking child support enforcement services.
Access and Visitation Program
Finally, in keeping with the President's commitment to strengthen
families, funding for access and visitation grant programs will double
over time, from $10 million to $20 million annually and for the first
time will be available to Indian Tribes that operate Title IV-D child
support programs. Studies have shown that when non-custodial parent/
child relationships are improved, non-custodial parents are more likely
to meet their financial responsibility to their children.
I would like to turn now to child care, a key support service for
low-income families.
Child Care
Access to child care assistance can make a critical difference in
helping low-income families retain employment. Therefore, the
Administration remains committed to preserving the key aspects of the
child care program: parental choice, administrative flexibility for
States and Tribes, inclusion of faith-based and community-based
organizations, and development of literacy, numeracy, and other early
learning skills for children in care; while maintaining the underlying
structure and financing of these essential child care programs.
Our proposal supports maintaining the historically high level of
funding for child care, including $2.1 billion for the Child Care and
Development Block Grant and $2.7 billion for Child Care Entitlement--a
total of $4.8 billion for what is referred to as the Child Care and
Development Fund or CCDF. In addition, States continue to have the
flexibility to use TANF funds for child care both by transferring up to
30 percent of TANF funds to CCDF, and by spending additional TANF money
directly for child care. When TANF funds are considered, as well as
Head Start and other State and Federal funding sources, over $18
billion currently is available for child care and related services for
children.
Funding available through child care programs and TANF transfers
alone will provide child care assistance to an estimated 2.2 million
children this year. This is a significant increase over the number
served just a few years ago; in 1998 about 1.8 million children
received subsidized care.
These substantial child care resources support our expectation that
all families will be fully engaged in work and other meaningful
activities by ensuring that safe, affordable child care is available
when necessary.
Abstinence Education
In 2000, there were almost 19 million new cases of sexually
transmitted diseases in the U.S., and historically, about one-quarter
of these cases have been teenagers. We know that for many of the
diseases there is no cure. We also know, without a doubt, that those
teens who choose to abstain from sex will not contract such diseases
and will not become pregnant. The goal of abstinence education is to
encourage our nation's youth to make the healthiest decisions for
themselves.
Therefore, the final piece of our welfare reform strategy supports
reauthorization of the State Abstinence Education Program. Recently,
the State Abstinence Education Program contained in PRWORA and the
discretionary Community-Based Abstinence program were transferred to
the Administration for Children and Families. This move provided
important linkages to community-based and faith-based positive youth
development programs which connect youth to caring adults, thereby
empowering them in their schools and communities. Such programs can be
effective in protecting young people not only against early sexual
behavior but also from illegal drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and violence.
One of the great success stories in recent years is the progress in
lowering the out of wedlock birth rate, especially among teen mothers.
The State Abstinence Education Program and Community-Based Abstinence
Education grants have helped people to develop the self-discipline to
say ``no'' to sex. They help people develop inner strength, help them
take charge of their lives, and redirect their energies into healthy
and productive choices. While the evidence is still being collected, we
are seeing the benefits of a strong abstinence message, and it is clear
that the State program needs to be reauthorized.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, the proposal I bring before you today contains many
different elements. What binds these fundamental elements together is
the desire to improve the lives of the families who otherwise would
become dependent on welfare. In his second inaugural address, the
President stated that in America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the
dignity and security of economic independence. He expressed the vision
of an ownership society, making every citizen an agent of his or her
own destiny. These ideals certainly fit the President's concept of
welfare reform as well as those embodied in H.R. 240. The Secretary and
I stand ready to work with you on the next steps to making economic
independence within the reach of America's neediest families. I would
be happy to answer any questions you have.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you for your testimony, Dr. Horn.
With that, we will proceed and turn to questions. Would the
gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Beauprez, like to inquire?
Mr. BEAUPREZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I would. Dr.
Horn, thank you for being with us. It is my first year on the
Committee, and I am delighted to be here. Tell me, I know that
Congress has passed a TANF reauthorization I believe in both
the 107th and 108th Congress. Is that correct?
Dr. HORN. The House has.
Mr. BEAUPREZ. The House has, excuse me. That is what I
meant to say, has passed in both the 107th and 108th Congress.
Dr. HORN. In the 107th, both years of that session of
Congress.
Mr. BEAUPREZ. Is the Administration changing their
reauthorization proposals this year?
Dr. HORN. No.
Mr. BEAUPREZ. Same as those?
Dr. HORN. Essentially the same. We have some additional
child support enforcement proposals related to medical child
support, but basically our proposals remain the same.
Mr. BEAUPREZ. Why then the same?
Dr. HORN. Why the same? We think that this is a good
proposal. We think that the principles embodied in our proposal
are also embodied in H.R. 240, and we think that it is time for
us to move forward and get the TANF bill reauthorized.
Mr. BEAUPREZ. Well, then the challenge apparently--assume
for a moment, if you would--I guess you would--that the bill
that the House has passed and the bill that we are considering
now is adequate. The challenge seems to be to get the Senate on
board and move the bill. I certainly hear from my constituents
back home that one of the things that they hope and pray we get
done in this Congress is to pass TANF reauthorization finally,
and I understand why.
Can you explain for me rather graphically in the time you
have got what the States are losing and, even better than that,
the people who very desperately need these benefits? What are
we talking about as opposed to where we are at now, which is
essentially a continuing resolution, something we throw around
in Congress often; but that basically says where we are at
yesterday is where we are at today. Nothing changes, right?
Dr. HORN. The biggest problem by operating this program
under a series of extensions is that the States basically are
left in the lurch wondering what the rules for this program are
going to be in the long term. In order to develop effective
welfare-to-work programs, you need to have some certainty about
what the rules of the game are because without that certainty
it is very hard to develop those kinds of effective programs
because you do not know whether next year, in fact, the rules
may change. One of the big costs to the States is that they
have this uncertainty as to what it is that they--what kinds of
rules they are going to be operating under, so it is difficult
for them to plan.
There also is a missed opportunity, the longer we delay
reauthorization, to implement a number of new flexibility
provisions which are very important to the States. For example,
under current law any State that does not obligate funds, all
of its funds from 1 year to the next can carryover those funds.
It is called unobligated balances, carryover balances. Under
current law those funds can only be used for cash assistance in
subsequent years. Well, this program is no longer primarily a
cash assistance program. It is a work support program.
Effectively what our proposal would do and what H.R. 240 would
do as one example of enhanced State flexibility is it would
allow States to unlock this now almost $2 billion in
unobligated carryover funds to do the kinds of things that I
know others on both sides of the aisle are interested in
doing--pay for child care, pay for transportation services,
pay----
Mr. BEAUPREZ. There is $2 billion just laying on the table?
Dr. HORN. There is $2 billion, and that is an under-
estimate because in States like California, where as soon as
they obligate it down to the county level, it is counted in our
books as obligated even though it may not be obligated and
sitting around at the county level. There are costs to not
getting this reauthorization done, and I think that it is both
a cost--one big cost is that the States do not have certainty
as to what the rules of the game are going to be, and the
second is that they also lose out on many of the provisions
that would enhance their flexibility. One last thing is they
also lose out on these really good and excellent child support
enforcement provisions, where we estimate that with a
relatively small investment of Federal dollars, we can over the
next 5 years essentially increase child support collections to
about $3.5 billion.
Mr. BEAUPREZ. The deadbeat dad problem.
Dr. HORN. Pardon?
Mr. BEAUPREZ. The deadbeat dad problem?
Dr. HORN. Well, we think we need to have an evenhanded
approach with the noncustodial parents.
Mr. BEAUPREZ. Fair enough.
Dr. HORN. I used to run an organization called the National
Fatherhood Initiative, and I do not like the term ``deadbeat
parents.''
Mr. BEAUPREZ. That is okay. I thought we guys were the
whole----
Dr. HORN. There are very good provisions in child support,
too, that would make sure that more families had money in their
hands and those provisions are also tied up in this bill.
Mr. BEAUPREZ. Thank you very much. I thank the chairman.
Chairman HERGER. The gentleman is welcome. We do have a
series of votes on the House floor at this time, so we will go
and vote as soon as possible and return as soon as the votes
have concluded. This hearing stands in recess.
[Recess.]
The Subcommittee will continue, and the gentleman from
Washington, the Ranking Member, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Horn, good to
see you again.
Dr. HORN. Good to see you.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. I do hope we find some common ground.
Dr. HORN. I agree.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. According to the Administration's own
estimates, this budget will lead to 300,000 fewer Americans
receiving child care assistance. Now, the President in this
bill wants us to raise up the work requirements, which means
people are going to be out there working more, which in my
simple understanding would mean that you are going to need more
child care for workers. Where is that money going to come from,
if you could tell me? Do you think that is all buried in there
somewhere? Or do you think the States have it? Or where is the
money going to come from, the $10 billion that we showed
earlier?
Dr. HORN. First of all, I think the estimates that you are
referring to in terms of the 5 year estimates, if the child
care development fund is not adjusted for inflation, assumes
that there will be level funding of the child care development
fund in each of the next 4 years. As you know, we go through a
budgetary process each year, and the Administration has not
announced a position that there ought to be no increases in
child care over the next 5 years. It is just the way the
estimate is done, assuming that there is no increase. There is
a budgetary process we go through every year, and those
decisions will be made at that time.
In addition to that, it is important to keep in mind that
one provision of the President's proposal that is also
contained within H.R. 240 would unlock immediately, if passed,
nearly $2 billion in funding that could be utilized for child
care if States deemed that that is a priority for them. One of
the benefits of getting the bill passed quickly is it would
immediately unlock that $2 billion, which right now not a penny
of that can be used for child care.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Where is that $2 billion right now you say
is all locked up somewhere?
Dr. HORN. It is in the unobligated carryover funds that
States have. As you know, under TANF if you do not spend all of
your money in a given year, you can carry that money over. The
problem is that under current law, if you carry any of that
money over from 1 year to the next, you can only use that money
for cash assistance. You cannot use it for other kinds of work
supports. The States have to report to us each year how much in
the carryover fund they have and how much of that carryover
fund is obligated, how much of that is unobligated, and the
latest numbers that we have suggest that there is almost $2
billion in unobligated carryover funds which could immediately
become available for child care if this bill were passed.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Well, my understanding is that the States
are already spending nearly all of that TANF money because they
use a growing portion of the money on work-related services and
antipoverty measures rather than on cash assistance. It seems
to me like that money is gone. Do you feel you--because I want
to ask the next witnesses whether they have any money laying
around in their States or not that they have not been spending,
because you are asserting that there is some money out there
somewhere.
When you plan a budget that says you are going to have
300,000 more, the economy is not picking up. The jobs are not
getting better in terms of the amounts that people are earning.
That means it is harder for them to hire child care, good child
care. I do not understand, because I don't think any State--I
am going to ask the State people when they get here where they
think they will get the money to provide child care for their
programs. I understand this is a 50/50 deal, but it seems--or,
no, it is not a 50/50 deal. It is one of those sort of joint
partnerships where everybody tries to slide away from who is
responsible for it.
Dr. HORN. Well, first of all, let me say I agree with you
that child care is important work support, and there is a
provision in TANF, which no one proposes to change, that says
that if child care is not available to a recipient, the State
cannot sanction that family for not going to work. We do not
propose to change that. We think child care is a necessary and
important work support for families leaving the TANF program.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. I see my time is almost done, so I want to
ask you one short question. Has the National Governors'
Association (NGA) endorsed your bill and said this is a good
idea?
Dr. HORN. I don't recall.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. You don't recall?
Dr. HORN. No.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Did you go out and talk to them and show
this bill to them and say, ``What do you think, guys--and
ladies?''
Dr. HORN. Yes, we have had conversations with the NGA.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. You did approach them?
Dr. HORN. Sure.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. You don't know what their decision was? Is
that because they haven't decided or because I didn't want to
hear the answer?
Dr. HORN. I don't recall what position they have taken on
the bill, to be honest with you.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HERGER. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. English, to inquire.
Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn, I guess I am getting old or something because I
was around here 10 years ago when we were doing welfare reform.
I was on this Subcommittee, and, you know, the strange echo of
some of the arguments that we heard back then based on CBO
projections we are hearing now, that the Administration's
proposal is inadequate. The same CBO projections turned out, as
I understand, 10 years ago to be off by about $20 billion. In
fact, whereas we were hit with the argument repeatedly we had
not set enough money aside for child care even though we had
actually put aside more than the Clinton Administration had
asked for, it turned out we did have adequate funding for child
care. Does not the experience that the Administration has had
suggest that there is enough money plugged in regardless of
what statistics are being thrown around by critics?
Dr. HORN. I have looked at the CBO estimates that were
released yesterday, and I think that the CBO is, unfortunately,
repeating a mistake they made back in 1996, and that mistake is
to assume that caseloads will stay constant over 5 years. The
reason why CBO was so off in its estimate in 1996 concerning
how much money in the TANF program and child care programs were
necessary is because they assumed that over the next 5 years
the caseloads would not decline. Well, guess what happened?
They declined by almost 60 percent, and so that freed up a lot
of additional money. Rather than being 13 and I have seen some
estimates as high as $20 billion short, what really happened is
we have $2 billion left over in unobligated balances here 7
years later. They are making the same mistake, in my view, in
these new estimates. They are assuming that over the next 5
years there will be no caseload decline as a consequence of the
new work requirements and the work participation requirements.
Well, if it were true that the package of reforms that we
are advocating and that are seen within H.R. 240 would result
in no additional caseload decline, I would be against the
proposal. It would not make any sense. The whole idea of the
proposal that is embodied in the President's proposal as well
as in H.R. 240 is to encourage even more people to leave
welfare to go to work, meaning the caseloads will decline. When
the caseloads decline, it frees up additional money that then
does not have to be spent on cash assistance and becomes
available for child care.
Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot see the light so I do not know how--
oh, there we go. I am green, okay.
Chairman HERGER. Two minutes.
Mr. ENGLISH. I wanted to jump then, Mr. Horn, to your
testimony with regard to child support, which I think is
frequently one of the parts of the welfare reform story that
really was genuinely bipartisan 10 years ago and is a
remarkable success story. Can you please detail for us the
Administration's proposal in this area?
Dr. HORN. Well, I probably do not have enough time to talk
about all of them because it is quite a large package, so let
me talk about it conceptually. First of all, what the
Administration proposes to do is to provide States with
incentives to pass through more of the money that is collected
in child support actually to families, both families who are
currently on welfare and also those who have left, because we
believe that we need to move to a place where child support is
no longer a welfare cost recoupment program for the States and
the Federal government, but really a program that provides
ongoing financial support to families. The way to do that is to
encourage more pass-through and also to encourage that States,
when they pass through additional moneys, that they disregard
those child support payments in calculating eligibility for the
TANF program.
At the same time, we have a package of additional
enforcement mechanisms that would generate, we think, greater
child support collections, and we also wanted a more evenhanded
approach so that we could work with fathers who want to pay,
the ones who are more, in Dr. Johnson's vernacular, ``dead
broke'' than ``deadbeat,'' and work with them so that they can
get employment so they can start fulfilling their financial
obligations to their kids. Then, finally, we have some new
proposals around medical child support, the idea being we want
to have a system in place that ensures more kids are covered,
not just financially but also in terms of medical insurance, if
they, in fact, are in a situation where there is a noncustodial
parent.
Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman HERGER. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Emanuel, to inquire.
Mr. EMANUEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Horn,
for being here. I want to pick up a little on what my colleague
from Pennsylvania said, but having at another time in another
life, it feels like, worked on the other side of Pennsylvania
Avenue on the first bill that led to some of the successes and
benchmarks that you are citing, it was principally because of a
strategy and philosophy that dealt with eliminating the speed
bumps on the way to moving people from dependence to
independence--A, in child care; B, in health care assistance;
C, transportation assistance; and then through the earned
income tax cut and the minimum wage. It made work a more
attractive alternative to dependency. Second, we removed the
speed bumps that took work down below as a means of economic
independence to dependency because it was child care, health
care, and also basically ways of support, whether that is
through the minimum wage or earned income tax credit.
My problem is when you look at what the bill is that you
are advocating, in many ways you divert from what has been a
proven success in moving people--forget just the numeric
reductions in the payroll. I think the biggest accomplishment
is for the children of some of these families when they can say
and identify all of us grew up in a culture of work and a
philosophy of work. We knew what our parents did. We identified
with the philosophy of work, the schedule of work. When a child
whose parent moves from dependency to independence, they are
part of that culture of work, and they can answer what their
parent does at school. Unfortunately, what is wrong with this
legislation is you depart from that road map. I will just tell
you from my own experiences in Chicago, there are not enough
child care slots and there are not enough child care dollars. I
think my Mayor and our Governor do a great job.
Second is rather than just have 1 year of transition health
care assistance, we should be building on that 1 year because
it was so essential because a lot of people go from--what
parent--let me stop myself there. What parent would choose
Medicaid, guaranteed health care for their children, versus a
job with no health care and only 1 year? That is putting a
parent in a horrible choice between their own economic
independence and their children's health care, and those are
the choices this plan gives. Rather than say only 1 year of
Medicaid, we should actually take Medicaid to a second year,
help these parents be good parents at work and good parents at
home, and we are not doing that.
The problem with this legislation is it does not take the
lessons of the success of the last 6 years under the welfare
program 1996 and build on them. In many ways, it contorts them
and departs from them. I think what you want to do here and I
think what the Democratic alternative does is on all those
areas--child care resources and slots, health care beyond the
first year of transitional assistance, earned income tax
credit, minimum wage, transportation assistance, moving people
from where they live to where the jobs are--you have abandoned
that, that to me is what is so infuriating because it
actually--this was the first time we all collectively--not at
first, it went through two vetoes to get there--did the right
thing both for the government, for the people it serves, and
the taxpayers.
I think every one of us--and what I want to bring up--and I
hope that I can submit to the record, Mr. Chairman, the Joyce
Foundation in Chicago did a six State study for 6 years on
welfare reform--Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin--all
these great States that everybody was praising--Iowa--had
different economic groups, and so forth. What did the
respondents who moved successfully from welfare to work say?
The 38 percent, the biggest thing, child care dollars. This was
while the States were flush with child care dollars, and they
said the biggest prohibition to getting a job was not enough
child care resources or availability of slots. Second, after
they were up with their 1 year, they lost their health care.
Add a second year of health care transition.
Then third, obviously, as you well know--and if you do not,
I will get you a subscription to the newspaper. You can pick
the newspaper. Wages are being suppressed in this country.
Minimum wage has not kept up. Earned income tax credit has not
kept up. In all those areas we are not building on it. If we
are walking away from 6 years of experimental success, and that
is my problem. I hope you can take a look at the Joyce
Foundation study, what the respondents who successfully have
moved from welfare to work said they needed--not CBO, not OMB,
not some bureaucracy in Washington, but people on the ground,
parents who have done it right. If you haven't seen that study
from the Joyce Foundation, I would be more than willing to
forward it to you, and I would like to submit it into the
record, Mr. Chairman, if that is okay.
Chairman HERGER. Without objection.
Mr. EMANUEL. Thank you.
[The study was not received at time of printing.]
Dr. HORN. Congressman, first I would say welcome to the
Subcommittee. I have had the opportunity----
Mr. EMANUEL. That is a good welcome after what I just said.
[Laughter.]
Dr. HORN. I look forward to working with you. I am a great
admirer of the work that you did on the 1996 law, and I agree
with you that the 1996 law did a number of very important
things. I think that in the history of social policy in the
20th century, the welfare reform law 1996 will go down as one
of the great shining successes. I agree with you. There are
some who would argue then if it is not broken, don't fix it. I
work for a President who says if it isn't perfect, make it
better. Also, I think we could agree that it isn't perfect.
Now, we may disagree on how to make it better, but what we are
trying to do is not to retreat upon a successful program but
make it better. There are a couple of things that I would
point----
Mr. EMANUEL. Well, if I could say one thing--and I do not
mean to interrupt, but I am a middle child and so I have to. I
just don't want to make, you know, the perfect the enemy of the
good.
Dr. HORN. I agree with that.
Mr. EMANUEL. If we are going to throw analogies around--my
one concern here, though, is that I understand you think you
can make it perfect, but in every area from health care to
child care to wages to transportation, you are not building on
the program of success.
Dr. HORN. Let me point out just a couple areas where I
think that we are, because we have seen some weaknesses. Right
now, because of the caseload reduction credit, we basically
have a zero work participation rate in many States. Twenty
seven States now have a work participation rate requirement of
5 percent or less. Twenty seven States. We ought to fix that
because the consequence of that is that we are seeing the
percentage of welfare recipients who are actually participating
in work declining over the last 3 years to right now only 31
percent of those who satisfy the current work participation
requirements. We ought to fix that. We also think we ought to
be having every single person who walks through the door of a
welfare agency immediately engage with a case plan developed
within 60 days so that we can get everybody off of welfare as
quickly as possible. There are a number of areas I think we can
agree on, and I look forward to working with you on that.
Chairman HERGER. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. EMANUEL. Can I just add one point, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HERGER. Very quickly.
Mr. EMANUEL. Very quickly, the reason you are down on lower
work participation is you are dealing with the hardcore cases.
The first 6 years dealt with the easier cases, and just making
harder requirements on work does not mean you are going to get
better success results. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HERGER. The gentlelady from Connecticut, Mrs.
Johnson, is recognized.
Mrs. JOHNSON. To the preceding gentleman's comment, there
certainly is truth in the fact that you are dealing with many
who are harder to employ. To have a zero work requirement
result from our bill is also irrational. Now, in this new bill,
it is my understanding that mental health and substance abuse--
time spent in mental health treatment programs and substance
abuse programs can count as work for the 16 hours between these
3 days of work and the full 40-hour requirement. I think that
is important. I think if people are going to be full-time
workers and look toward the future for full-time work and self-
sufficiency, they need to be able to count their work toward
dealing with personal problems as real work, because it is.
Also, my understanding is that you recognize in the bill
the importance of people gaining knowledge of child
development, of nutrition, of health, of financial management
sills. I am concerned that just saying it is possible is not
enough, that we need to be more prescriptive and require States
to offer plans like that, programs like that so that people
coming off welfare do have not only the opportunity but that
obligation, because you just cannot be successful, and
particularly in today's world, if you do not develop some
financial management capabilities. That is one question, and
then I am going to give you a chance to answer all these.
Second, does this bill better tie together work training
and career advancement know, in other words, so people are more
clear that if I decide to get an LPN, what are the next steps?
What are the next steps up the education ladder, up the career
ladder, up the income ladder? Last, the President's interest in
fatherhood really pleases me. You have done a lot of work in
that area, both in government and out of government. We will
not ever make a dent in this fatherhood problem if we don't
make the fathers of women on welfare who are not working
eligible for the work and training programs and bring them into
these courses that the mothers must take on child development,
financial planning, adult development. That is where we really
want to help young people grow in an understanding of how
relationships enrich their lives, make work lives successful,
make parenting successful and so on. I know it would be
expensive to treat them exactly like the women on welfare, but
a lot of them are not employed or they are employed in the
underground. If they are employed in the underground, it is
almost worse because they are not paying Social Security and
they will never get Medicare, and for whom would it be a
reasonable decision to marry someone like that?
Both how do we get hooked, and then how do we help them
work off arrearages so, again, they would be eligible for a job
in the real world and could move ahead? The fatherhood issues,
career development issue, and then in those 40 hours making
absolutely clear and rather compulsory, if you do not have
something else better to do, that you do take these courses
that you should have had in our high schools if we were
thinking?
Dr. HORN. Well, I will try to be brief in all three
answers. First of all, there is always a delicate balancing act
between the principle or the goal of State flexibility and the
principle or the goal of, you know, what we think would be a
good idea. I agree with you that I do think that the kinds of
services that you listed are all very good and worthwhile
things to do, but we put them in the category of State
flexibility. They are things we would encourage, but not
necessarily require them of recipients because not every
recipient requires each one of those services.
In terms of career advancement, the research literature is
pretty clear that education-first strategies are less effective
than are workforce strategies. The best strategy is one that
combines the two, and that is precisely at the heart of what
the President has proposed and what is also embodied in H.R.
240. That is to say, we do not require 40 hours of work;
neither does your bill. What it says is there are 24 hours of
work, but you also have to fill in that other time, those other
16 hours.
Well, what would you fill that in with? Well, I would hope
that most people would fill that in with additional education
and training experiences, because how do people get better
jobs? First of all, they establish good work histories. Someone
who comes to you as an employer who says, ``I do not have any
reliable work history,'' is not someone you are likely to hire.
You want to get them into work to start to get that reliable
work history.
On the other hand, if you come to an employer and say, ``I
have no skills,'' they say, ``Well, this is a skilled position.
I am not going to hire you.'' Rather than throwing a wild party
because we have gotten someone off of the TANF rolls because
they have a part-time job now, stuck at low wages, unskilled,
what the President's proposal and H.R. 240 says is we want the
agencies to continue to work with that client to give them
additional education and training so they can get a better job.
Mrs. JOHNSON. Right. Good. Thank you.
Chairman HERGER. The gentlelady's time has expired. The
gentleman from California, Mr. Becerra, to inquire.
Mr. BECERRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Horn, thank
you for being here. Let me see if I can delve into a bit this
whole issue of child care. I think we all see the glaring
numbers, but I am still trying to make sense of how we expect
to make a great deal of progress when only one in four of the
eligible children in this country would be serviced by this
legislation. Explain to me, give me the 30-second sound bite of
how it is that the Administration expects women with children,
especially those under 5 or 6 years of age, to succeed in the
workplace if they have got small kids and they will be
receiving no money to help them with child care.
Dr. HORN. I will give you the 10 second sound bite. They
would not be required, either under current law, the
President's proposal, or H.R. 240, to go to work if, in fact,
there is not child care available. That is current law. We do
not propose to change that.
Mr. BECERRA. What they will do is they will exhaust their
time to TANF proposals and then all of a sudden before they
know it, they have hit the barrier, and they no longer get any
benefits under welfare, and they still have not gotten a job.
Their kids are a little bit older, and they still cannot get
child care.
Dr. HORN. I understand your concern, but I do not think
that is the way it would work.
Mr. BECERRA. How would it----
Dr. HORN. First of all, if you look at the CBO estimates
over the next 5 years, of the $8.3 billion they estimated being
necessary, half of that is in costs related to work programs
and half of that is in child care.
Mr. BECERRA. No, but let's focus on the child care dollars.
My understanding is that the President's own numbers show that
you will be providing assistance to less children as a result
of this proposal than you are right now, some 300,000 less; and
as it is, we are only providing child care eligibility and
funding for that to the States for a quarter of the 9.5 million
children.
Dr. HORN. Again, the 300,000 less kids being provided with
child care is the assumption that there is level funding for
the next 5 years in the child care development fund. Those are
decisions that have not been made. Each of those--each year----
Mr. BECERRA. What about the President's budget that he
presented this past week?
Dr. HORN. That is for 2006. It is not for 2007, 2008, 2009,
and 2010.
Mr. BECERRA. Are you telling us today that you are going to
let us know that the Administration will be proposing at least
increases equal to the cost of living over the next 5 years?
Dr. HORN. If I told you that today, I would be the former
Assistant Secretary tomorrow, I assure you. [Laughter.]
Mr. BECERRA. Well, last year you did not say you would, and
you are still the current Assistant Secretary. So----
Dr. HORN. What I am saying is that those are decisions that
have not been made and will be made within the context of
future budget requests.
Mr. BECERRA. How is it that you are coming before this
Committee and the President has presented a budget and those
decisions have not been made? Is there a reason why women who
are looking for a way out of welfare, who have children, who
are hoping to end the vicious cycle of poverty for themselves,
have to wait longer to find out what happens in this budget?
Dr. HORN. No, because if you pass TANF today, tomorrow
almost $2 billion becomes available immediately that cannot be
spent for child care today. It becomes immediately available--
--
Mr. BECERRA. You are going back to the TANF dollars?
Dr. HORN. The carryover, the unobligated carryover
balances, yes.
Mr. BECERRA. I think you answered Mr. McDermott a bit on
this. Have you done an analysis of how much TANF money is
actually available to these States?
Dr. HORN. How much is available?
Mr. BECERRA. Yes.
Dr. HORN. Between TANF and child care over the next 5
years, $167 billion.
Mr. BECERRA. Okay. Now, you are saying that is free money
that is available?
Dr. HORN. No, no, no. I misunderstood your question.
Mr. BECERRA. How much of the TANF money that you say that
you can use--you said there is about $2 billion available
there. How much of that is--have you done an analysis, first,
of the $2 billion that you say may be available of the TANF
cash assistance money?
Dr. HORN. Well, under TANF, as you know, there is $16.7
billion available----
Mr. BECERRA. That I understand. I am just wondering if you
done an analysis.
Dr. HORN. Of how much of that $2 billion could be used for
child care?
Mr. BECERRA. Yes, child care.
Dr. HORN. One hundred percent, if you pass this bill.
Mr. BECERRA. I understand it could. Are the States willing
to let it be used for that?
Dr. HORN. Well, the States have the flexibility to decide
how to use that money under the bill.
Mr. BECERRA. In your analysis, did you determine that the
States have enough money that they need for their own cash
assistance programs, for their work-related programs, that they
could use TANF dollars for child assistance? Did you do that
type of analysis?
Dr. HORN. We did not ask the States how they would use
those unobligated balances.
Mr. BECERRA. You are proposing to us that we consider those
$2 billion in TANF dollars that you say are available for child
care. You must be relying on something. There must be some
factual basis for you to say that. Otherwise, the States are
going to come screaming to us saying, Please, we do not have
enough TANF money as it is, now you are talking about using the
TANF money that we are supposed to use for work-related
activities for all the other things we have to do for cash
assistance to these mothers who are on welfare, and at the same
time use it for child care. You can only use the dollars so
many times.
Dr. HORN. We have had lots of conversation with the States,
including the NGA, on the issue of carryover balances. I would
state without fear of contradiction that the States believe
that it would be a very, very good thing to allow them to use
those carryover balances in whatever way that the State feels
is useful to them in service of----
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Secretary, I would ask you if you could
provide us with any written analysis that has been done by your
Department on the availability of those 2 billion TANF dollars.
Dr. HORN. Sure, I would be happy to do that.
Mr. BECERRA. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HERGER. The gentleman's time has expired. Dr.
Horn, the President's proposal and H.R. 240, the bill
introduced by the senior House Republicans last month, would
require States to engage all TANF recipients with an adult in
self-sufficiency activities as well as to develop individual
plans for activities leading to self-sufficiency. Given that
the work rates have fallen among the welfare recipients in 3 of
the last 4 years, this seems to be very important. Can you talk
a little bit more about the importance of engaging families? Is
there evidence that States are not working to engage families
immediately?
Dr. HORN. First of all, I want to say that many States and
many local welfare-to-work programs are doing the best job that
they can, are really committed to this program. On the other
hand, there is a reason why in its wisdom this Congress passed
a bill in 1996 that set a work participation rate, because it
believed that it was important for the States to focus on
getting people into work, and one way to do that is to set a
minimum work participation rate.
Now, if you ask the average American what percentage of
people on welfare are supposed to be engaged in work, the
average American would say all of them. They do not say 50
percent. They certainly do not say 31 percent. They think all
of them are. The fact of the matter is that because of the
caseload reduction credit, right now only 31 percent of those
on TANF are satisfying the work requirements. I do not think
that is because States, you know, are ignoring their welfare-
to-work programs. It seems to us that it is time for us to put
a work participation rate requirement back in that is real, at
the same time also putting a new requirement that within 60
days every TANF recipient that walks through the door, within
60 days has a case plan.
Congresswoman Johnson, you and I, unfortunately, remember
the days in child welfare when there was not a case plan for
people in child welfare. Well, Congress fixed that. Now
everybody has got a case plan. They often are not developed
enough, quick enough for my taste, but they have a plan. It is
astounding that people who go into TANF offices do not have a
plan. How are you going to fully understand what their needs
are, how are you going to fully understand what the
opportunities are to engage them unless someone sits down and
says let's develop a plan? That seems to be a minimum
requirement, one that I think, my guess is, everybody agrees
with. Let's put a requirement on it that says everybody ought
to be engaged, because we don't want them sitting around
without a plan, without someone working with them, because we
know the time clock is ticking. We are not doing them any
favors in just letting them stay on welfare both because if you
are on welfare--guess what?--you are going to be poor, forever.
Tthere are not any rich people on welfare. You are going to be
poor. Also it is important to note that their time clock is
ticking, and the only way to really move them quickly,
preserving enough time on the time clock in case they need it
in the future, is to engage them quickly.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Dr. Horn, and we
appreciate your testimony. With that, I would like to invite
our next panel to join us at the table. This afternoon we will
be hearing from Kevin McGuire, Executive Director of the Family
Investment Administration, Maryland Department of Human
Resources; Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow at the
Heritage Foundation; Dr. Ron Haskins, Senior Fellow at the
Brookings Institution and Senior Consultant at the Annie E.
Casey Foundation; Dr. Jeffery Johnson, President and chief
executive officer of the National Partnership for Community
Leadership, accompanied by Yovani Rivera; and Jason Turner,
Director of the Center for Self-Sufficiency. Mr. McGuire to
testify.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN M. MCGUIRE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FAMILY
INVESTMENT ADMINISTRATION, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
RESOURCES, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
Mr. MCGUIRE. Good afternoon. I am Kevin McGuire, the
Executive Director of the Family Investment Administration at
the Maryland Department of Human Resources. I bring greetings
from Governor Bob Ehrlich to his friends and former colleagues
on the Committee. I also bring a special greeting to Maryland
Congressman Ben Cardin, a Member of the Subcommittee who has
worked for bipartisan welfare reform both in Congress and in
Maryland.
I am also here to share with you the Ehrlich
Administration's mission to engage and strengthen communities
and families through service, innovation, and reengineering.
Thanks to the policymaking leadership of the Congress,
Maryland's Joint Committee on Welfare Reform, and the support
of the Maryland General Assembly, my department has had
unprecedented flexibility to accomplish our mutual goals. I
certainly think Maryland is in the forefront of States with
successful welfare reform programs.
Due to your leadership, Maryland's Family Investment
Program has been very effective. It is a flexible, outcome-
based model that has allowed us to devolve many of the
operational decisions on program implementation to our local
departments of social services. Among some of our successful
outcomes is the decline of our cash assistance from 227,887
recipients in January 1995 to now 65,714 recipients in January
2005. That is an unprecedented decline and that is the lowest
in cash assistance in our State since November 1963.
In addition to wages, families that leave welfare for work
also continue to receive medical assistance and food stamp
benefits and receive refundable earned income tax credits from
both the Federal and State governments. We found that that has
been very successful and very helpful for making the case of
moving from welfare to work. We also have followed TANF
reauthorization very carefully. During repeated continuances of
the program, we have determined for some time that, whatever
ultimately reauthorization will be, it will include proposals
calling for an increase in work participation rates, an
increase in work hours, a different scope of defined work
activities, universal engagement, and reform of the caseload
reduction credit.
Now, we have done this because for Maryland the stakes are
enormous, as failure to meet the new work requirement rates and
universal engagement requirements could subject the State to a
potential liability for large Federal penalties. Consequently,
we have taken a proactive approach to be prepared for what is
likely to lie ahead. We have been making plans for new
initiatives that will give our State a head start on some of
these things.
Now, we did it for a couple of reasons. Two of the biggest
things we did is we started on a process of universal
engagement and increased work participation, and since the
Ehrlich Administration has been in, we have roughly--we have
had a very low work participation rate for federally counted
work activity. We have basically doubled it by now. At the same
rate, we still have caseload going down and people are still
going to work. We think that we are on the right track, but we
just want to share with you some of the things that we want to
do.
To move forward, we agree with you, Chairman, that despite
the success of the 1996 proposals, more work needs to be done.
My staff and I have carefully reviewed the proposals in H.R.
240, the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion
Act of 2005, and we think it provides a firm foundation on
which to build our continuing efforts to meet the goals of
welfare reform. We are especially pleased that the bill
maintains many of the very positive and flexible features of
the original legislation, including funding for the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families program, full funding, and
provides some increase in funding for child care programs.
Similarly, the continuation of the transitional medical
assistance program will continue to ensure that individuals
leaving welfare for work have important health coverage for up
to a year after they leave the rolls.
We have also noticed a couple of opportunities that are
provided in the bill, some of which I will just basically touch
on: Provision for healthy marriage initiatives. We think that
the new provisions aimed at encouraging healthy marriages and
two parent married families are very encouraging. We also like
the idea of expanded State demonstration authority. We are very
enthusiastic about the new State-flex demonstration authority,
and we strongly support the concept that States are the
laboratories of democracy. Maryland has recognized that the
vast diversity of government, means tested programs, in itself,
sometimes leads to confusion and inadvertently sets up barriers
to program access and participation. We think having the
flexibility will allow us to address that.
We also like an opportunity to continue improving the food
stamp program. While people have moved from welfare to work, we
have done something in Maryland that was very interesting. We
have taken care of a lot of our administrative problems in
payment accuracy, but we have also increased the number of
working people on food stamps while the caseload is going down.
That is something that is pretty well to do. Some of the
challenges? Increasing work requirements, we are considering
replacing the recalibrated caseload reduction credit with an
employment credit, consider providing penalty relief to States
making steady improvement in their rates, and just one other
thing, simply: We need a bill. I cannot go on years and years
going to my legislature without a bill. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McGuire follows:]
Statement of Kevin M. McGuire, Executive Director, Family Investment
Administration, Maryland Department of Human Resources, Baltimore,
Maryland
Good afternoon. I am Kevin McGuire, Executive Director of the
Family Investment Administration at the Maryland Department of Human
Resources. I bring greetings from Governor Bob Ehrlich to his friends
and former colleagues on the committee. I also bring a special greeting
to Maryland Congressman Ben Cardin, a member of the subcommittee who
has worked for bipartisan welfare reform both in the Congress and in
Maryland.
Background: Your Leadership Has Enabled Us To Do Great Things
I am here to share with you the Ehrlich administration's mission to
engage and strengthen communities and families through service,
innovation and reengineering. Thanks to the policymaking leadership of
the Congress, Maryland's Joint Committee on Welfare Reform and the
support of the Maryland General Assembly my Department has had
unprecedented flexibility to accomplish our mutual goals. I certainly
think Maryland is in the forefront of states with successful welfare
reform programs.
Because of your leadership, Maryland's Family Investment Program
(FIP) has been very effective. It is a flexible, outcome-based model
that has allowed us to devolve many of the operational decisions on
program implementation to our local departments of social services.
Among our successful FIP outcomes is the decline of our cash welfare
caseload from 227,887 recipients in January 1995 to 65,714 recipients
in January 2005, a decline of 161,173 adults and children, reducing the
caseload by 71.2%. In our last state fiscal year alone, we placed more
than 9,000 recipients in unsubsidized employment. We have also seen
significant increases in the average starting wage for those placed in
jobs which is now at $8.08 an hour.
In addition to wages, families that leave welfare for work in
Maryland also continue to receive Medical Assistance and Food Stamp
benefits and receive refundable Earned Income Tax Credits from both the
Federal and State governments. They also may receive child care
assistance and child support payments. We found that 98% of exiting
families receive at least one of these benefits. In total, based on the
average wage and available benefits in Maryland, we estimate that a
family of three can experience an increase in cash and in-kind income
from $10,416 when on cash assistance to $27,715 when working at our
current average wage at placement.
We are convinced that it is better for a family to be off welfare
and working. Dr. Catherine Born of the University of Maryland School of
Social Work in her Life After Welfare series of studies supports this
conclusion. Dr. Born has consistently found that the majority of those
who have left welfare did so because they found jobs, have not returned
to welfare, and have kept their families together. She has found that a
majority of former Maryland TANF recipients work in a job covered by
unemployment insurance that their earnings increase over time and
almost two-thirds of those that exit cash assistance for at least one
month remain off the welfare rolls.
In short, we have been enabled by your legislative policy
leadership to develop a plan with outcomes that have silenced the early
naysayers of welfare reform when the original legislation was being
debated in 1996 and exceeded our own expectations.
In the Absence of TANF Reauthorization, We Have Continued to Innovate
and Plan
We have instituted a new reporting mechanism, which I have adapted
from my experience in New York called JobStat. JobStat is a better
means of measuring productivity and improves performance outcomes. The
unique features of JobStat include the fact that it is a management
system, not a computer system. It is a one page statistical report that
displays essential performance data from many reports on one page and
is complemented by slides for visual effect. Regular JobStat meetings
in the local departments allow key executive and local management staff
to meet and talk about the successes and challenges of our work of
moving individuals from welfare to employment. Each JobStat meeting is
concluded with a summary that lists management decisions and corrective
action strategies in a document known as the action item report. This
report is a tasking document that remains in effect until the action or
issue is completely resolved.
We have followed the TANF Reauthorization debate carefully. During
repeated continuances of the program we have determined for some time
that, whatever ultimate Reauthorization bill comes out of the Congress,
it will include proposals calling for an increase in work participation
rates, an increase in work hours, a different scope of defined federal
work activities, Universal Engagement, and reform of the caseload
reduction credit.
We have done this because the stakes for Maryland are enormous, as
failure to meet the new federal work participation rates and universal
engagement requirements could subject the state to a potential
liability for large federal penalties. Consequently, we have taken a
proactive approach to be prepared for what is likely to lie ahead. We
have been making plans for new initiatives that will give our state a
head start on the impending and plausible new requirements in an
eventual TANF reauthorization bill. Two of these initiatives are
already taking place.
We have formed a work participation workgroup made up of
representatives from my Bureau of Work Programs and our local
departments of social services. Their charter is to continue to examine
and implement new ways to engage our customers in work and to increase
our federal work participation rate. We have done this since Maryland
has historically viewed movement off welfare and to work as one of our
key goals and our cash assistance caseload decline as a key performance
measure of that goal. In the past, Maryland determined that the
caseload reduction credit was enacted to recognize that helping a
family off welfare was just as valuable as having them be on welfare
and in a federally defined work activity. This then became a key
element of our strategy to meet the work participation rates. We have
determined that this element needs to be changed and we have changed.
The effort of this workgroup has been successful. We have raised our
rate from 9.7% in federal fiscal year 2003 to an estimated 16.3% in
2004. This, together with our caseload reduction credit of 43.2% yields
an effective rate of 59.9%. I want to point out that at the same time
our participation rate in state defined activities and in federally
defined activities for less than the required number of hours was 46%
in 2003 and 51% in 2004. We clearly have engaged people, but not in a
manner to have them count in the rates as currently constructed. As I
will discuss later, this legislation offers some opportunity to better
reflect what we are doing in the federal rates.
We have also already begun our ``Universal Engagement'' program,
which means that each and every client must be engaged in a work
activity or another constructive activity within no more than thirty
days of their case opening that will lead to independence as soon as
possible. Through our proactive approach, we are striving to place
Maryland in a position to be prepared for TANF reauthorization.
To Move Forward, We Need Your Continued Leadership and Assistance
We agree with Chairman Herger that ``despite the success of the
1996 reforms, more work needs to be done.'' My staff and I have
carefully reviewed the proposals in H.R. 240, the ``Personal
Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2005.'' Maryland
thinks it provides a firm foundation on which to build our continuing
efforts to meet the goals of welfare reform.
We are especially pleased that the bill maintains many of the very
positive and flexible features of the original legislation, including
full funding for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program
(TANF) and provides for some increase in funding for child care
programs. Similarly, the continuation of the Transitional Medical
Assistance program will continue to ensure that individuals leaving
welfare for employment have important health care coverage for up to a
year after they leave the welfare rolls.
Opportunities
We also look forward to some of the new opportunities provided in
this bill. There are three we find particularly interesting as we plan
``on the ground'' for the needs of Maryland's families and its most
vulnerable citizens.
Healthy Marriage Initiatives. The new provisions aimed at
encouraging healthy marriages and two-parent married families are very
encouraging. As we have implemented welfare reform and as the TANF
Reauthorization debate has progressed, we have been approached by many
groups with an interest in developing healthy marriage proposals as
part of a statewide initiative. Regrettably, there have been limited
funds available for these. We were able to offer hope to these people
by telling them of the funding possibilities in the various previous
versions of TANF Reauthorization. Until now, their hopes have not been
realized. The provisions in H.R. 240 for funding, technical assistance
and research are welcome and long overdue.
Expand State Demonstration Authority. My staff and I a very
enthusiastic about the new ``state-flex'' demonstration authority. We
strongly support the concept that the states are the ``laboratories of
democracy.'' This is certainly supported by the ferment of activity,
research and evaluation that went on in the states and helped guide the
enactment of the 1996 law. Since the beginning of our welfare reform
efforts and over the past fifteen or so years, Maryland has recognized
that the vast diversity of government, means-tested programs, in
itself, sometimes leads to confusion and inadvertently sets up barriers
to program access and participation. Low-income people eligible for
these programs are sometimes faced with a bewildering array of
policies, requirements and benefits. Putting them all together is a
daunting task for them and those of us who want to help them on the
path to self-sufficiency.
An Opportunity to Coninue Improving the Food Stamp Program. What I
said in the previous bullet goes double or even triple for the Food
Stamp program. I am particularly pleased to see an opening up of the
waiver authority in the Food Stamp program. Maryland worked long and
hard with both advocates and the American Public Human Services
Association on the program improvement and simplifications in the Farm
Bill. We have picked up many of the options in that legislation,
including Simplified Reporting and the Transitional Food Stamp benefit
for those leaving cash assistance. We have also taken almost every
opportunity in that legislation to align cash assistance, food stamp
and medical assistance policies. The only areas where we did not do
this involved significant, additional costs on one or more of the
affected programs. We welcome the opportunity to continue this effort.
Challenges
We also look forward to meeting, and look forward to your
assistance in meeting, the new challenges provided in this bill. While
Maryland fully concurs with the important changes this bill makes with
regard to the rates for participation in federally defined work
activities, hours of participation in these activities and child care,
we have some suggestions that should help to ensure that your
legislative policy intent is fully realized.
Increasing minimum work requirements. We concur with raising the
minimum work participation requirement 5% per year beginning in federal
fiscal year 2007 so that we will have a work participation rate of 70%
in federal fiscal year 2010. We also appreciate very much that Maryland
would receive a ``superachiever'' credit toward these increased rates
because of our past accomplishments in caseload declines. However, we
have some concerns that we ask you to address as you consider this
legislation. These stem from the accomplishments of our program and the
strategies I have discussed above. We have achieved a caseload decline
of 71.2%, have good outcomes from our studies of welfare leavers, and
yet have had a rate of participation in federally defined activities in
single digits or the teens during all that time. We have to be doing
some things right that are not reflected in the participation rates.
Some suggestions we have to address this issue:
Consider replacing the recalibrated caseload reduction credit in
the current bill with an employment credit. Many people have expressed
concerns about the current caseload reduction credit. Some say that it
places too much attention on simply closing cases. Others say that it
takes states' attention away from placement in work activities while on
welfare. For Maryland, a recalibrated credit will, over time, become
increasingly worthless toward achievement of the new rates. At the same
time, we agree with those that say trying to look back to what the
reality was in pre-welfare reform days is no longer valid. A better
approach would be the development of an employment credit along the
lines as has been discussed in Senate versions of TANF Reauthorization.
This tracks the logic of the work participation better than the current
credit. If states are to be held accountable for placing people in
federally defined work activities on the theory that this will lead to
employment and leaving the welfare rolls, why not give us credit
against that strategy for really getting people to work and helping
them get off welfare? Is it better to have someone on welfare
performing work-like tasks in a simulated work week, or to have them
off welfare completely doing real work in a real work week?
Consider providing penalty releif for for states making stedy
improvment in their rates. As I mentioned above, the TANF
Reauthorization debate has caused us to seriously reconsider our prior
strategies. The requirements in this bill or any bill likely to pass
are causing and will cause Maryland to adjust its program to meet the
challenges in the higher participation rates. We are likely to incur
substantial costs as we continue to re-engineer our program to meet
these new challenges. We have found from our efforts so far that this
is not an easy task. However, there still looms the dark cloud of
substantial penalties for failure to more quickly adapt our system
which was based firmly on the rules and agreements made in the original
legislation. Presently the only penalty relief a state may get is
through the negotiation and completion of a Corrective Compliance Plan
with the Office of Family Assistance. We think this runs counter to
this legislation's overall desire to increase state flexibility while
enforcing a strict accountability for results. Governor Ehrlich has
supported a proposal that would provide in the law an exemption from
the penalty for failure to make the minimum work participation rate if
the state improves its minimum work participation rate by at least five
percent for a fiscal year. We think this provides the right balance as
we move to higher standards of achievement. We know this can be done
because we have done it. However, it also holds our feet to the fire
for continuous improvement in meeting the required rates.
Requiring Welfare Recipients to Put in a Full Work Week. We concur
that welfare recipients should participate in a simulated work week. We
are also very appreciative of the 24/16 approach that allows up to two
days per week for participation in needed activities to remove barriers
to employment. We also appreciate moving from a weekly to monthly
standard that, by itself, will improve our performance. Finally, we
think the provision for partial credit will also help us better meet
the goals of the legislation. However, we do have a concern here. There
presently appears to be variation on how to interpret the regulations.
As we have looked at other states that have high participation rates,
there appears to be wide variation on what counts when and for how
long. Variations are particularly evident concerning ``excused
absences.'' Some seem to interpret the language in the statute very
rigidly and if an hour is missed, even for the best of reasons, it does
not count for the participant or the state. Others seem to say that,
taking the course that the participation requirement ought to simulate
a work week, the requirement also simulates other aspects of the real
job market such as leave for illness, jury duty, personal reasons
beyond the control of the participant and the like. These varieties of
interpretation create an unlevel playing field. Indeed, our historic
low rate may be partially due to a very conservative approach to
counting actual hours. We suggest that the committee devise language
that specifically allows states as they develop a simulated work week
to have the flexibility to design that work week to reflect the work
place. This should include reasonable, simulated ``leave'' so that
neither the participant nor the state is placed in jeopardy of
penalties due to unnecessarily stringent conditions provided for in a
simulated workplace.
Child Care. We support the committee's recognition that child care
is an integral part of welfare reform. Participants need child care in
order to participate in work activities while on welfare and many
continue to need the support of affordable child care as they move off
welfare on their path to self-sufficiency. Affordable, quality child
care is an essential support to work. We concur with the legislation's
emphasis on quality child care. We also support its recognition that
increases in funding are required. However, we think the bill does not
go far enough in providing needed funding for the quality care that it
seeks to provide. During the debate on TANF Reauthorization in the last
session of the Congress, Governor Ehrlich supported the amendment
offered by Senator Snowe to the PRIDE Act, reported out by the Senate
Finance Committee, to substantially increase child care funding. The
Senate approved that amendment with a large majority. We urge the
committee to consider increasing the amount of child care funding in
H.R. 240 as adequate funding is a principal concern among many who seek
a balanced program. Indeed, just this past week during the Maryland
General Assembly's hearing on my Department's budget, there was
bipartisan concern about the need for adequate funding for child care
as part of TANF Reauthorization to provide balance to the work
requirements. For Maryland, significant, additional child care funding
will help our low-income families, including those still receiving cash
assistance; but, more importantly, the increased funding will help
those who have played by the rules and taken the first steps toward
self-sufficiency. Governor Ehrlich has taken measures to provide funds
for a partial thaw to a freeze we have had on new applications for
child care assistance to low income working families. We need your
support to help us lift that freeze completely and allow low income
Marylanders to secure safe, quality and affordable child care.
In Conclusion, What Maryland Needs Above All Is a Bill
Finally, I want to say that what is most important in this round of
debate on TANF Reauthorization is that we finally get a bill. The past
string of continuing resolutions has hindered our ability to plan for
whatever comes out of the legislative process. Having one foot in the
old program and another lifted moving toward an uncertain new one is a
difficult position to hold for over two years.
Thank you for the opportunity to share with you my thoughts on the
reauthorization of the TANF program. We are proud of our
accomplishments in welfare reform and are pleased with the outcomes our
customers have achieved. We hope you will consider our suggestions to
make a good bill even better.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. McGuire. Mr.
Rector to testify.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT RECTOR, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, DOMESTIC
POLICY STUDIES, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Mr. RECTOR. Thank you so much for having me here today. I
want to focus my testimony today on the very important issue of
poverty, welfare, and marriage, and on the very critical
provision of the Healthy Marriage Initiative, which is included
in your bill and which I think is, in fact, a more important
innovation in welfare than the 1996 welfare reform act was in
and of itself. As you all know, one child in three in the
United States is born out of wedlock. That is one child every
25 seconds. As we all know and on which there is complete
agreement, the children born and raised without a father in the
home are dramatically more likely to suffer emotional and
behavioral problems, to fail in school, to suffer from drug and
alcohol abuse, to end up incarcerated and in jail. We also all
know that Federal and State governments together, when you look
at all the means tested spending that we have on families with
children, Federal and State governments together spend about
$240 billion a year on low-income families with children, and
75 percent of that spending goes directly to single-parent
families where there is not a father in the home.
Similarly, 80 percent of all long-term poverty, child
poverty in the United States occurs in broken or never-married
families. It looks like we have got a problem here, and it
looks like many of these problems might be solved if we could
find a way to bring these fathers into the home and help them
live in those homes in a condition of healthy marriage. Now,
when we look at the issue of poverty, this first chart I
presented here comes from the Princeton University Fragile
Families Survey, which is a widely used survey of unmarried
couples at the time of the child's birth. The left-hand column
there shows the percentage of those single moms who are going
to be poor if they remain single moms after the birth of the
child, and it is over half of them. On the right-hand column,
what we did, because the Fragile Families Survey has the
father's wages in their, we just took the father's wages and
said, What if dad got married and he stayed with the mom
instead of wandering off someplace? The child poverty rate
drops down to 17 percent. About two-thirds of these children
are immediately raised out of poverty if we can get the father
to stay there and be a contributing husband within the home. A
dramatic, dramatic change, huge, huge implications for those
numbers.
Now, if we could have the next chart, which again comes
from the Fragile Families Survey, a lot of people argue, well,
the main reason these dads are not getting married is because
they do not have jobs. The Fragile Families Survey shows that
at the time of this intervention, which is before the birth or
around conception--early, not 10 years down the road when the
mother is on welfare, but a very early intervention--98 percent
of these guys had jobs. Half of them are living with the mom.
Eighty percent of them are in romantic relationships with the
moms, and the median wage for these men is $17,500 a year. Two-
thirds of these men can support the child above poverty without
the mother working at all. A lot of people argue, oh, well, the
reason that they do not marry is because they need job training
or they need employment assistance and so forth.
We did a simulation where we said, well, let's boost the
employment rate among these fathers. Let's boost their wages
and things and see what effect that has simulated by regression
analysis on the marriage rate after the child is born. In fact,
you can see there is no change whatsoever because, in fact,
male wages and employment are not a particularly significant
factor in predicting marriage, mainly because all these guys
are employed in the first place.
Then if we could have the next chart, very importantly,
people argue, oh, well, what you nutty people on the right are
trying to do is force these women to marry abusive men. Okay?
We have the Fragile Families Survey again, and this survey
contains data which asked the question privately: Have you
experienced from the male domestic violence in the last year?
This is the response, and this is the population that would be
treated under the Healthy Marriage Initiative, and it is either
4 percent or so for the whole population; in the target group,
the very marriageable group, it is down around 2 percent.
Domestic abuse is virtually non-existent in this group.
Moreover, I would say, as we all know, that most domestic abuse
occurs in cohabiting relationships. It does not occur in
marriage. If we could help these couples move out of unstable
cohabiting relationships into stable marriage, we would reduce
the already low levels of abuse. I would say finally you cannot
use data from welfare mothers that are 30 years old and ask
them if they ever had abuse in the last 20 years of their
lives. They did. The question is: Are you being abused in this
relationship with this father of your child? The answer is no.
This is a win-win policy. It is a win for children. It is a win
for the taxpayer. It is a win for the parents.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rector follows:]
Statement of Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow, Domestic Policy
Studies, The Heritage Foundation
My name is Robert Rector. I am a Senior Research Fellow at The
Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own,
and should not be construed as representing any official position of
The Heritage Foundation.
Summary
The erosion of marriage during the past four decades has had large-
scale negative effects on both children and adults: It lies at the
heart of many of the social problems with which the government
currently grapples. Nearly 80 percent of long term child poverty occurs
in broken or never-married families. Each year government spends over
$200 billion on means-tested aid to families with children; three
quarters of this aid flows to single parent families. Children raised
without a father in the home are more likely to experience: emotional
and behavioral problems, school failure; drug and alcohol abuse, crime,
and incarceration. The beneficial effects of marriage on individuals
and society are beyond reasonable dispute, and there is a broad and
growing consensus that government policy should promote rather than
discourage healthy marriage.
In response to these trends, President George W. Bush has
proposed--as part of welfare reform reauthorization--the creation of a
pilot program to promote healthy and stable marriage. Funding for the
program would be small-scale: $300 million per year. This sum
represents one penny to promote healthy marriage for every five dollars
government currently spends to subsidize single parenthood. Moreover,
this small investment today could result in potentially great savings
in the future by reducing dependence on welfare and other social
services.
The following are important points about the healthy marriage
initiative:
The program would be focused on early intervention,
helping young adult couples establish stable and healthy relationships
before the conception and birth of a child.
Participation in the program would be strictly voluntary.
Although there is much chatter about an alleged shortage
of marriageable males as a barrier to marriage, in reality, nearly half
of unmarried mothers are living with the child's father at the time a
child is born; another 23 percent are in a stable romantic relationship
with the father. A shortage of ``marriageable men'' is not a major
obstacle to marriage promotion.
Over 95 percent of unmarried fathers worked during the
year of the child's birth; their median annual earnings were $17,500.
(This is higher than the mothers' earnings.) Drug and alcohol abuse
among these fathers is rare.
Marriage can have a dramatic effect in reducing child
poverty. If poor single mothers were married to the fathers of their
children, nearly 70 percent would be immediately lifted out of poverty.
Some argue that the key to increasing marriage in low
income communities is to provide job training to increase the wages and
employment of fathers. One problem with this approach is that
government job training programs generally have a very limited impact
on employment and earnings. More importantly, data from the Fragile
Families survey show that increasing fathers' employment and earnings
will have only a marginal effect in increasing marriage. Improving
attitudes and relationship skills will have a far greater impact.
Domestic violence among the low income couples who would
be targeted for the healthy marriage initiative is very rare. In fact,
only 2 percent experience domestic violence. Critics of the healthy
marriage initiative often cite statistics showing that a high percent
of middle-aged welfare mothers have suffered domestic violence at some
point in the past. These figures are irrelevant for two reasons. First,
the healthy marriage initiative will focus on younger women around the
time of a child's birth, not older mothers with a long history of
welfare dependence. The domestic violence rates are very different for
these two groups. Second, the fact a woman has experienced domestic
violence in the past does not mean she is experiencing violence in a
current relationship, or that most prior relationships have involved
violence.
Most domestic violence occurs in cohabitation not
marriage; helping couples move from unstable cohabiting relationships
into healthy marriage should reduce domestic violence.
Over 100 separate evaluations show that marriage skill
education programs, of the sort that would be used in the healthy
marriage initiative, are effective in reducing strife, improving
communications skills, increasing couple stability and enhancing
marital happiness.
Some argue that the healthy marriage initiative should be
broadened to include funding for other activities such as daycare, job
training, and birth control. The problem is that government already
spends massively on these other activities: over $20 billion annually
on daycare; $6.2 billion on job training and $1.7 billion on birth
control. To allow healthy marriage funds to be diverted to these amply
funded activities would dissipate the funding and ensure that
relatively little was spent to actually strengthening marriage.
Some argue that the government should not ``interfere'' in private
decisions concerning marriage. This argument is faulty on several
counts. First, participation in the healthy marriage program would be
completely voluntary; opposing the marriage initiative on grounds of
``non-interference'' really means denying low income couples access to
information and training that they actively want, but is not available
in low income communities. Second, the means-tested welfare system
already ``intervenes'' against marriage by providing substantial
financial penalties when low income couples do marry.
Third, the government spends over $150 billion in subsidies to
single parents each year. Much of this expenditure would have been
avoided if the mothers were married to the fathers of their children.
To insist that the government has an obligation to support single
parents--and to mitigate the damage that results from the erosion of
marriage--but should do nothing to strengthen marriage itself is
myopic. It is like arguing that the government should pay to sustain
polio victims in iron lung machines but should not pay for the vaccine
to prevent polio in the first place.
The Importance of Marriage
Today, nearly one-third of all American children are born outside
marriage. That's one out-of-wedlock birth every 35 seconds. Of those
born inside marriage, a great many children will experience their
parents' divorce before they reach age 18. More than half of the
children in the United States will spend all or part of their childhood
in never-formed or broken families.
The collapse of marriage is the principal cause of child poverty in
the United States. Children raised by never-married mothers are seven
times more likely to live in poverty than children raised by their
biological parents in intact marriages. Overall, approximately 80
percent of long-term child poverty in the United States occurs among
children from broken or never-formed families.
It is often argued that strengthening marriage would have little
impact on child poverty because absent fathers earn too little. This is
not true: The typical non-married father earns $17,500 per year at the
time his child is born. Some 70 percent of poor single mothers would be
lifted out of poverty if they were married to their children's father.
According to data from the Princeton Fragile Families and Child Well-
being Survey--a well-known survey of couples who are unmarried at the
time of a child's birth. If the mothers remain single and do not marry
the fathers of their children, some 55 percent will be poor. However,
if the mothers married the fathers, the poverty rate would drop to 17
percent. (This analysis is based on the fathers' actual earnings in the
year before the child's birth.) \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For more information on this point, see Robert E. Rector, Kirk
A. Johnson, Patrick F. Fagan, and Lauren R. Noyes, ``Increasing
Marriage Will Dramatically Reduce Child Poverty,'' Heritage Foundation
Center for Data Analysis Report No. CDA03-06, May 20, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The growth of single-parent families has had an enormous impact on
government. The welfare system for children is overwhelmingly a subsidy
system for single-parent families. Some three-quarters of the aid to
children--given through programs such as food stamps, Medicaid, public
housing, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and the Earned
Income Tax Credit--goes to single-parent families. Each year,
government spends over $150 billion in means-tested welfare aid for
single parents.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Robert Rector, ``The Size and Scope of Means-Tested Welfare
Spending,'' testimony before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of
Representatives, August 1, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Growing up without a father in the home has harmful long-term
effects on children. Compared with similar children from intact
families, children raised in single-parent homes are more likely to
become involved in crime, to have emotional and behavioral problems, to
fail in school, to abuse drugs, and to end up on welfare as adults.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Patrick Fagan, Robert Rector, Kirk Johnson, and America
Peterson, The Positive Effects of Marriage: A Book of Charts
(Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation, April 2002), at http://
www.heritage.org/Research/Features/Marriage/index.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, marriage also brings benefits to adults. Extensive
research shows that married adults are happier, are more productive on
the job, earn more, have better physical and mental health, and live
longer than their unmarried counterparts. Marriage also brings safety
to women: Mothers who have married are half has likely to suffer from
domestic violence as are never-married mothers.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Robert E. Rector, Patrick F. Fagan, and Kirk A. Johnson,
``Marriage: Still the Safest Place for Women and Children,'' Heritage
Foundation Backgrounder No. 1732, March 9, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy Background
Despite the overwhelming evidence of the benefits of marriage to
families and society, the sad fact is that, for more than four decades,
the welfare system has penalized and discouraged marriage. The U.S.
welfare system is currently composed of more than 70 means-tested aid
programs providing cash, food, housing, medical care, and social
services to low-income persons. Each year, over $200 billion flows
through this system to families with children. While it is widely
accepted that the welfare system is biased against marriage, relatively
few understand how this bias operates. Many erroneously believe that
welfare programs have eligibility criteria that directly exclude
married couples. This is not true.
Nevertheless, welfare programs do penalize marriage and reward
single parenthood because of the inherent design of all means-tested
programs. In a means-tested program, benefits are reduced as non-
welfare income rises. Thus, under any means-tested system, a mother
will receive greater benefits if she remains single than she would if
she were married to a working husband. Welfare not only serves as a
substitute for a husband, but it actually penalizes marriage because a
low-income couple will experience a significant drop in combined income
if they marry.
For example: A typical single mother on Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families receives a combined welfare package of various means-
tested aid benefits worth about $14,000 per year. Suppose the father of
her children has a low-wage job paying $16,000 per year. If the mother
and father remain unmarried, they will have a combined income of
$30,000 ($14,000 from welfare and $16,000 from earnings). However, if
the couple marries, the father's earnings will be counted against the
mother's welfare eligibility. Welfare benefits will be eliminated (or
cut dramatically), and the couple's combined income will fall
substantially. Thus, means-tested welfare programs do not penalize
marriage per se but, instead, implicitly penalize marriage to an
employed man with earnings. The practical effect is to significantly
discourage marriage among low-income couples.
This anti-marriage discrimination is inherent in all means-tested
aid programs, including TANF, food stamps, public housing, Medicaid,
and the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) food program. The only way
to eliminate the anti-marriage bias from welfare entirely would be to
make all mothers eligible for these programs regardless of whether they
are married and regardless of their husbands' earnings. Structured in
this way, the welfare system would be marriage-neutral: It would
neither reward nor penalize marriage.
Such across-the-board change, however, would cost tens of billions
of dollars. A more feasible strategy would be to experiment by
selectively reducing welfare's anti-marriage incentives to determine
which penalties have the biggest behavioral impact. This approach is
incorporated in the President's Healthy Marriage Initiative.
President Bush's Initiative to Promote Healthy Marriage
In recognition of the widespread benefits of marriage to
individuals and society, the federal welfare reform legislation enacted
in 1996 set forth clear goals: to increase the number of two-parent
families and to reduce out-of-wedlock childbearing. Regrettably, in the
years since this reform, most states have done very little to advance
these objectives directly. Out of more than $100 billion in federal
TANF funds disbursed over the past seven years, only about $20
million--a miniscule 0.02 percent--has been spent on promoting
marriage.
Recognizing this shortcoming, President Bush has sought to meet the
original goals of welfare reform by proposing a new model program to
promote healthy marriage as a part of welfare reauthorization. The
proposed program would seek to increase healthy marriage by providing
individuals and couples with:
Accurate information on the value of marriage in the
lives of men, women, and children;
Marriage-skills education that will enable couples to
reduce conflict and increase the happiness and longevity of their
relationship; and
Experimental reductions in the financial penalties
against marriage that are currently contained in all federal welfare
programs.
All participation in the President's marriage program would be
voluntary. The initiative would utilize existing marriage-skills
education programs that have proven effective in decreasing conflict
and increasing happiness and stability among couples. These programs
have also been shown to be effective in reducing domestic violence.\5\
The pro-marriage initiative would not merely seek to increase marriage
rates among target couples, but also would provide ongoing support to
help at-risk couples maintain healthy marriages over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Patrick F. Fagan, Robert W. Patterson, and Robert E. Rector,
``Marriage and Welfare Reform: The Overwhelming Evidence That Marriage
Education Works,'' Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1606, October
25, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The plan would not create government bureaucracies to provide
marriage training. Instead, the government would contract with private
organizations that have successful track records in providing marriage-
skills education.
Timing and Targeting of Services
The President's Healthy Marriage Initiative is often characterized
as seeking to increase marriage among welfare (TANF) recipients. This
is somewhat inaccurate. Most welfare mothers have poor relationships
with their children's father: In many cases, the relationship
disintegrated long ago. Attempting to promote healthy marriage in these
situations is a bit like trying to glue Humpty-Dumpty together after he
has fallen off the wall. Such a program would be certain to fail. By
contrast, a well-designed marriage initiative would target women and
men earlier in their lives when attitudes and relationships were
initially being formed. It would also seek to strengthen existing
marriages to reduce divorce.
The primary focus of marriage programs would be preventative--not
reparative. The programs would seek to prevent the isolation and
poverty of welfare mothers by intervening at an early point before a
pattern of broken relationships and welfare dependence had emerged. By
fostering better life decisions and stronger relationship skills,
marriage programs can increase child well-being and adult happiness,
and reduce child poverty and welfare dependence.
A serious pro-marriage initiative would target couples and
individuals and couples in a variety of venues. The marriage initiative
would include:
Education about the value of marriage and life-skills
planning for high school students who are at risk of out-of-wedlock
child bearing;
Pre-marital counseling programs for engaged couples and
marriage enrichment programs for married couples. These programs have
potential to reduce future divorce. While it would not be necessary for
the government to broadly subsidize middle-class use of these programs,
government funds should be used as a catalyst to promote awareness and
make such programs more widely available;
Marriage and relationship skills training for young
unmarried adults prior to a child's conception; and,
Marriage skills training for low-income married couples
at the time of a child's birth. Childbirth places considerable strain
on relationships and this can lead to divorce. It is possible that
lower-income married couples could benefit from pro-marriage services
as much or more than unmarried parents.
Much of the discussion of marriage promotion has focused on
unmarried couples at the ``magic moment'' of a child's birth. These
discussions use data from the Fragile Families survey. While services
should be offered at the magic moment of birth, it is now clear that
this is not the optimal point of intervention. Waiting until after a
child is born to figure out whether you want to make a permanent
commitment to your partner is a bad strategy. Moreover, many unmarried,
new parents are poorly prepared for either marriage or parenthood.
There is widespread agreement, among both liberals and
conservatives, that the best point of intervention with these young
couples would have been prior to their child's conception, rather than
after the child's birth. However, while the government has virtually
guaranteed access to low-income mothers at the time of birth, contact
with young, low-income adults at an earlier stage is commonly thought
to be difficult or impossible. In fact, this perception may be
erroneous. The federal government currently funds some 4,700 birth
control clinics through the Title X program. These clinics provide
birth control to 4.4 million low-income persons each year--most of
which are young adult women. Many of the clientele of these clinics
will become members of the ``fragile families'' of the future.
In addition to birth control, it should be relatively simple for
these clinics to offer voluntary referrals to programs providing life-
planning, marriage, and relationship training, to those who are
interested. The goal of such programs would be to encourage young adult
women to delay childbirth and to develop stable marital relationships
before bringing children into the world. The potential for outreach
through the Title X clinics may actually be greater than through
maternity wards. Expanding healthy marriage services to cover the time
prior to a child's conception may considerably increase the
effectiveness of future programs.
At present, Title X clinics do a poor job in preventing out-of-
wedlock childbearing. In part, this is because these clinics offer free
birth control but do not provide life skill training that would help
young adult men and women prepare for decisions concerning childbirth
and child-rearing more wisely. Offering referrals to a broader range of
services at Title X clinics could greatly increase their effectiveness.
Program Specifics
The President's Healthy Marriage Initiative has been included in
the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003
(H.R. 4) that was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in May
2002 and again in February 2003. The bill creates a small funding set
aside in the TANF program for healthy marriage promotion. Funds could
be used for a specified set of activities consistent with the
overarching strategy of promoting healthy marriage. These activities
would include:
Public advertising campaigns on the value of marriage and
the skills needed to increase marital stability and health;
Education in high schools about the value of marriage,
relationship skills, and budgeting; Marriage education, marriage-skills
instruction, and relationship-skills programs--which may include
parenting skills, financial management, conflict resolution, and job
and career advancement for non-married pregnant women and non-married
expectant fathers;
Pre-marital education and marriage-skills training for
engaged couples and for couples or individuals interested in marriage;
Marriage-enhancement and marriage-skills training for
married couples;
Divorce-reduction programs that teach relationship
skills;
Marriage mentoring programs that use married couples as
role models and mentors in at-risk communities; and
Programs to reduce the disincentives to marriage in
means-tested aid programs, if offered in conjunction with any of the
above activities.
Should the Healthy Marriage Program Be Broadened?
Much of the debate about marriage-strengthening will center on this
list of allowable uses of the marriage funds. Opponents of the
President's initiative will seek to broaden the list to include
activities that have little or no link to marriage. The effort to
broaden the program to include standard government services such as job
training, day care, and contraceptive promotion (all of which are
already amply funded through other programs) would dissipate the
limited funds available and render the program meaningless.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Robert E. Rector, Melissa G. Pardue, and Lauren R. Noyes,
`Marriage Plus': Sabotaging the President's Efforts to Promote Healthy
Marriage,'' Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1677, August 22, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criticisms of the President's Plan
The President's Healthy Marriage Initiative has been criticized on
a number of grounds. Each of these criticisms is inaccurate.
Individuals will be forced to participate in the program.
Critics charge that welfare mothers would be forced to participate in
marriage education. In fact, all participation would be voluntary.
Services would be provided only to individuals or couples interested in
receiving them.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Bush Administration has always been clear that individuals'
participation in the program would be completely voluntary. The
Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone (PRIDE)
Act, introduced by Senator Grassley, contains specific language
clarifying that point. See Section 103, p. 154 of the PRIDE
legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The program will increase domestic violence. Critics
charge that the program would increase domestic violence by coercing or
encouraging women to remain in dangerous relationships. In fact,
marriage and relationship-skills training has been shown to reduce, not
increase, domestic violence.\8\ Such programs help women steer clear of
dangerous and counterproductive relationships.\9\Moreover, domestic
violence is less widespread among low-income couples than is generally
assumed. For example, three-quarters of non-married mothers are
romantically involved with the child's father at the time of the non-
marital birth: Only 2 percent of these women have experienced domestic
violence in their relationship with the father.\10\ In general,
domestic violence is more common in cohabiting relationships than in
marriage: Never-married mothers, for example, are twice as likely to
experience domestic violence than are mothers who have married.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Fagan et al., ``Marriage and Welfare Reform: The Overwhelming
Evidence that Marriage Education Works.''
\9\ Some critics seem to assume that marriage programs would
encourage women to marry abusive boyfriends or would try to use
marriage to improve an abusive relationship. No marriage program would
do this, because all of them rest on the premise that marriage is
inappropriate when significant physical abuse exists.
\10\ Rector et al., ``Increasing Marriage Will Dramatically Reduce
Child Poverty.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A very common statistic used to oppose the healthy marriage
initiative is that some 60 percent of welfare mothers have experienced
domestic violence. This figure is based on surveys of older welfare
mothers and measures whether the woman has ever experienced domestic
violence at any time in the past. By the time they reach their early
thirties, single mothers on welfare may have been involved in ten or
more intimate relationships. The fact that some 60 percent of these
women have experienced domestic violence at least once is not
surprising; however, this figure does not suggest that most TANF
mothers are experiencing violence in their current relationships or
that most of their prior relationships have involved violence.
Moreover, as I have stated, older welfare mothers are not a principle
target group of the healthy marriage initiative. The initiative would
be a preventive strategy focused on younger unmarried couples; as
noted, the domestic violence rate among these couples is close to zero.
Marriage-skills programs are ineffective or unproven.
Critics charge that marriage-skills programs are ineffective. The facts
show exactly the opposite: Over 100 separate evaluations of marriage
training programs demonstrate that these programs can reduce strife,
improve communications skills, increase stability, and enhance marital
happiness.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Fagan et al., ``Marriage and Welfare Reform: The Overwhelming
Evidence that Marriage Education Works,'' p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The program will bribe couples to marry. Critics charge
that the marriage program will bribe low-income women to marry
unwisely. This is not true. As noted, all means-tested welfare programs
such as TANF, food stamps, and public housing contain significant
financial penalties against marriage. The marriage program would
experiment with selectively reducing these penalties against marriage.
The program is too expensive. The President proposed
spending $300 million per year on his model marriage program ($200
million in federal funds and $100 million in state funds). This sum
represents one penny spent to promote healthy marriage for every five
dollars spent to subsidize single parenthood.\12\ This small investment
would also help to avert future dependence on welfare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Rector, ``The Size and Scope of Means-tested Welfare
Spending.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The public opposes marriage promotion. Critics claim that
the public opposes programs to strengthen marriage. In fact, the state
of Oklahoma has operated a marriage program similar to the President's
proposal for several years. Most Oklahomans are familiar with this
program; 85 percent of the state's residents support the program, and
only 15 percent oppose it.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Christine A. Johnson et al., Marriage in Oklahoma, Oklahoma
State University, Bureau for Social Research, June 2002, p. 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-income women are not interested in marriage. Critics
charge that low-income women are not interested in marriage and
marriage-skills training. However, at the time of their child's birth,
more than 75 percent of non-married mothers say they are interested in
marrying their child's father. In Oklahoma, 72 percent of women who
have received welfare say that they are interested in receiving
marriage-skills training.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Johnson, Marriage in Oklahoma, p. 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-income women have histories of abuse that will make
marriage difficult. Some have argued that low-income women are likely
to have experienced sexual abuse or violence in their childhoods and
that this abuse makes in far more difficult for them to form stable
marriages as adult.\15\ Women who have suffered childhood abuse may be
more likely to move through a long series of unstable and transitory
cohabitions as adults. In reality, relatively few of the women who
would be targeted by the healthy marriage initiative will have
experienced childhood abuse; however, to the extent they have suffered
prior abuse, it would be important to offer services that may help them
improve current relationships rather than simply abandoning them to a
persistent pattern of relationship failure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Andrew Cherlin, et al., ``The Influence of Sexual Abuse on
Marriage and Cohabitation,'' forthcoming in the American Sociological
Review
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The shortage of ``marriageable men'' makes marriage
unlikely for most low-income women. Critics argue that marriage is
impractical in low-income communities because men earn too little to be
attractive spouses. This is not true. As noted, nearly three-quarters
of non-married mothers are cohabiting with, or are romantically
involved with, the child's father at the time of the baby's birth. The
median income of these non-married fathers is $17,500 per year. Some 70
percent of poor single mothers would be lifted out of poverty if they
married the father of their children.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Rector et al., ``Increasing Marriage Will Dramatically Reduce
Child Poverty.'' Data are taken from the Fragile Families and Child
Well-Being Study at Princeton University, at http://crcw.princeton.edu/
fragilefamilies. See also Wendy Sigle-Rushton, ``For Richer or
Poorer,'' Center for Research on Child Well-being, Princeton
University, Working Paper 301-17FF, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasing male wages through job training is the key to
increasing marriage. Some argue that the key to getting low-income
parents to marry is to raise the father's wages. This notion is
inaccurate for several reasons. First, unmarried fathers already earn,
on average, $17,500 per year at the time of their child's birth.
Second, data from the Fragile Families Survey show that male wage rates
have very little to do with whether or not an unmarried father marries
the mother of his child. Instead, the most important factors in
determining whether or not couples marry after a child's birth are the
couples' attitudes about marriage and their relationship skills.\17\
These are the precise attitudes and behaviors that would be targeted
for change in the President's Healthy Marriage Initiative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Robert Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.d., ``Roles Couples'
Relationship Skills and Fathers' Employment in Encouraging Marriage,''
Report of the Center for Data Analysis, CDA04-14, The Heritage
Foundation, December 6, 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the federal government already operates seven separate job-
training programs and spends over $6.2 billion per year on job
training.\18\ Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, overall
spending on job training has exceeded $257 billion.\19\ This spending
has had no apparent effect on increasing marriage in the past: There is
no reason to believe it would do so in the future. Fourth, most
government training programs are ineffective in raising wage rates. For
example, a large-scale evaluation of the Job Training Partnership Act
(JTPA) showed that the program raised the hourly wage rates of female
trainees by only 3.4 percent and those of male trainees by zero.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Vee Burke, Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited
Income: Eligibility Rules, Recipients and Expenditure Data, FY 1998-FY
2000, November, 19, 2001, p. 221.
\19\ This figure represents federal job training expenditures from
1965 to 2000 in constant 2000 dollars
\20\ Howard Bloom et al., National JTPA Study Overview: Title II-A
Impacts on Earnings and Employment at 18 Months, Abt Associates Inc.,
January 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, under H.R. 4, job training may be provided, if needed, to
individuals participating in marriage-skills and marriage-enhancement
programs. However, any job training must be linked to marriage-skills
training. To add job training as a stand-alone spending category within
a ``marriage'' funding stream would cripple any future marriage program
by diverting substantial funds into traditional job-training activities
that have little to do with marriage.
Encouraging marriage at an early age is counterproductive.
The age at which women give birth out of wedlock is often
underestimated. The issues of out-of-wedlock childbearing and teen
pregnancy are generally confused: They are not the same. Most women who
give birth outside marriage are in their early twenties. Only 10
percent of out-of-wedlock births occur to girls under age 18; 75
percent occur to women who are age 20 and older.
The focus of the Healthy Marriage Initiative would be on
encouraging couples to form stable, committed relationships and to
marry before pregnancy and childbirth occur. In many cases, this would
involve delaying childbearing until couples were older and more mature.
Thus, the goals of promoting healthy marriage and of postponing
childbearing to a mature age are harmonious and mutually supportive.
However, simply encouraging a delay in childbearing without increasing
the incidence of healthy marriage would have only marginal benefits and
would not be wise policy.
Government should fund more pregnancy-prevention and
contraceptive programs rather than marriage promotion. Some urge that
marriage promotion funds should be diverted to contraceptive programs
on the grounds that, once women have had children out of wedlock, they
are less likely to marry in the future. But the government already
spends over $1.7 billion per year on pregnancy prevention and
contraceptive promotion through programs such as Medicaid, TANF,
Adolescent Sexual Health, and Title X.\21\ Overall, current funding for
contraception/pregnancy-prevention dwarfs the proposed funding for
marriage promotion. Diverting limited marriage funds to even more
contraceptive programs would clearly cripple any marriage initiative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Melissa G. Pardue, Robert E. Rector, and Shannan Martin,
``Government Spends $12 on Safe Sex and Contraceptives for Every $1
Spent on Abstinence,'' Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1718,
January 14, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, as noted, the President's Healthy Marriage Initiative
would promote the goal of preventing non-marital pregnancy in another
broad sense. Marriage programs would encourage women to enter healthy
marriages before becoming pregnant. In many cases, this would involve
encouraging women to avoid pregnancy until they become more mature and
more capable of sustaining a viable, healthy relationship. However,
this approach would differ greatly from simply handing out
contraceptives.
Promoting marriage is none of the government's business.
There are some who argue that, while marriage is a fine institution,
the decision to marry or not to marry is a private decision in which
the government should not be involved.\22\ This argument is based on a
misunderstanding of the government's current involvement in the issue
of single-parenthood, as well a misunderstanding of the President's
Healthy Marriage Initiative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ For example, Senator Max Baucus has stated that he would
oppose even modest funds to promote healthy marriage because ``marriage
is not something the government should interfere with.'' Senator Max
Baucus, ``Remarks on Welfare Reform Reauthorization,'' National
Campaign for Jobs and Income Support, March 5, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the government is already massively involved when marriages
either fail to form or break apart. Each year, the government spends
over $150 billion in subsidies to single parents. Much of this
expenditure would have been avoided if the mothers were married to the
fathers of their children. This cost represents government efforts to
pick up the pieces and contain the damage when marriage fails. To
insist that the government has an obligation to support single
parents--and to control the damage that results from the erosion of
marriage--but should do nothing to strengthen marriage itself is
myopic. It is like arguing that the government should pay to sustain
polio victims in iron lung machines but should not pay for the vaccine
to prevent polio in the first place.
Second, the government is already heavily (and counterproductively)
involved in individual marriage decisions, given that government
welfare policies discourage marriage, by penalizing low-income couples
who do marry and by rewarding those who do not. The President's Healthy
Marriage Initiative would take the first steps to reduce these anti-
marriage penalties.
Third, under the President's initiative, the government would not
``intrude'' into private matters concerning marriage, since all
participation in the marriage promotion program would be voluntary.
Nearly all Americans believe in the institution of marriage and hope
for happy and long-lasting marriages for themselves and their children.
Very few wish for a life marked by a series of acrimonious and broken
relationships. The President's program would offer services to couples
seeking to improve the quality of their relationships. It would provide
couples seeking healthy and enduring marriages with skills and training
to help them to achieve that goal. To refuse services and training to
low-income couples who are actively seeking to improve their
relationships because ``marriage is none of the government's business''
is both cruel and shortsighted.
Finally, the government has a long-established interest in
improving the well-being of children. For instance, the government
funds Head Start because the program will ostensibly increase the
ability of disadvantaged children to grow up to become happy and
productive members of society. It is clear that healthy marriage has
substantial, long-term, positive effects on children's development:
Conversely, the absence of a father or the presence of strife within a
home both have harmful effects on children. If government has a
legitimate role in seeking to improve child wellbeing through programs
such as Head Start, it has a far more significant role in assisting
children by fostering healthy marriage within society.
Conclusion
More than 40 years ago, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan--at that
time, a member of President Lyndon Johnson's White House staff--wrote
poignantly of the social ills stemming from the decline of marriage in
the black community. Since that time, the dramatic erosion of marriage
has afflicted the white community as well. Today, the social and
economic ills fostered by marital collapse have exceeded Senator
Moynihan's worst expectations.
In response, President Bush has developed the Healthy Marriage
Initiative: the first positive step toward strengthening the
institution of marriage since the Moynihan report four decades ago. The
proposal represents a strategy to increase healthy marriage--carefully
crafted on the basis of all existing research on the topic of promoting
and strengthening marriage.
There is now broad bipartisan recognition that healthy marriage is
a natural protective institution that, in most cases, promotes the
well-being of men, women, and children: It is the foundation of a
healthy society. Yet, for decades, government policy has remained
indifferent or hostile to marriage. Government programs sought merely
to pick up the pieces as marriages failed or--worse--actively
undermined marriage. President Bush seeks to change this policy of
indifference and hostility. There is no group that will gain more from
this change than low-income single women, most of whom hope for a
happy, healthy marriage in their future. President Bush seeks to
provide young couples with the knowledge and skills to accomplish their
dreams. The Congress would be wise to affirm their support for marriage
by passing welfare reform reauthorization and enacting the President's
Healthy Marriage Initiative.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Rector. Dr. Haskins to
testify.
STATEMENT OF RON HASKINS, PH.D., SENIOR FELLOW, BROOKINGS
INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON, D.C., AND SENIOR CONSULTANT, ANNIE E.
CASEY FOUNDATION, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
Dr. HASKINS. Chairman Herger and Ranking Member McDermott,
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much for allowing
me to testify today. It is a great privilege to be here. I just
want to say one word about the success of the welfare reform
legislation. I think we tend to focus on TANF and some people
sometimes talk about child care, but the whole range of
programs in that legislation, which are enormous, have been
successful and have very interesting evidence on child support.
Wade Horn mentioned the provisions for noncitizens, which Mr.
Becerra fought so strongly against, on SSI. I would like to
point out to you that RAND recently completed a study that the
SSI reforms for children over a 10 year period starting this
year will save $22 billion because of children who left SSI,
both when they are children and they also will be less likely
to be on as adults. There is a lot of policy in this law in
1996 that people really have not paid much attention to that
have been very successful reforms. I am sorry Mr. McCrery is
not here because Mr. McCrery was the main author of those
reforms.
Let me come right to the point. I think we should cut a
deal. Three years is long enough for the States to wait. They
have done a great job in implementing this program. It is a
little uneven, like all programs are. Some States have done a
great job; some States have done average; some States have, you
know, not done a great job. I think certainly they need to know
what the rules are going to be, and several people have already
mentioned that.
I think there are three major provisions that have caused
us to have difficulty. One is the work provision, and although
I support the Administration's work provision, I think it is a
fine provision, if I were Governor of a State or welfare
director of a State, I would agree to implement those. We need
to have a deal so Republicans and Democrats both have to show
flexibility. We are all aware that this is not necessarily a
great time for bipartisan efforts because the two parties have
been fairly hostile toward each other in recent years. Both
sides need to show some flexibility, and I would show
flexibility on the work requirement. There is nothing wrong
with the work requirement in the 1996 law, the principle on
which half the people on the caseload should be working. That
is a fine principle. That is good enough. Thirty hours is good
enough.
The problem is the caseload reduction credit. I do not have
time to go into it here. It was a mistake when we put it in the
law because nobody had any idea what was going to happen to the
rolls. CBO did not know it. Nobody predicted what would happen.
That has basically gutted the work requirement, so fix the
caseload reduction credit so that States have to have 50
percent of the caseload, and then have lots of hearings and get
them in here and find out all the tricks they are doing so we
can get rid of some of those, embarrass them into doing it
right. If they have half the people truly in work experience
positions or in actual jobs, the caseloads will start going
down again, I am quite sure, that is the first thing.
The second thing, super waivers, a great idea. The States,
who are supposed to be hungering for it, it is hard to find
evidence that they really want it. I have put this question to
many States about tell me exactly what you would do with this
super waiver provision, and they have a hard time putting into
words exactly what they would do that they could not already do
under current law. Let's cut it way back and allow two or three
or four States to have a super waiver, set up some conditions
under which they can do it, give the Secretary the authority to
waive whatever provisions the Congress decides to put in the
bill. The ones in your bill are fine, and let's see if it
actually makes any difference and the States truly can align
their work and work support programs so that they can do a more
efficient and effective job, so let's try that.
Then the third thing is the money for child care. The first
two parts are tough for Republicans. Child care is tough for
Democrats. I doubt that any Democrat seriously believes that
they are going to get $7 billion for child care over the next 5
years, as in the Senate bill. A billion dollars in your bill, I
think, at this moment, when the Congress is going to cut all
kinds of programs, it appears, and if we are serious about it,
we have to cut spending. There just is not going to be $7
billion. If Democrats are insisting on $7 billion, there is not
going to be a bill. I think it is as simple as that.
Negotiated out, but a billion to me seems reasonable in
your bill. Maybe Democrats can get it up a little bit, but it
is certainly not going to be anywhere close to $7 billion. If
both sides would show flexibility, we could do it. Now, why
should we do this? Several reasons have already been given.
States need to know what the rules are. They need stability.
State innovation will be promoted, if States know what the
rules are, and have the money, and they have the money, and
they know they have got 5 years.
A third thing the Democrats hope they will pay attention to
is that money is dangling out there. It has been there for 3
years. I bet some of you might have had a thought that if we
had done this 3 years ago or last year that it would be less
vulnerable now than it is, especially if we have reconciliation
this year. TANF is likely to get a hit. Let us get that tucked
away and pass it before we get to reconciliation in the fall.
The next thing is the child support provisions, as Wade Horn
pointed out, are excellence.
Then the final thing is I totally agree with Robert
Rector--and I really hope Members will delve into this issue--
marriage is really crucial. It is every bit as important as
work. It is the only way that we are going to have a really big
impact on poverty in this country now. We cannot do it with
welfare. It has to be done through individual initiative.
Halfway there we were, and now we need to go the rest of the
way with marriage, and the Administration proposal is exactly
the right one. We need hundreds of programs around the country,
careful evaluations, and in 10 years I bet you we will figure
out ways to get these young couples that Robert was talking
about, that they want to be married, and they will get married.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Haskins follows:]
Statement of Ron Haskins, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution,
Washington, D.C., and Senior Consultant, Annie E. Casey Foundation,
Baltimore, Maryland
In 1996, thanks in large part to members of this committee,
Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law a sweeping,
bipartisan welfare reform bill. Since that time, the welfare rolls have
fallen by half, the employment of mothers heading families--especially
never-married mothers--has reached an all-time high, and child poverty
has declined substantially for the first time since the early 1970s. In
fact, in 2000 poverty among black children reached the lowest level
ever. Even after the recession, employment by single mothers is still
near its historic high reached in 2000 and child poverty--including
poverty among minority children--is still much lower than in 1996 when
welfare reform passed. Moreover, the reforms of welfare for
noncitizens, of child support enforcement, and of Supplemental Security
Income for children have had their intended effects, savings taxpayers
billions of dollars and increasing the integrity of these programs--and
in the case of child support enforcement, helping custodial mothers
achieve self-sufficiency. No policy has only positive effects, but on
the whole the 1996 welfare reform law stands as one of the most
successful pieces of social legislation ever enacted.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ron Haskins, ``Welfare Reform: The Biggest Accomplishment of
the Revolution'' in Republican Revolution Ten Years Later, edited by
Chris Edwards (Washington: Cato, forthcoming).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As is customary for reform legislation, the authors of the 1996 law
sunset funding for several of its new programs--including Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and the entitlement portion of the
Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG)--at the end of fiscal
year 2002. Beginning late in 2001 and continuing into 2002, the Bush
Administration worked closely with Republican members of this committee
and with representatives of the Republican leadership in both Houses to
fashion a reauthorization bill. That bill, the Personal Responsibility,
Work, and Family Promotion Act, was introduced on April 9, 2002 and
passed by the House in timely fashion on May 16. As amazing at it might
seem, there has been virtually no further progress on reauthorization
since that original bill passed the House in the spring of 2002. During
the rest of the 107th Congress, which ended in 2002, the Senate was
unable to bring a bill out of committee and the legislation died. At
the beginning of the 108th Congress, the House again introduced and
enacted a reauthorization bill, but again the Senate was unable to pass
a bill. The Finance Committee did manage to get a bill out of
committee, only to have it die on the floor before it could receive an
up or down vote.
Over the course of the three-year debate, many issues have
separated the parties. These include the strength of the work
requirement, expanded waiver authority for states to allow more
coordination between a wide range of programs that support work
(sometimes called the ``superwaiver'' proposal), the amount of new
money for child care, and the provision on promoting marriage. The work
issue has perhaps been the most controversial. Republicans are
proposing to tighten the definition of work by restricting credit for
education, increasing the weekly hours of required work to 40, and
replacing the caseload reduction credit with a rolling credit that
ensures strong work requirements no matter how much states reduce their
caseload.
Even though these specific work requirements turned out to be
controversial, it is worth noting that a prominent Democratic
organization, the Democratic Leadership Council, with support from many
Democratic Senators including Hillary Clinton, Tom Carper, and Evan
Bayh, supported a bill with work requirements that were nearly as
strong as those in the House bill. In any case, it is a routine matter
for Democrats to initiate legislation to the left, and Republicans to
initiate legislation to the right, of positions they could support in a
final bill. Indeed, it is conventional wisdom in Washington that
introducing a bill at the outset of a legislative debate that
represents your best and final offer would be bad strategy. The real
issue is what position a party is willing to adopt at the conclusion of
final negotiations. In the legislative context, that means the final
position to which members of each party would agree in a House-Senate
conference. Since the Senate has never passed a bill, no one can claim
that Republicans have not been willing to deal. The context for dealing
has yet to occur.
It is to be expected that each party would blame the other for
whatever goes wrong in Washington, but a time comes to pay less
attention to assigning blame and more attention to finding solutions.
That time is at hand. I fervently hope that members of this committee
and all members of the House, the Senate, and Bush administration will
be willing to stop blaming the other side and agree to compromise
provisions that will permit a five-year reauthorization of this
important program.
It seems clear, and has for three years, that three major issues
prevent agreement between the parties. These issues are the work
requirement, the superwaiver, and the amount of new money for child
care. Although the Republican initiative on marriage has gotten lots of
press attention, it seems that much of the controversy has died down
during the course of the debate and opposition seems to have waned.
Even the Washington Post had kind things to say about the
administration's marriage proposal.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``The Left's Marriage Problem,'' Washington Post, April 5,
2002, p. A22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the work requirement, I believe the solution has been obvious
for some time. The work requirement in current law has only one flaw,
the caseload reduction credit. When welfare reform was enacted in 1996,
governors wanted credit for helping families leave the rolls. Their
proposal was to count every family that left the rolls as meeting the
work requirement. Clay Shaw and other Republicans on this committee,
perhaps with support from some Democrats, always held firmly to the
position that counting all welfare leavers as meeting the work
requirement was an unambiguously bad idea. It is the nature of welfare
caseloads to have lots of turnover. Mothers leave and rejoin welfare
for a host of reasons, and they were doing so long before states had
any serious work requirements. To give states credit for this natural
rate of turnover in the welfare caseload was to completely gut the work
requirement. After all, a given state could have a 50 percent turnover
in its caseload in a given year and yet experience an actual increase
in its caseload if more people came onto the roles than left.
But Chairman Shaw and most members of the committee agreed with the
governors that states should get some credit against the work
requirement for helping families leave the caseload. To avoid the
problem of counting the natural churning in the caseload, credit was
given for net reductions in the caseload. Consider a simplified
example. If a state had 100 families on welfare and 50 families left
the rolls while only 25 joined the rolls, the state's net caseload
reduction would be 50 minus 25 divided by 100 or 25 percent. Under the
subcommittee provision, the state would get to subtract its caseload
reduction from the work requirement for that year. If the work
requirement were 50 percent, the revised work requirement would be 50
percent minus 25 percent or 25 percent. The underlying concept in this
approach is that states should get credit for welfare exits only to the
extent that they exceed welfare entries. After all, perhaps the major
purpose of welfare reform is to help people leave (or avoid) welfare
and to support themselves primarily through their own efforts.
But after enactment of the 1996 law, a severe problem arose with
the caseload reduction credit. Caseloads all over the nation plummeted
as never before. Whereas the rolls of the Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) program had not declined for more than two
consecutive years since 1960 and then only by a few percentage points,
after 1994 the caseload fell every year and the national caseload
declined by about 60 percent. Because of the caseload reduction credit,
the typical state had no work requirement (50 percent work requirement
minus 50 percent net caseload decline equals zero work requirement).
Clearly, if anyone had known what a dramatic impact welfare reform and
the good economy of the 1990s would have on caseloads, the caseload
reduction credit would have been written differently in the 1996 law.
Given these facts, I believe simply fixing the caseload reduction
credit and leaving the other features of the 1996 work requirement in
place would be sufficient. This provision should not, of course, be in
the initial Republican bill, but I believe it would adequate as the
final compromise provision. Here's the bottom line: as long as states
are required to have half their caseload in a work program in which
most of those counting toward the requirement are actually in a job and
in which participants must work at least 30 hours per week, the work
requirement will be more than adequate. I am not aware of any evidence
that going beyond these characteristics of a work requirement would
produce any benefits for welfare families or states. But going beyond
these requirements would certainly cost states more money.
The solution on the superwaiver provision is to drop the universal
waiver provision and enact authority for just three to five states to
experiment with the new flexibility provided in the House bill. As a
concept, the superwaiver is excellent policy.\3\ But I have noticed
that since House Republicans have been fighting to create this broad
new waiver policy, few if any states have lobbied aggressively to
support the policy. In addition, when I have asked state officials to
provide examples of how they would use the waiver authority, they have
had difficulty articulating how they would like to coordinate their
welfare, work, training, education, food, and housing programs in ways
that they now cannot. Perhaps some states may be able to come up with
constructive proposals, but there is no evidence that states are
planning to take advantage of the superwaiver provision. It's simply
not worth fighting to give something to states that they say they want
in the abstract, but cannot provide clear examples of how they would
use if given the new authority. On the chance that several states will
actually think of good ways to coordinate their programs, I think it
good policy to allow a few states to have the expanded flexibility
provided by the superwaiver. Such states may be able to figure out ways
to use the superwaiver to promote efficiency by better aligning their
work support programs. If that were to happen, Congress could debate
whether to expand the superwaiver to additional states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Pietro S. Nivola, Jennifer L. Noyes, and Isabel V. Sawhill.
(2004). ``Waive of the Future? Federalism and the Next Phrase of
Welfare Reform,'' WR&B Policy Brief, no.29 (Washington: Brookings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The third and in many ways most difficult issue is the amount of
new money for child care. Arguably this is the single provision that
has done the most to prevent Congress from passing a bill. Last year,
the Senate wanted at least $7.0 billion over five years in new money,
but House Republicans were willing to provide only $1 billion. The best
argument in support of the Democratic call for big new money is that so
many welfare mothers have now gone to work that there is a substantial
increase in the demand for child care. Whatever Congress decides to do
about the problem with the work requirement is likely to intensify the
need for child care. Even if Congress fixed only the caseload reduction
credit, states would still have stiff new work requirements that apply
to those on the welfare caseload and they would continue to have a very
large number of mothers who have left the rolls for work, many of whom
will need child care to continue working. As the need for child care
expands, the President's budget shows that the number of child care
slots that could be paid for with funds from the CCDBG will decline in
the years ahead.\4\Democrats also argue that the quality of some child
care is low. With more money, states could raise child care standards
and perhaps improve some of the facilities that provide low quality
care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Office of Management and Budget, ``Budget of the United States
Government: Fiscal Year 2006,'' (Government Printing Office, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans respond that states have more money for child care than
ever, most of which is federal. They have money from the CCDBG, Title
I, Head Start, the Child and Adult Care Food Program, and many other
smaller programs, around $25 billion in total counting the states' own
spending. Moreover, states can use more money from the TANF block grant
for child care, either by transferring it into the CCDBG or by spending
it directly out of TANF. Even if states need more money for child care,
Republicans argue that they already have more than ever and that their
TANF caseload is smaller than ever, leaving more money to use for child
care.
This year there will be a new, or at least more intense,
consideration for this committee in negotiating how much new money
could be made available for child care. I refer, of course, to the new
seriousness with which the Bush administration and the Congress appear
to be approaching the federal deficit. I strongly support action to
reduce the deficit, even if it means making painful cuts in social
programs or raising revenues.\5\ The president's goal of cutting the
deficit in half within five years is the very least Congress should
accomplish. Given the enormous pressure on spending this year, it will
be difficult to increase funding for any domestic programs. Indeed,
many members of Congress and the Bush administration, as well as
outside observers, are predicting that Congress will use the
reconciliation budget procedure this year to force reductions in
spending. If so, this committee will be required to produce many
billions of dollars in spending cuts or revenue raisers. It is
difficult to see how major new funding for child care is compatible
with reconciliation. For every dollar by which this committee increases
spending on child care, you will be required to cut an additional
dollar above your reconciliation amount somewhere else. The $1 billion
over five years in new child care money offered by the House for the
last three years seems generous under the spending pressure Congress
faces this year. In short, if there is to be a bill this year,
Democrats and the group of Senate Republicans who supported $7 billion
for child care are going to have to substantially reduce their demands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ron Haskins, Alice Rivlin, and Isabel Sawhill, ``Getting to
Balance: Three Alternative Plans,'' in Restoring Fiscal Sanity: How to
Balance the Budget, edited by Alice Rivlin and Isabel Sawhill
(Washington: Brookings, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, if Republicans back off somewhat on the work
requirement and the superwaiver, Democrats should be willing to reduce
their demand for additional child care money. The details of a deal
that the majority of both Republicans and Democrats could accept could
flow from these three main ingredients of a bipartisan compromise.
On the other hand, if Republicans and Democrats cannot reach
agreement this year, Republicans can use the reconciliation budget
procedure to pass a bill that few or even no Democrats support. The
main threat against passing a welfare reauthorization bill that does
not have several billion dollars in new child care spending is that
Senators supporting additional child care spending could organize a
filibuster against the bill. A Senate filibuster can be stopped only by
a 60-vote majority. Thus, in effect, controversial legislation can be
passed in the Senate only if it can attract 60 votes. But a
reconciliation bill is not subject to filibuster. The negotiations over
TANF reauthorization should be conducted with the understanding that if
bipartisan agreement cannot be reached by, say, July, Republicans will
include their own version of reauthorization in the reconciliation
bill. The Byrd Rule in the Senate may cause modest problems with this
approach by requiring some provisions in the bill to be dropped, but
the main TANF block grant and most other major provisions would escape
the Byrd Rule. It is worth recalling that the 1996 welfare reform law
was passed as part of reconciliation and most of its provisions
survived the Byrd Rule.
The reasons for passing a reauthorization bill this year are
legion. I'm sure that members from both sides of the aisle would agree
that the orderly conduct of Congressional business is preferable to
creating programs and then keeping those administering the programs at
the state and local level in limbo for several years while Congress
debates the future of the program. Further, state administrators, who
on the whole have done a commendable job of implementing welfare reform
(and many additional provisions in the 1996 welfare reform law,
especially child support enforcement), have now waited for three years
to learn whether TANF funding will be continued at its present level
and whether the programs will be substantially changed. The main
consideration here is that the people who have implemented reform and
oversee it on a day-to-day basis deserve to know what Congress expects
in the future. They should not be kept waiting any longer.
I think there is another powerful reason for enacting a
reauthorization bill this year. In addition to fixing the work
requirement, the most important provision in the reauthorization bill
may be the funds to promote marriage. Ironically, the importance of
marriage to poor and low-income Americans was brilliantly established
long ago by one of the most implacable foes of welfare reform, the late
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. In 1965, as an Assistant Secretary in
the Department of Labor, Moynihan wrote a report arguing that a major
reason black Americans were not making greater social and economic
progress was that too many black children were being reared in female-
headed families.\6\ Moynihan was particularly concerned about the
growing number of children born to never-married parents. Since the
Moynihan report was published, all the problems that so alarmed him
have gotten much worse. Further, social science research has provided
abundant evidence that proves Moynihan was right--both adults and
children do better in married-couple families. As compared with
children from married-couple families, children reared in female-headed
families perform poorly in school, are less likely to graduate, are
more likely to have babies as teenagers, are more likely to have mental
health problems, and are less likely to be self-supporting as
adults.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Daniel P. Moynihan, The Negro Family: The Case for National
Action (Washington: U.S. Department of Labor, 1965).
\7\ SaraMcLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up With a Single
Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1996); Paul Amato, ``The Impact of Family Formation Change on the
Cognitive, Social, and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation,''
Future of Children (2005, forthcoming).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Members of this committee may recall that in 1983, a commission
sponsored by the Department of Education held that ``if an unfriendly
power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational
performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act
of war.'' \8\ That colorful claim could be applied with equal force to
the explosion of single-parent families in the nation. The implication
of the social science research on the long-term effects of the
deterioration of marriage is that the nation spends additional billions
of dollars on the excess teen pregnancy, welfare use, and poor school
performance associated with the single-parent child rearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at
Risk (Government Printing Office, 1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This problem is particularly acute among black Americans. The rate
of nonmarital births among blacks is about 70 percent.\9\ At least half
of the remaining black children experience divorce. Thus, around 85
percent of black children, compared with somewhat more than 50 percent
of white children, spend a considerable portion of their childhood in
single-parent families. In addition to high non-marital birth rates, a
major cause of this problem is the severe decline in marriage rates
among blacks. In 1950, 62 percent of black women were married, a rate
only slightly less than the rate for white women. But by 2002, the rate
had plummeted to just 36 percent for black women, a fall of nearly 40
percent, and their marriage rate was almost 35 percent lower than the
rate for white women.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Stephanie J. Ventura and others, ``Nonmarital Childbearing in
the United States, 1940-99,'' National Vital Statistics Reports 48, No.
16 (Washington: National Center for Health Statistics, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research on parents who have babies outside marriage suggests that
many of these young couples would actually like to be married. Sara
McLanahan and her colleagues at Princeton have shown that about half of
these couples live together at the time of the marriage and an
additional 30 percent say they are in a loving relationship. Thus,
almost 80 percent of these couples are romantically involved at the
time of birth. Further, interviews with the mothers and fathers show
that most of them have high ideals about the importance of marriage and
are thinking of marriage for themselves.\10\ Yet very few of the
couples actually marry. Given these facts, it makes sense to try to
design programs that could help young, unmarried parents fulfill their
desire to marry. These programs should provide couples with marriage
education that features training in relationship skills, reducing
family violence, financial planning, and other skills that they can use
to sustain their relationship. Additional services should also be
offered to the couples, especially employment services for both the
mothers and fathers. If these programs could actually succeed in
promoting marriage rates among these couples, the mother and father,
the children, and society would all benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Sara McLanahan, ``Racial and Ethnic Differences in Marriage
among New, Unwed Parents,'' Fragile Families Research Brief 25
(Princeton, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has already begun
conducting research on programs designed to work with these young
couples and help them fulfill their dream of being married. HHS will in
all probability soon be launching a major project of this type in
Baltimore and several other sites around the country. But given its
sparse resources, HHS cannot possibly mount the wide range and variety
of pro-marriage programs that are needed to help the nation find
effective ways to help these couples move toward their goal of
marriage. For that, we need provisions like those in the House and
Senate TANF reauthorization bills that would provide around $1.5
billion over 5 years to mount scores of demonstration projects around
the nation, most involving churches and other community organizations.
The history of social interventions shows that most of them do not
work. For this reason, we need to implement and study many different
types of programs in order to find the most effective approaches to
maximizing the number of children living in married-couple families.
The Bush administration is following this approach, but on a far too
limited scale. Only when TANF reauthorization passes will the nation
have adequate resources to meet the challenge of developing effective
programs.
The nation has waited three years for Congress to reauthorize the
1996 welfare reform law, one of the most important and successful
social programs of recent decades. In the interest of promoting self-
sufficiency, we should let the states get on with the task of helping
mothers leave or avoid welfare in favor of work. Equally important,
Congress should expand the goals of welfare reform to launch the nation
in the relatively new direction of helping young unmarried parents
achieve martial stability for themselves and their children. This is an
agenda that should not wait.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Dr. Haskins, and for all your
past work and service in this area in this area. Dr. Johnson to
testify.
STATEMENT OF JEFFERY M. JOHNSON, PH.D., PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR COMMUNITY
LEADERSHIP; ACCOMPANIED BY YOVANI RIVERA
Dr. JOHNSON. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Herger and
all the Members of the Committee, for inviting me to testify
here on welfare reform and fatherhood. I have brought a guest
with me, sitting to my left. His name is Mr. Yovani Rivera, and
he is going to share a little bit about his story as a result
of being involved in the program with the Northern Virginia
Urban League Resource Father Program. He is, also, joined today
by his 4 month old daughter Jahaira, and his girlfriend, Silvia
Navarrete, who is seated in the first row directly behind us.
What I would like to spend most of my time talking about today
is a demonstration project called, ``Partners for Fragile
Families (PFF),'' that was completed recently that shows us
promise of the provisions in the bill regarding fatherhood.
This is a particularly important time for me because this also
is the time when my father's 80th birthday would be celebrated.
He died 41 years ago, and I still miss him terribly, as well as
my other siblings.
There is much information in my prepared testimony on PFF,
it was a 10 year, 10 city experiment created through a
partnership between local community-based organizations and
child support enforcement. Since 2001, 4,500, and we refer to
them as dead-broke dads, have taken advantage of employment
training, parenting plans, job placement and GED testing
services. PFF sites recruited more than 6,000 fathers to
participate in these programs. That is a point that the
Committee should footnote because these were previously
underground father who historically have not shown up on any
database related to the birth of the child. The PFF projects
were able to locate these fathers and get them into the
program. About 4,600 fathers went through the intake system;
3,300 were determined eligible; and 1,523 fathers enrolled in
the total demonstration program.
Of those that were enrolled, at intake, 29 percent were
employed, 78 percent had less than a 12th-grade education, 68-
percent were African American, 13 percent were Hispanic, 8
percent were Caucasian, 2 percent were Native American, and 1
percent were Asian. Another item that I want the Committee to
footnote is that 42 percent of them had spent time in jail or
prison or had been convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony or
were on probation and parole.
Some of the services the fathers received were 68 percent
wanted job assistance, 28 percent wanted help in improving
their relationship with the child's mother, 64 percent wanted
assistance in educational upgrading, so that if you get good
jobs, and 45 percent came in the door wanting to improve their
parenting skills. Of those services that the fathers requested
themselves, 15 percent received assistance in housing and
another 29 percent received assistance for substance abuse.
Some of the milestones of PFF that I want to highlight are
that 40 percent of the fathers that enrolled in the program
established paternity, 28 percent who came in without child
support orders or established child support orders, 59 percent
of the participants are paying child support, which is above
the national average, and 71 percent of the participants went
from paying zero in child support to now paying an average of
$124 a month, 3 percent got married and 48 percent of the
participants either got full or part-time jobs.
We have learned a great deal over the last 6 years, and
I've worked with low-income fathers and their fragile families.
We have learned a lot about what works and what doesn't work
with this population. We have formed, and are continuing to
form, unprecedented, mutual, usually beneficial partnerships
that will shape the future for children of fragile families and
low-income communities. With a stable public funding stream
that supports the work of practitioners in the field, we can
continue to do this work and so much more. These are programs
like those of the Northern Virginia Urban League, the D.C.
Fatherhood Initiative, and the Northern Virginia Regional
Fatherhood Coalition who operate on shoe-string budgets and the
good hearts of volunteers to work with young fathers like
Yovani Rivera, who will now briefly share his own story.
Mr. RIVERA. How are you today? I have been with the program
since last summer. I have been with Chris Beard, who is right
behind us, and he is helping me out a lot. He took me to
Northern Virginia Community College to get me signed up, so I
can take some classes so I can have a career in architecture or
electricity, and he takes me out for lunch sometimes. All we
talk about is school, work. He took me trying to get a better
job, and he has helped me out. I am more responsible. I am
planning to marry my girlfriend, Silvia, because I love my
daughter and my girlfriend right now. I want to go to college
and get a career so I can provide my daughter with what I
didn't have because I grew up without my father, and I just
want to be there for my daughter, so she can have what I didn't
have. Thank you.
Dr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
Statement of Jeffery M. Johnson, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive
Officer, National Partnership for Community Leadership, accompanied by
Mr. Yovani Rivera
Good Afternoon. I want to thank Chairman Herger and members of the
Human Resources Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee for
this opportunity to testify on your efforts to promote responsible
fatherhood. I am Dr. Jeffery Johnson, President and CEO of the National
Partnership for Community Leadership, NPCL. Some of you may remember
that I previously testified before this committee when the organization
was known as the NationalCenter for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and
Community Leadership, also NPCL. We have found our new name to be more
descriptive to a broader audience of the types of community based
empowerment efforts and activity to which we are committed. NPCL was
always envisioned as a national partner supporting the indigenous
leadership of communities to resolve their self defined local issues.
On behalf of the board and staff of NPCL and the more than 3,000 local
responsible fatherhood and family strengthening program operators and
practitioners we have educated and trained, I applaud the continuing
efforts of this committee to say plainly and without equivocation that
the well being of children is our most important concern and fathers
are an integral part of it. Mothers usually provide the mortar that
holds most families together, but no matter the configuration of the
family, FATHERS COUNT! Also, Mr. Chairman, on February 13th, I will be
celebrating the birthday of my own father, The Reverend James Edward
Johnson, who died 41 years ago. He was a father who counted to me and
my ten siblings and we still miss him desperately.
Let's me state here, that my testimony in support of passage of the
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) legislation is being
supported by a united coalition of national and local fatherhood
organizations, which comprises an active and goal oriented work group.
Our members include NPCL, the National Fatherhood Initiative, the
National Center for Fathers and Families, the Institute for Responsible
Fatherhood and Family Revitalization, the Center on Fathers, Families,
and Workforce Development, The National Center on Fathering, and the
National Practitioners Network for Fathers and Families.
If the 109th Congress is successful at passing legislation that
will reauthorize and provide programmatic stability for Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families (TANF); maintain the proposed child
support distribution changes that enjoy bi-partisan support, the result
of over a decade of talks and negotiations; while providing the first
meaningful public support to fatherhood programs; it will be a crucial
step towards helping low-income fathers assume emotional, nurturing,
legal and financial responsibility for their children. This legislation
that seeks to strengthen the relationships between and among fathers
and families covers a complex web of interrelated factors that can, on
a practical level, make or break brittle and weak family ties
frequently associated with a lack of monetary resources. My testimony
today is based on over a quarter century of work in this area and
specifically on NPCL's work of the past six years with two national
demonstration projects designed by state and local leadership to
address low-income fathers in their communities. These projects, the
Partners for Fragile Families Site Demonstration Project (PFF) and the
Fathers at Work Initiative (F@W), while small when compared to the need
for such services, operated in 16 cities and provide the broadest base
of on point data concerning the financial and emotional reengagement of
the fathers of children presently or previously receiving cash payments
under the TANF program.
In the brief time I have to share with the Committee, I want to
share some specific information on the Fathers At Work Initiative and
the Partners for Fragile Families Site Demonstration (PPF), and allow
my special guest, Yovani Rivera, a young father enrolled in the
Northern Virginia Urban League Resource Father Program, a program that
seeks to help fathers recycle themselves and become positive role
models and productive tax paying citizens. Yovani is accompanied today
by the mother of his four-month-old daughter, Silvia Mavarriete, who is
seated in the front row directly behind us. Yovani and Silvia plan to
get married.
The Fathers-at-Work initiative was a six-city joint project of NPCL
and Public Private/Ventures funded by the Charles Stewart Mott
Foundation. It targeted and served older fathers, 25 years old and
older, with a focus on fathers who had experienced significant
encounters with the criminal justice system. It also sought to take
advantage of the relationships that NPCL had developed with state and
local child support enforcement leaders in support of socially and
economically challenged dads. This project just ended and data
collection and analysis will be forthcoming over the next year. Over a
period of three years, F@W, as we affectionately called it, served over
700 of the most chronically challenged fathers in the six sites.
The PFF Site Demonstration was a three-year, 10 city experiment,
created through a partnership between local community-based
organizations and child support enforcement agencies. The goal of the
partnership was to create a support system that would address the
myriad of personal, relational, and financial needs faced by young (16-
25 years of age) low-income, fathers in fragile families. To help the
young father, the PFF project sought to get the father to establish
legal paternity, improve his education level, increase job skills, and
pay child support.
Since 2001, more than 4,500 ``dead-broke dads'' have taken
advantage of employment training, parenting plans, job placement and
GED testing services, according to the most recent findings from the
Partnership for Fragile Families Site Demonstration project (PFF). With
the help of these partnerships, ``fragile fathers'' are pulling
themselves out of poverty, creating stronger relationships with their
children, becoming productive citizens and giving back to their
communities. Initial data confirm that while these children are faced
with difficult domestic realities, PFF-fostered partnerships can build
system capacity and deliver the tools necessary to strengthen families,
fathers, and their futures.
This ten-city demonstration project was designed to promote
increased cooperation and informed decision-making among organizations
that work with fragile families. PFF recognized that neither government
nor private agencies could do this work alone. Therefore, the four key
goals of PFF were to:
Help community-based organizations and government
agencies productively leverage their information and resources as
partners in order to better discern and respond to the needs of
children in fragile families;
Strengthen disadvantaged, particularly fragile families,
in the interest of children;
Help support both parents in their efforts to become
providers for their children; and
Promote family-friendly income security and other social
policies that acknowledge and encourage the contributions of both
parents, even those parents without physical custody.
During the conduct of the Partners for Fragile Families Site
Demonstration Project, the PFF sites recruited 6,525 fathers. Intake
was accomplished on 4,650. Of those going through the intake process,
approximately 3,350 were PFF eligible, met the age requirement of
between 16-25 years old. Those that were not PFF eligible were referred
to alternative programs, or, in the case of the more established
programs, served with other resources. Of the 1,523 fathers enrolled in
the total program:
29% were employed at intake;
Average hourly wages at intake was $7.43;
44% were between the ages of 16 and 20 years old;
56% were between 21 to 25 years old;
78% had less than 12th grade education;
68% were African American, 13% Hispanic, 8% Caucasian, 2%
Native American, and 1% Asian; and
42% had spent time in jail or prison, or had been
convicted of misdemeanors or felony, or on probation or parole.
Fathers that participated in the PFF project were the most
economically and socially challenged of the low-income fathers
distribution. Their average income was less than $4,000 annually, when
gainfully employed. They are chronically unemployed, hard to employ,
and present to community-based responsible fatherhood development
programs with trauma and multiple needs.
Services Requested by PFF Fathers
The vast majority of PFF participants came through the doors of the
PFF programs in crisis. Most came looking for employment, but upon
intake and assessment they were to found to have multiple and varying
needs. Services requested by fathers were as follows:
68% wanted job assistance;
42% of those employed wanted help in a better job with
more stability;
22% wanted help in creating and sustaining a relationship
with their children;
28% wanted help in improving their relationship with
their significant other;
64% requested educational assistance to increase their
skill levels and better prepare them for employment opportunities;
45% wanted to improve their parenting skills;
30% wanted help with child support issues;
20% wanted anger management training; and
25% wanted health services.
Services Received by PFF Fathers
Through a collaborative case management model that agencies
developed for the PFF project, the programs were able to meet the
service requests of fathers coming through their doors. While
participants requested the above-mentioned services, they received
additional assistance identified as part of the assessment process and
subsequent conversations with participants. Additional services
received by PFF participants include:
15% received housing assistance;
29% received substance abuse training;
5% received legal assistance on other than child support
issues (Parking fines, DWI, suspension of drivers' licenses . . .
etc.);
3% mental health treatment;
5% dental treatment;
60% peer support;
3% family and community violence;
3% financial literacy;
22% child custody; and
13% visitation.
PFF Milestones
As of December 2003, the PFF sites have attained the formal end of
the conduct of the PFF Demonstration, the following milestones:
40% of participants established paternity;
28% of participants without orders, established child
support orders;
59% of participants are paying child support, above the
national average;
71% of participants went from paying 0 $ to paying an
average of $124 monthly;
40% of participants initiated Parenting Plans;
3% of participants married;
7% of participants completed their GED; and
48% (of the 71% unemployed at intake) placed in full or
part time jobs.
Future Directions for Fatherhood Programs
We have learned a great deal over the last six years in our work
with low-income fathers and their fragile families. We have learned a
lot about what works and what doesn't work with this population. We
have formed, and are continuing to form unprecedented, mutually
beneficial partnerships that will shape the future for children of
fragile families in low income communities by improving the manner in
which services are delivered to their entire family. With a stable
public funding stream, that supports the work of practitioners in the
field, we can continue to do this work and do so much more. These are
programs like those of the Northern Virginia Urban League, the DC
Fatherhood Initiative, and the Northern Virginia Regional Fatherhood
Coalition, who operate on ``shoe string'' budgets and the good hearts
of volunteers to work with young fathers like Yovani Rivera who will
now briefly share his own story
The Partners for Fragile Families Site Demonstration
Beginning September 2000 and ending December 2003, The Partners for
Fragile Families Site Demonstration (PFF) was the first national
initiative working at the federal, state and local levels to help poor,
single fathers pull themselves out of poverty and build stronger links
to their children and their children's mothers. This is where we took
``family values'' from bumper-sticker platitude to meaningful program
action. With child well-being always at its center, PFF held that
children are best served by two loving parents who can support their
children. This means that programs serving low-income families must
work together to strengthen, train, build the skill levels and assist
each individual, mother and father, towards the goals of financial
self-sufficiency, cooperative parenting and being productive community
members.
In order to assist low-income families and their biological
children, federal, state, local and private programs operating at all
levels, must work in concert with one another, to share information,
resources, and the objective of child well-being. To that end, Partners
for Fragile Families formed unprecedented partnerships among grassroots
community-based organizations and child support enforcement agencies to
assist young, low-income, unmarried parents--particularly underserved
dads--so they could assume financial, emotional and legal
responsibility for their children. The three-year, ten-city
demonstration project was designed to promote increased cooperation and
informed decision-making among organizations that work with fragile
families. PFF recognized that neither government nor private agencies
could do this work alone. Therefore, the four key goals of PFF were to:
Help community-based organizations and government agencies
productively leverage their information and resources as partners in
order to better discern and respond to the needs of children in fragile
families;
Strengthen disadvantaged, particularly fragile families, in the
interest of children;
Help support both parents in their efforts to become providers for
their children; and
Promote family-friendly income security and other social policies
that acknowledge and encourage the contributions of both parents, even
those parents without physical custody.
Who did PFF Target
There are nearly four million fathers of children on welfare, or
``fragile fathers'' without custody, who are under-educated, unemployed
and make so little money that they themselves are eligible for food
stamps. Young, poor dads are often willing but unable to assume
financial responsibility for their children. In fact, 29 percent of
fragile dads actually manage to pay some child support, a clear
demonstration that they are trying to do the right thing. And one study
showed that poor, single fathers said that they saw their children once
a week, took them to the doctor, and reported bathing, feeding,
dressing and playing with their children. These men are not ``deadbeat
dads,'' they are ``dead-broke dads.'' Only 27 percent of poor single
fathers had full-time, year-round jobs in 1990. The average annual
income of young, poor single fathers was under $10,000 in 1990 and 60
percent of these men earned less than the individual poverty level of
$6,800. Forty-three percent of fragile dads did not finish high school
and had no access to employment and training services.
PFF targeted fathers who faced many of the same challenges as
welfare mothers. The difference is that where mothers had access to a
variety of public assistance programs including employment training,
fathers have not. If fathers were to successfully share the
responsibilities of parenthood and become both self- and family-
supporting, they needed help similar to that offered to moms. The goal
of PFF was to produce a fatherhood system that would help strengthen
the involvement of fathers in the lives of their children.
PFT Three Year Participant Finding
During the conduct of the Partners for Fragile Families Site
Demonstration Project, the PFF sites recruited 6,525 fathers. Intake
was accomplished on 4,650. Of those going through the intake process,
approximately 3,350 were PFF eligible, met the age requirement of
between 16-25 years old. Those that were not PFF eligible were referred
to alternative programs, or, in the case of the more established
programs, served with other resources. Of the 1,523 fathers enrolled in
the program:
29% were employed at intake;
Average hourly wages at intake was $7.43;
44% were between the ages of 16 and 20 years old;
56 % were between 21 to 25 years old;
78% had less than 12th grade education;
68% were African American, 13% Hispanic, 8% Caucasian, 2%
Native American, and 1% Asian;
42% had contact with law enforcement processes, spent
time in jail or prison, convicted of misdemeanors or felony, or on
probation or parole.
Fathers that participated in the PFF project were the most
economically and socially challenged of the low-income fathers
distribution. Their average income was less than $4,000 annually, when
gainfully employed. They are chronically unemployed, hard to employ,
and present to community-based responsible fatherhood development
programs with trauma and multiple needs.
Services Requested by PFF Fathers
The vast majority of PFF participants came through the doors of the
PFF programs in crisis. Most came looking for employment, but upon
intake and assessment they were to found to have multiple and varying
needs. Services requested by fathers were as follows:
68% wanted job assistance;
42% of those employed wanted help in a better job with
more stability;
22% wanted help in creating and sustaining a relationship
with their children;
28% wanted help in improving their relationship with
their significant other;
64% requested educational assistance to increase their
skill levels and better prepare them for employment opportunities;
45% wanted to improve their parenting skills;
30% wanted help with child support issues;
20% wanted anger management training; and
25% wanted health services.
Services Received by PFF Fathers
Through a collaborative case management model that agencies
developed for the PFF project, the programs were able to meet all the
service requests of fathers coming through their doors. While
participants requested the above-mentioned services, they received
additional assistance identified as part of the assessment process and
subsequent conversations with participants. Additional services
received by PFF participants include:
15% received housing assistance;
29% received substance abuse training;
5% received legal assistance on other than child support
issues (Parking fines, DWI, suspension of drivers' licenses . . .
etc.);
3% mental health treatment;
5% dental treatment;
60% peer support;
3% family and community violence;
3% financial literacy;
22% child custody; and
13% visitation.
PFF Milestones
As of December 2003, the formal end of the conduct of the PFF
Demonstration, the following milestones has been attained by the PFF
sites:
40% of participants established paternity;
28% of participants established child support orders;
59% of participants are paying child support, above the
national average;
71% of participants went from paying 0 $ to paying an
average of $124 monthly;
40% of participants initiated Parenting Plans;
3% of participants married;
7% of participants completed their GED; and
48% (of the 71% unemployed at intake) placed in full or
part time jobs.
Mrs. JOHNSON. [Presiding.] Mr. Turner?
STATEMENT OF JASON A. TURNER, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR SELF-
SUFFICIENCY, MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
Mr. TURNER. Thank you. I am going to say three things here
today. First, we need to get the bill done--I agree with the
others--and there is evidence that States right now, since the
election, are abandoning the old idea that they can not have to
worry too much about TANF because it is going to happen.
Second, there are a couple of improvements to the bill that I
would recommend and, third, SSI is now becoming the default Aid
to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. It is
growing rapidly, it is out of control, and some of the lessons
that we learned about how to reform TANF can actually be used
constructively in analyzing the problems of the Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) program. In my testimony, I suggest that
there is a lot of good things going on. I have been to 10
States working with them, consulting for HHS recently and
bringing some of the ideas we have used in the past to New York
City and Wisconsin to many local offices.
Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts recently increased
and expanded its work requirement to bring it into line with
stricter Federal standards. In Atlanta, the Fulton County
office is actually measuring the participation rate by
caseworker and coding them red, yellow or green depending on
whether they meet the Federal requirements. That act alone,
that administrative act alone, you can see on Page 3 the
results has increased the participation rate in that county
from about 9 percent to 41 percent over a period of 14 months.
A lot is being done, but we need to be doing a couple of other
things that I think are important in this bill:
Number one, Full Check sanction is the only way to really
engage people who have decided to not participate. It is not a
tool that is used as a punishment. It is used as a tool to
bring people in. In New York City, when we had sent out many,
many letters to individuals to come in, at one point, 41
percent of the people who were supposed to participate were not
doing so. We need to get Full Check sanction. It is in the bill
now, but the problem is that the bill allows the States to
obviate the provision by using the separate State program
provision, which I won't go into detail, but that problem needs
to be fixed. It is fixed, in Senator Talent's bill, S. 5, from
the 108th Congress, so I would encourage you to review that.
Secondly, the food stamp program should be aligned more closely
to the provisions of TANF, using the simplified food stamp
program. That provision was put into the first bill, but its
effectiveness has been obviated by a narrow reading of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture not allowing States to line up their
programs. That should be clarified.
Third, the use of data from one program to another inside
the Agency ought to be allowed. For instance, when I was
commissioner, I was told that information that we collected on
drug use by Medicaid recipients could not be used to inform
ourselves as to what drug treatment program would best be used
next for a TANF recipient because there was a firewall.
Similarly, new hire information is already collected by the
Agency, and so is Social Security wage information, but it is
not allowed or States believe they can't use it after they talk
to their lawyers, in furthering the program of TANF. That
should be clarified as well.
Finally, I would like to talk about SSI. You do have a
provision in this bill on SSI, but I think there is a larger
issue here, which is States have a financial interest in
pushing as many people into SSI as they can. If SSI were just
strictly used for the truly disabled who had no opportunity to
work whatsoever, then that would be okay. The truth of the
matter is the high-functioning SSI population and the low-
functioning TANF population are the same people, but they are
treated differently. Under TANF, we take those individuals, and
we try and help them do what they can do maximize their self-
reliance. With SSI, we assume that they can do nothing, and we
set them aside. The ways we can use the lessons of TANF in the
SSI Program are fivefold:
One, we should assume that applicants and recipients on
TANF oftentimes are more capable of doing things than we think
they are just by looking at the data. Secondly, we should
engage them at the front door; meaning, we should help SSI
recipients who are both applying and recently on SSI to engage
in vocational rehabilitation as a condition of receiving
benefits for that portion of SSI recipients most likely to be
able to reengage in the labor force, always looking at
activities they can succeed in and tying full benefits to that
requirement. Finally, the administrative law judges are
overturning an excessive number of medical determinations
without a medical reason. They are doing it on other bases. If
they don't have a medical reason, they are doing it on the
basis of--I don't know what their reasons are or their
rationale--but 34 percent of applications are initially
approved, 66 percent are approved after appeals. That is
obviously too far of a gap, and there needs to be an
improvement there. I would agree that the bill is a good bill
that the Committee has recommended. I would look to SSI as the
next danger point for long-term dependency among former TANF or
current TANF participants. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Turner follows:]
Statement of Jason A. Turner, Director, Center for Self-Sufficiency,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on the important
topic of TANF reauthorization.
I will summarize the points I will make below:
1. States and local programs have responded to the prospect
of TANF reauthorization, particularly since the re-election of
the President, with a greater emphasis on organizing their
programs around meeting prospective higher work requirements.
Many are making significant improvements. It is important that
the Congress support this momentum.
2. The committee bill is solid and realistic. However, there
are a few areas which are important additions to the bill.
These include the following:
The Full Check sanction provision is the single
most important element which allows administrators to draw
recipients into the program, reaching full engagement. However,
without certain loophole closings, the existing Full Check
provision of the bill can be circumvented.
Food Stamp work and eligibility process
requirements should be aligned with TANF consistent with the
original intent of the Simplified Food Stamp Program, but which
has not been applied in practice. Clarification is required.
The use of New Hire data for the purpose of
recording job placements in TANF should be made explicit. The
authority for this is currently unclear.
3. There are an increasing number of participants who are
probably able to work who are entering the SSI rolls from TANF,
and states have a financial interest in moving them into this
federally funded program. However, if left unchecked, the
growth of SSI could result in it becoming the default
dependency program for many who could maintain self-reliance,
the role AFDC played in the past.
Over the past two years my colleagues at the American Institute for
Full Employment and I have been working with many state and local
social service agencies to improve the proportion of individuals
engaged in constructive activities leading to work. As this committee
knows, the current federal figures show a low proportion are actively
participating, and this alone is the most important reason for TANF
reauthorization.
At the same time, I am happy to report that many of the state and
local programs with which we work have accepted the idea that greater
efforts will be required, and have taken concrete steps to put
themselves in the position to meet the anticipated higher TANF
requirements coming out of reauthorization. For example Governor Mitt
Romney of Massachusetts in January announced increased and expanded
work requirements to ``bring it in line with stricter federal
standards''. The Governor said ``the welfare policies that
Massachusetts instituted in 1995 were ahead of their time. But, the
times have changed and we now lag behind the rest of the nation''
(press release, 1/24/05).
Minnesota passed updated TANF legislation which took effect this
past July, and requires all individuals to be fully engaged before they
receive their permanent recipient status at the end of the fourth month
after the initial period. Thus when fully implemented, Minnesota will
be meeting the higher federal participation rates almost by definition.
Atlanta (Fulton County) has adopted a management technique worthy
of adoption elsewhere. Each TANF caseworker has the participation rate
of his or her caseload measured monthly against the current federal
standards. Those whose overall caseload has a participation rate
significantly below the federal minimum of 50% are coded red, those
closer are yellow, and those meeting the requirement are green. You can
see from the chart on the next page, that caseworkers in Atlanta
improved their performance substantially between November 03 and
September 04 (less red, more yellow and green).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6658A.001
Congress should move forward and finish the TANF reauthorization.
Yes, some state officials will complain about the higher standards
contained in a new law, and as a former state official I understand
this is ``part of the job''. But when it is over they will get down to
work, and it is important that we maintain and increase the momentum
which is underway already.
I would like to take a moment to make three specific suggestions.
The first has to do with the Full Check sanction provision. This
committee wisely included the provision in the earlier bill, and it is
worth fighting for now and in conference. During the period I was New
York City Human Services Commissioner under Mayor Giuliani, we suffered
under a weak sanction law. At its peak, fully 40% of those who had been
assigned to an activity had chosen not to participate, but instead to
take a small reduction in their welfare check. Only by tying a check to
a requirement to participate can we bring in many to the office so that
we can help them.
However, many states use the ``separate state program'' accounting
provision to obviate certain current federal requirements. This
circumvention should not apply to the Full Check Sanction provision
inasmuch as it is the single most essential provision to reaching the
federal goal of full engagement, and making work programs meaningful
(Senator Talent's bill, S-5 from the 108th Congress, includes such a
provision).
Second, the Food Stamp program should be aligned more closely to
the provisions of TANF in accordance with the Simplified Food Stamp
program. This provision of the first TANF bill, which held out such
promise, has been thwarted where it was attempted to be implemented by
states due to a narrow reading by federal administrators. The intent of
the Simplified Program was to make consistent, at state option, work
requirements and certain eligibility processing requirements (the
financial eligibility standards, of course, remain distinct). The
provisions of S-5 from the 108th Congress rectify this problem, and add
other complimentary and needed improvements:
Work participation requirements can be comparable;
Sanction policy for non-participation in required work
activities can be made comparable;
Food Stamp double-dipping in homeless shelters and other
residential facilities is reduced by allowing states to send the
payments once directly to the institution;
Eliminates the ABWOD waiver.
Third, the use of data from one program area to another is often
not permitted, even where the information resides within the same
agency. For instance, lawyers advised me as commissioner that I could
not use information on outcomes from drug treatment programs obtained
from Medicaid when determining the best placement for a welfare
recipient going into a subsequent substance abuse program. Nor are many
states using the critical New Hire data to reduce TANF fraud and
improve their job retention records. These management limitations
should be rectified through clarification in the new bill.
Finally, SSI meets TANF at the intersection of the mildly disabled.
Yet the same techniques we use to engage and help the mildly disabled
under TANF are ignored by the SSI program, and TANF administrators have
a financial incentive to place as many as possible into this program.
SSI is becoming a default long term dependency alternative to
individuals who may have been able to be helped through TANF self-
sufficiency programs. I will not comment on the changes proposed in the
President's new budget, which was just released as this testimony was
being prepared. Rather, I will speak more generally about the problems
inherent in the interaction between TANF and SSI as it currently
exists. The balance of my remarks are based on joint work with my
colleague David Doddenhoff.
SSI and TANF
The higher-functioning SSI population of applicants and recipients
intersects with the mildly disabled TANF population. Much of what we
have learned about how to help the mildly disabled go to work applies
to SSI as well. However, there are pressures which are resulting in the
expansion of SSI beyond what was intended, and if left unchecked could
have damaging dependency effects comparable--or worse--to the old AFDC
program.
Program growth
In recent years the number of individuals served under the SSI
program and the costs associated with the program have increased
dramatically. Figure 3 depicts the total number of individuals
receiving SSI benefits for the time period 1981-2001, and the subset of
those individuals in the disabled category.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6658A.002
Data source: Social Security Administration, Social Security
Bulletin: Annual Statistical Supplement, 2002; Table 7.A9
Figure 3 illustrates the significant growth in the Supplemental
Security Income program in the years between 1981 and 2001. During that
time, the total caseload grew by 66 percent, from a base of just over
four million recipients in 1981 to 6.7 million in 2001. The entirety of
the growth in the SSI program over this period is attributable to an
increase in the number of individuals qualifying under the disabled
category. Their numbers grew from 2.3 million in 1981 to 5.3 million by
2001, a growth factor of 230 percent, about 10 times the growth rate in
the population in general. Only a decline in the number of aged and
disabled individuals on the program kept the total caseload from
ballooning even more than it did.
This increase was not produced merely by growth in the size of the
U.S. disability population. During the period 1983 through 1995 (but
only this period), we have available four different measures of
disability based on nationally representative surveys in which the
disability questions were asked virtually every year, and were asked
using the same wording and overall survey methodology in each year.\1\
Thus, year-to-year changes in the number of individuals with
disabilities identified in these surveys should represent real changes
in the size of the disabled population, along with a small amount of
sampling error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are two measures available from the National Health
Interview Survey and two from the Current Population Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The trend data based on these four surveys are presented in Figure
5. For each survey source, the data are divided between responses given
by men and those given by women. Following Figure 5 is a listing of the
exact question wording used to determine the results associated with
each data series depicted in the chart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6658A.003
Data source: Richard V. Burkhauser, Andrew J. Houtenville, and
David C. Wittenburg, ``A User Guide to Current Statistics on the
Employment of People with Disabilities,'' paper prepared for the
Conference on ``The Persistence of Low Employment Rates of People With
Disabilities--Causes and Policy Implications,'' October 18-19, 2001,
Washington, D.C., Appendix Tables 1A and 1B.
Respondents are asked if they have any of the following
impairments: ``blindness in both eyes; other visual impairments;
deafness in both ears; other hearing impairments; stammering and
stuttering; other speech impairments; mental retardation; absence of
both arms/hands one arm/hand, fingers, one or both legs, feet/toes,
kidney, breast, muscle of extremity, tips of fingers, and/or toes;
complete paralysis of entire body, one side of body, both legs, other
extremity; cerebral palsy; partial paralysis one side of body, legs,
other extremity; other complete or partial paralysis; curvature or
other deformity of back or spine; orthopedic impairment of the back;
spina bifida; deformity/orthopedic impairment of hand, fingers,
shoulder(s), other upper extremity; flatfeet; clubfoot; other
deformity/orthopedic impairment; and cleft palate.''
National Health Interview Survey, Work Limitation. Respondents are
asked: ``Does any impairment or health problem NOW keep [person] from
working at a job or business? Is [person] limited in the kind OR amount
of work [person] can do because of any impairment?''
Current Population Survey, Work Limitation. Respondents are asked:
``Does anyone in this household have a health problem or disability
which prevents them from working or which limits the kind or amount of
work they can do? [If so,] who is that? (Anyone else?)''
Current Population Survey, Two-Period Work Limitation. Any person
who reports that they have a work limitation in two consecutive CPS
interviews one year apart.
If we average the male and female disability rates in each of the
four data series in Figure 5, we can calculate the percentage increase
in the disabled population in the U.S. between 1983 and 1996, according
to each series.\2\ The results are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Averaging the figures for males and females gives a less
accurate estimate than weighting by the survey proportions of males and
females. Those proportions are not readily available, however.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Health Interview Survey, Impairment: 7.4 percent increase
in the disabled population
National Health Interview Survey, Work Limitation : 8.4 percent
increase
Current Population Survey, Work Limitation : 19.2 percent increase
Current Population Survey, Two-Period Work Limitation : 28.3
percent increase
Thus, depending on which survey data one looks at, the increase in
the actual population of disabled individuals in the United States
between 1983 and 1995 ranged from 7.4 percent to 28.3 percent. During
the 1983 to 1995 period, however, the SSI disabled rolls grew by just
over 105 percent. In other words, the growth in disabled SSI recipients
was larger than the growth in the actual disabled population by a
factor of anywhere from four to fourteen. Furthermore, while the SSI
rolls grew year after year during the 1983 to 1995 period, there are
multi-year periods in the survey data in which actual disability
populations are declining. Clearly, we cannot explain the growth in SSI
program enrollment in any large part on the basis of growth in the
disability rate.
What proportion of the SSI population capable of work, now or in the
future?
Very few SSI recipients are engaged in paid employment while
receiving benefits. In December of 2001, for example, only about seven
percent of working-age, disabled SSI recipients were participating in
any sort of paid work.\3\ This should not be surprising. Though SSI
does provide opportunities and incentives for individuals to return to
work, the General Accounting Office has commented that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Author calculations based on Social Security Administration,
SSI Annual Statistical Report, Tables 22 and 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work incentive provisions that are complex, difficult to
understand, and poorly implemented--impede return-to-work efforts.
Because SSA does not promote them extensively, few beneficiaries are
aware that work incentives exist.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ General Accounting Office, Disability Programs Lag, p.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's more, there are no requirements that participants engage in
work activities, no rehabilitation plans available through SSI to help
them do so, and little expectation that they will.
One result of this is that very few individuals leave SSI for work.
While we do not have estimates of this directly from the SSI program,
we do have them for its sister program, Social Security Disability
Insurance. In that program, no more than 1 in 500 individuals who come
on to the rolls ever leave for work.\5\ Because employment rates at the
onset of disability are two and one-half times higher for SSDI
recipients than for SSI recipients, it seems likely that exit rates due
to employment would also be much higher for SSDI than SSI.\6\ In other
words, SSI recipients who leave the program for work are probably much,
much less than one percent of individuals who ever come on the program
rolls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ibid., p.1.
\6\ The figure for comparative rates of employment at the onset of
disability is drawn from United States Congressional Budget Office,
Time-limiting Federal Disability Benefits, February 1997, p.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An appropriate question to ask at this point, then, is, how many
current SSI recipients could conceivably return to work if the program
were oriented toward rehabilitation and, ultimately, employment? We are
unaware of any study that directly answers this question with respect
to SSI recipients. There are, however, copious data on the capacity for
work of the disabled population in general. For example:
1997 data from the Survey of Income and Program
Participation (SIPP) show that employment rates for individuals who can
be classified as ``disabled'' based on their answers to SIPP questions
are employed at rates of between 63.9 percent and 82 percent, depending
on how one defines ``disability.'' Employment rates are between 24.2
percent and 33.2 percent for the severely disabled, again, depending on
how one defines ``severely disabled.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ John M. McNeil, ``Employment, Earnings, and Disability,'' paper
prepared for the 75th Annual Conference of the Western Economic
Association International, June 29-July 3, 2000, Table 1 and p.9.
Available on-line at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disable/
emperndis.pdf and http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disable/
emperndistbl.pdf. Figures are for the 21 to 64 age group. Employment is
defined as having worked at a job or a business any time during the
month preceding the interview month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A study of comparative data from the SIPP, the Current
Population Survey (CPS), and the National Health Interview Survey
(NHIS) shows 1996 employment rates for individuals with a ``work
limitation,'' which is defined differently in the three surveys,
ranging from around 20 percent for the most severely limited
individuals to around 40 percent for the less severely limited.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Richard V. Burkhauser, Andrew J. Houtenville, and David C.
Wittenburg, ``A User Guide to Current Statistics on the Employment of
People with Disabilities,'' paper prepared for the Conference on ``The
Persistence of Low Employment Rates of People With Disabilities--Causes
and Policy Implications,'' October 18-19, 2001, Washington, DC, pp.8-11
and Exhibit 4. Figures are for the 25 to 61 age group. Employment in
the SIPP and CPS is defined as working more than 52 hours over the
preceding year. Employment in the NIHS is defined as having had a job
in the previous two weeks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 2000 survey commissioned by the National Organization
on Disability found that among adults who reported any disability, only
43 percent said that their disability rendered them unable to work.
Thirty-two percent of individuals with disabilities said they were
employed at the time of the survey.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Results available on-line at: http://www.nod.org/
content.cfm?id=1076#empl. An individual is considered disabled for
purposes of the survey if he/she: ``Has a disability or health problem
that prevents him or her from participating fully in work, school, or
other activities; or reports having a physical disability, a seeing,
hearing or speech impairment, an emotional or mental disability, or a
learning disability; or considers himself or herself to have a
disability or says that other people would consider him or her to be a
person with a disability.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 1989 General Accounting Office study attempted to gauge
potential work capabilities within the disabled population by looking
at rates of employment among individuals who had applied for SSA
disability programs but were denied. These were individuals who
apparently believed themselves to be disabled, but who were not
determined so by state Disability Determination Services. Thus, their
work effort probably reflects the upper limit of what might be expected
among SSI and SSDI clients. The GAO study found their rate of
employment to be 42 percent.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Congressional Budget Office, Time-limiting, pp.15,6. The
reader should note that the data on which this study was based are from
1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps most to the point point, a 2001 study produced
for the Social Security Administration's Office of Research,
Evaluation, and Statistics estimated that about 4.4 million people not
receiving SSI or SSDI would meet the programs' definition of disabled.
Of that group, about 1.4 million had average earnings above the
programs' ``substantial gainful activity'' limit. Thus, about 32
percent of individuals (1.4/4.4) potentially eligible for SSI or SSDI
on the basis of disabling conditions are gainfully employed.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Debra Dwyer, Jianting Hu, Denton R. Vaughan, and Bernard
Wixon, Counting the Disabled: Using Survey Self-Reports to Estimate
Medical Eligibility for Social Security's Disability Programs, ORES
Working Paper Series Number 90, United States Social Security
Administration, Office of Policy, Office of Research, Evaluation, and
Statistics, Division of Economic Research, January 2001, p.29.
Available on-line at: http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/workingpapers/
wp90.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among individuals with mental disabilities, who
constituted the bulk of the SSI disabled caseload, we find that in
1997, 37 percent of such individuals were employed. Even among
individuals whose mental disability ``seriously interfered'' with
everyday activities, 29.8 percent were employed.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ McNeil, ``Employment, Earnings, and Disability,'' Table 2.
One should note that estimates such as these probably understate
the capacity for work among the disabled. These data enumerate those
disabled individuals who are working, but not those who are also
looking for work but have not yet found it, nor those individuals who
would like to work and are able to but for some reason are not looking.
In the year 2000, for example, using the definition of ``work-limited''
in the Current Population Survey,\13\ 25.7 percent of work-limited men
between the ages of 25 and 61 indicated that they were working, while
another 8.7 percent reported themselves to be looking for work (that
is, unemployed). Among women, the comparable figures were 25 percent
and 11 percent.\14\ NHIS data and SIPP data from earlier years show
similar results. Thus, the proportion of the disabled population
capable of working is clearly larger than the proportion currently
working as detailed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ ``Does anyone in this household have a health problem or
disability which prevents them from working or which limits the kind or
amount of work they can do?''
\14\ Burkhauser, Houtenville, and Wittenburg, ``A User Guide,''
Appendix Table 4B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subjectivity in the disability determination process, and its
implications
What we learn from the foregoing review is that information on an
individual's disability status, or even that status combined with his/
her past or present work history, may not tell us much about their
capacity for work. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office:
. . . information about a claimant's medical condition and
vocational background cannot conclusively demonstrate that he or she
cannot work. Except in the case of very severe disabilities and
relatively minor disabilities, the current state of knowledge and
technology does not enable the quantification of disabilities or the
definition of categories of disability which reliably correlate an
impairment with a particular individual's capacity to work.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ General Accounting Office, Social Security: Disability
programs lag, p.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond this, there is also abundant information on the subjectivity
and variability inherent in the disability determination process. It is
not an exaggeration to say that whether or not an individual is deemed
disabled for purposes of the SSI program depends not just on his or her
actual mental or physical condition; nor just on the procedures for
assessing that condition as specified in law, administrative rule, and
policy; but also on the policy climate in which the decision is being
made, the particular adjudicator reviewing the application, the stage
of the SSI application process at which the file is being considered,
and the geographic location where the application was filed.
This inherent subjectivity has a number of important implications.
For our purposes, however, the most important is that there are almost
certainly many individuals on the SSI rolls whose disabling condition
one might reasonably question. This is not to say that these
individuals have engaged in fraud. Though some fraud is inevitable,
what is undoubtedly more common is that individuals with borderline
disabling conditions, or individuals who believe themselves to be
disabled but are not, are admitted to the SSI program due simply to
subjectivity across disability examiners and different levels of
application review.
The disability determination process occurs in a series of stages
that can take place across a number of administrative levels. The first
step in the process occurs in the state Disability Determination
Service. Here, state DDS personnel develop and review the claimant's
medical evidence and make an initial determination. If the applicant is
found ineligible for benefits, he or she has 60 days to request a
reconsideration. The reconsideration is also conducted by DDS
personnel, and may include new evidence.
The next level of appeal is a de novo review before an
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). This review typically involves legal
representation on the part of the claimant, and again may include new
evidence. The ALJ's over turn a large proportion of the initial
rejected claims, and yet ALJ's do not usually bring new medical
evidence into their decision, nor are they for the most part trained
medical practitioners. The Social Security Administration routinely
reviews the accuracy of ALJ decisions using a peer review process, and
it has recorded a substantial error rate. Beyond the subjectivity of
the initial review process, it would appear that the ALJ process adds
additional relaxation to eligibility standards without improving the
quality of the medical decisions themselves. In 2001, for example,
initial applications were approved at a 34.3 percent rate by state DDS
offices. When rejected applications were appealed to the SSI hearings
process, however, they were approved at a 66.4 percent rate (often
based on precisely the same evidence).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Social Security Administration, Annual Report of the
Supplemental Security Income Program, p.78, Table V.C1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously, some of the wide variation in SSI allowance rates is
attributable to factors other than error and subjectivity in the
disability determination process. Even so, one study found that 28
percent of individuals receiving SSI and SSDI benefits were not
disabled, at least as ``disability'' is defined by the Social Security
Administration for program purposes. At the same time, the study found
a substantial number of individuals who were disabled but had been
rejected in the programs' application process.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Hugo Benitez-Silva, Moshe Buchinsky, and John Rust, ``How
Large are the Classification Errors in the Social Security Disability
Award Process?'', unpublished manuscript, February 2003, p.3. A
comprehensive list of factors that may affect the consistency of
disability decision-making appears in Social Security Advisory Board,
Disability Decision Making: Data and Materials, January 2001, pp.5,6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some reform considerations
Though one of the assumptions of the SSI program is that
individuals receiving benefits cannot work, the data indicate a
substantial capacity for work among the disabled population in general.
We have also seen the subjectivity and error inherent in the SSI
disability determination process. Both of these findings, alongside the
data on exploding program enrollment and costs, suggest that the
program is ripe for reform.
These are not the only reasons for supporting reform, however.
Advocates for the disabled are virtually unanimous in their belief that
individuals with disabilities want to work, rather than wanting to be
freed from the obligation of work. While this logic is reflected in the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, SSI continues to focus on dis
ability, rather than ability. Furthermore, advocates, disability
researchers, and knowledgeable policymakers argue that the capacity of
the disabled for work depends not just on the specifics of their
medical condition, but also on a variety of other factors:
. . . while most medical impairments influence the extent to which
an individual is capable of engaging in gainful activity, other
factors--vocational, psychological, economic, environmental, and
motivational--are often considered to be more important determinants of
work capacity.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ General Accounting Office, Social Security: Disability
programs lag, p.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, despite this fact, SSI treats work disability as an all-or-
nothing concept based entirely on an applicant's medical condition. The
program currently makes no effort to examine or shape any of the other
factors cited above--vocational, psychological, economic,
environmental, and motivational. Accordingly, departures from the SSI
program for employment are not common.
In consequence of the above several program changes have been
adopted over the years to encourage the return to work among
recipients. These have included assorted work incentives--partial
exclusions of earnings and work-related expenses from countable income
for program purposes, and the retention of Medicaid benefits among SSI
recipients who return to work (in limited circumstances). More recently
the Ticket to Work Program has provided vouchers for SSI recipients to
use in securing work through qualified providers, although the take-up
rate has been very low.
The primary problem with these and related measures, however, is
that they are largely voluntary and discretionary. There is no
requirement or expectation that SSI adjudicators will develop a return-
to-work plan for program participants, and so they do not. There is no
requirement or expectation that program participants themselves will
return to work, or even participate in the Ticket to Work program, and
so in practice, very few do. There is no requirement or expectation
that state rehabilitation agencies will accept referrals from the SSI
program, and so in practice, few program recipients are referred to
those agencies, and fewer are accepted. The net result of all of this
is that the SSI program is almost exclusively oriented toward income
support, with very little emphasis on employment.
Lessons from TANF
The elementary rule of TANF is that wherever possible the
eligibility office should help an applicant find alternatives to
program dependency through employment. The same overall objective
should inform the SSI system, using the state vocational offices or
private agencies as the vehicles for helping individuals explore
employment or rehabilitation alternatives.
It is a generally recognized principle of disability research that
the more time that passes after the onset of a disability, the greater
the challenges in returning a disabled individual to work. Thus,
efforts to help individuals return to work should be most aggressively
pursued in the early stages after application or enrollment.
For SSI recipients a required individual rehabilitation plan should
be adopted, which includes specific milestones and timetables. Just as
with the TANF program, requiring participation in self-improvement
efforts as a condition of eligibility helps individuals learn to become
as self-reliant as possible.
Next, there should be a vocational rehabilitation assignment or
limited work requirement keyed to individuals of all capabilities.
Rather than screen individuals ``in'' or ``out'', all individuals with
limited exceptions should be expected to do something to help
themselves develop, within their existing capabilities. We learned from
TANF that individuals who have been deemed disabled, will work harder
at helping themselves recover if they are obligated to participate in
some meaningful activity.
Then, the monitoring of individual progress on the rehabilitation
plan should be made continuous and intensive. Individuals who fail to
participate without just cause should have a portion of their benefits
subjected to withholding until they comply with their plan, just as in
TANF.
Conclusion
Because of the success of TANF, we know much more about how to set
up a system which brings individuals along and up the ladder of self-
reliance. We find individuals wherever they are in life, and fashion a
self-sufficiency plan which takes their capabilities into account. We
provide small achievable steps, while holding the recipients
accountable merely for participation rather than for the achievement of
a specific uniform personal outcome.
In short, the reform goal of SSI should be to maximize personal
self-reliance while providing a minimum level of income assurance. It
will require a re-thinking of both policy and program administration.
Mrs. JOHNSON. I thank the panel. I am going to yield,
first, to the Ranking Member, Mr. McDermott, to question.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Madam Chairman. If a welfare
recipient works 20 hours a week, and goes to community college
and carries a full load 20 hours, they don't qualify for cash
benefits. Now, does that make sense to anybody on this panel?
That doesn't count toward the work requirement. They get the
cash money, but it doesn't count toward the work requirement.
What sense do those kinds of rules make?
Dr. HASKINS. I think the answer is, at least from the
perspective of taxpayers who pay for their own college, and pay
for their children's college, and people who are on
scholarships, and so forth, is that welfare is not a program
for people to attend college. Welfare is a program for people
who are truly destitute. It is true we should help them get off
welfare, but we have shown, repeatedly, with good evaluations
and now with the experience of the TANF reforms, that the way
to do that is to get them a job. We have other programs that
support----
Mr. MCDERMOTT. If they are working 20 hours a week----
Dr. HASKINS. Right.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. This bill says they have to work 24 hours or
they don't count.
Dr. HASKINS. I have already indicated I would be willing to
compromise on provisions like that, but if they work 20 hours a
week, we are already going to give them a big subsidy through
the earned income tax credit. I would estimate in most cases,
it would be about $2,500 a year that they would get through the
earned income tax credit that would give them government
support, plus, they would be eligible for food stamps, their
kids would be covered by Medicaid. They are getting a lot of
government support. You have to draw the line somewhere.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Your testimony was interesting in that you
said that there is no evidence that you know of, besides
changing the current caseload reduction credit, which produces
any benefit for welfare families. What is the point of showing
that there is 40 hours a week that everybody is actively
involved in.
Dr. HASKINS. The argument that the Administration usually
makes, I think the most important argument is that in order for
moms to get their families out of welfare or for any single
parent that is working a low-wage job, which, overwhelmingly,
these mothers are, about $8 an hour, they have to work long
hours. They have to work 40 hours. They do not move up the job
ladder very quickly. The logic of the Administration is that
they need to prepare to work full-time when they get off
welfare because that is the way that they are going to get
themselves and their children out of poverty. I think that is a
good rationale. Many Americans work 40 hours a week. It is a
reasonable requirement, but in order to get a bill, I would be
willing to compromise on it.
Mr. RECTOR. Yes, I have a little contribution on that,
Congressman. We did a study once where we looked at poor
families with children and about two-thirds of those families
are employed, but, on average, the adults in the family work
only about 16 hours a week. It is about 800 hours a year. What
we did was simulate the census and said, ``Well, let us say we
have one adult in there that works a full year, 40 hours a
week.'' Seventy 5 percent of those families are immediately
lifted out of poverty; so you have to get the hours of work.
Now, I agree with Ron on some flexibility here, but we do have
to get more hours of work per week. We also have to get more
recipients that are on TANF doing more activities. We could be
a little more----
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Let us take your example just for a second
here. Suppose a woman works as a maid in a motel, and she works
half-time or works so many hours, she will get health care
benefits, but if they can cut her back about 2 hours or 4
hours, she doesn't get any health care benefits. She has got a
job where she can't work full time at it. What you are
suggesting is we should now push her to go out and get a second
job in another motel; is that fair?
Mr. RECTOR. I have heard those stories, and I think there
is some validity there, and I would agree with you that that
might be a problem and that we ought to try to look at that, if
you would agree with me that basically one of the key things we
have to do to reduce poverty is get them to work more hours.
There are many maybe obstacles to that, but we have to push
that up. At 16 hours a week, they are going to stay poor. We
have got to find ways to push them up. I think one of the ways
of doing it, even though it may not be perfect, is to require a
little bit longer participation in the work experience programs
that would help get the hours up, wouldn't necessarily work in
every case, might not work in the case that you are providing,
but I think we could both agree that we need to have more
people participating, we shouldn't have over half the TANF
caseload idle, and they need to be working somewhat more hours.
We don't have to fight to the death over----
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Let me stop you for a second because you
have a laid out a suggestion here. You have got two State
people here. You have got one from Wisconsin and one from
Maryland. Why don't these States do what the Federal government
tells them to do? Why do you let people not reach the level
that they are supposed to?
Mr. MCGUIRE. Maybe I can address something. There is a
difference between, when we engage people, and in Maryland, we
are requiring people to be universally engaged, a 40-hour
simulated work week, there is a difference between what we
report to the Federal government and what actually is going on.
We have plenty of people doing plenty of things that don't
count.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. What? Wait a minute. Aren't you reporting
what is going on? You are making it up?
Mr. MCGUIRE. We have certain requirements that don't count
for Federal work participation. That doesn't mean people are
not doing something. I will give you an example. If I have a
person who is out there on a work experience assignment, and
they need to take a day off because something is with the kid,
I can't claim that excused day off toward work. If I wind up at
the end of the month to make the reporting, and it is not the
required numbers, it doesn't count. It is a standard of which
you don't get partial credit for it, you get no credit for it.
My suggestion is that if I am going to have a simulated work
week, I want to recreate what goes on in a work environment as
closely as possible, including allowing people to take things
off, get excused hours or even earn time off, so that they
understand that when they go into a real work environment, this
is not something that is going to be alien them.
Now, my experience is that people are moving off for work;
that when you engage people, they understand what it is.
Sometimes they need a little work, they need a little work-out
in an environment that is a safety net that we can catch them
if they make mistakes because I don't want people going out and
getting fired. My experience is that people are going to work.
They are going to work in Maryland for way above the minimum
wage at $8 an hour, they are staying employed, they are not
coming back, and most importantly, their families are staying
together. What I am trying to say is that----
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Your caseloads are still going down.
Mr. MCGUIRE. Yes, I have an idea of universal engagement,
where I say everybody does something, I mean that truly with
the TANF population. Now, I have people way above what my
Federally reported work participation rate, they are doing
plenty of things. The problem is, is that States are
interpreting the rules sometimes a little bit differently or
States are allowed to do things such as having high earned
income disregard so you wind up having people that are working
getting credit for work participation, but I am going that is
not TANF. That sounds like the AFDC program. I do not want to
have people go make cash employment and wind up still on public
assistance. I want them to make that jump to that $8dollar an
hour job because there is a fact, you cannot get an increase in
salary unless you already have a job. The information and the
studies that I have from the University of Maryland School of
Social Work shows that increases over time, and it doesn't
increase a little bit. It's been increasing fairly well in the
public assistance----
Mr. MCDERMOTT. How many of those $8 dollar an hour jobs
have----
Mr. MCGUIRE. That is the average salary.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Let us take the average. How many $8 dollar
an hour jobs have health care benefits tied to them?
Mr. MCGUIRE. Well, we give people transitional benefits for
Medicaid for up to a year.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. One year.
Mr. MCGUIRE. The children can get----
Mr. MCDERMOTT. At the end of the year, they are just
supposed to kind of never get sick; is that it?
Mr. MCGUIRE. Well, one of the interesting----
Mr. MCDERMOTT. What kind of sense is that?
Mr. MCGUIRE. We have folks in the work environment, I don't
know, maybe it is different for Maryland as it is for other
States, it is relatively competitive, and people are getting
health insurance. I am not seeing people coming back. They are
going to work, and they are staying out there.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Have you got any figures to say that the
average worker, making $8 an hour, has health care benefits? Do
you have any figures on that?
Mr. MCGUIRE. I will have to find some for you.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. I would love to see some figures like that
because I don't believe it.
Dr. HASKINS. Mr. McDermott, there are several studies, and
I think they show that roughly about 25 percent of people, it
varies from study to study, but a minority, a distinct
minority, actually have some health coverage. As you know, from
the Medicaid program, most of the children are covered because
of the separate Medicaid coverage for children.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. You mean the CHIP program or whatever.
Dr. HASKINS. No, no. Well, CHIP, too, but Medicaid, there
are mandatory coverages under Medicaid that we cut them
completely apart from welfare, so most of the kids are covered.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Then, we are cutting them off in Washington
State. Tennessee just cut off 300,000 kids. Yes, that was
before, and now is now, and the fact is the States are in worse
shape, and the coverage for those kids--I listen to you, and,
frankly, I have a lot of trouble with that because it sounds
like you have got to choose your parents as being pretty good
people. If your parents are kind of, you know, you want to take
away the money. That doesn't make sense to me.
Mrs. JOHNSON. First of all, I thank the panel for their
input. I want to clarify a little bit about this work
requirement that at least was in the last bill we passed. The
work portion of it was only 24 hours. That is three full work
days. The work portion of it didn't take effect for what would
effectively be a quarter of a community college; so you could,
on TANF, go to school, get the first quarter of community
college under your belt, with day care, and tuition paid and so
on. Then, you go to work 3 days a week. You can still go
Tuesday and Thursday, you know. You can arrange your classes so
you go Tuesday and Thursday, and the State can qualify that as
work. There is flexibility to both work and bring to yourself
the educational component that will allow you to qualify and
advance into full-time employment. Then, Medicaid, I think the
point you were making, Dr. Haskins was that Medicaid covers
these children. A State may cut down their CHIP expenditures,
but I don't think they can cut off children from Medicaid; am I
correct or incorrect?
Dr. HASKINS. They have to cover all children under 135
percent of poverty, I think. I could check the rules. They have
to cover all children under 18 up to 100 percent of poverty,
and then they have options up to something like 185 percent of
poverty. There are lots of different coverages----
Mrs. JOHNSON. Anyone working----
Dr. HASKINS. Some of them are mandatory. They cannot cut
the kids off.
Mrs. JOHNSON. We will get some clarification on that point,
but if you are working two 8 hour days, you are under 100
percent of poverty. Those kids are covered. Then, to your
point, Mr. Turner, I thought you were very interesting saying
Social Security has become the default welfare program. My own
personal view of that is that we have so depleted mental health
services for both adults and children that they are the ones
that are now finding any place to rest they can, and SSI is one
place to rest, and because they are a burden on the welfare
systems and the welfare systems are not prepared to deal with
them, they sort of encourage that movement into SSI. That is
very destructive because, as you say, SSI does not have any
component that helps them regain their sense of self or
understand their capabilities.
One of the reasons I tend to want to be more prescriptive
is that States have got to be more serious about this group of
welfare recipients that we are dealing with now about mental
health treatment. Even if they are not diagnosed with a major
mental health problem, there are lots of people out there not
qualifying for institutional care and being ignored--
depression, all of the kinds of things that burden you when you
really were a failure in high school, never had anybody really
love you. These are kids that weren't in foster care, but they
have a lot of the problems that someone who has been in
lifelong foster care have. I am not real happy about where we
are with requiring States to recognize mental health as
something that the program covers. You could go to counseling 2
days a week and get an awful lot of help, the same with
substance abuse and the support you need after treatment. It is
not just a 2 month treatment program. It is a continuum of
support until you gain independence.
What I like about the 40-hour requirement is that for the
first time people have to think, you know, what am I going to
do with 40 hours of my life each week? I can go to school, I
can get in counseling, I can do this, I can do that, and States
can even qualify participation in after-school programs as
qualified work, taking care of your own children. I would like
to see people in TANF be part of the professional staff.
Obviously, you have to have a child development expert or
somebody who is in charge of the program, but after-school
programs need more and more adults to mentor, to help, to carry
through. Someone with minimal reading skills, still has more
reading skills than that 5 year old and can listen to them do
their work.
I think we need to be far more imaginative, creative and
really enjoy this opportunity, but we have to be dead serious
about their resources. If we are going to go down to people
with younger children, that is going to cost more because it is
vastly more expensive. I think we have to be really serious
about that component. If we want to deal with the problems in
SSI, we have to make this TANF a much better program for people
with mental disabilities or with substance abuse problems.
I just want to close by thanking Mr. Rivera for being here.
It is very, very helpful to have you be here, way beyond what
you might feel was the value because you are just the kind of
young guy who, if you turn yourself around young, and only you
can do it--nobody is doing this for you. It is nice you have
had people helping you, but they are not doing it, you are
doing it--and if we can help you, and help you to help others,
your life has changed, so it is very important.
Dr. Johnson, we could not have had testimony when Ron and I
were first working on the first fatherhood bill because we did
not know anything. All we had were feelings and thoughts; so
your work and your being able to report on what the fathers
themselves asked is very helpful to us. Frankly, if we had the
money, we ought to just open the whole program to the fathers
and the women on welfare so everybody got into the job
training, the 40-hour thinking, and move forward together. I
appreciate your being here today, and we will take very
seriously the SSI stuff.
It was very refreshing, Mr. McGuire, to see your
accomplishments, and how aggressive you have been in thinking
about what people need. Mr. Rector, you are absolutely right,
if you can help people, but that is why we have to take more
seriously not just marriage, but helping people learn about
what is the normal development of a child? What is the normal
development of an adult? We just do nothing about that.
I look forward to working with all of you because I hear,
Mr. McGuire, you are saying we are rather too rigid. If we
increase the work requirements, we ought to be thinking a
little bit broader about what it means to work and days off are
certainly part of the work pattern. If we could do that, then
we could actually reinstate a work requirement, but one that
was more that States could meet in a more realistic manner, but
still one very profitable for the young people affected. Thank
you all for being here. It has gone on rather long. We
appreciate your input.
Final panel. Dr. Hansell, chief of staff, the New York City
Human Resources Administration, Department of Social Services;
Lisalyn Jacobs, Vice President of government Relations for
Legal Momentum; Kathleen Curran, policy advisor to the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops; Deborah Frank, pediatrician,
Boston Medical Center, Boston; peter Goldberg, President and
chief executive officer of the Alliance for Children and
Families. Thank you for your patience as we have had to vote
this afternoon and keep you all waiting, and thank you for your
willingness to testify before the Committee. Mr. Hansell?
STATEMENT OF DAVID HANSELL, CHIEF OF STAFF, NEW YORK CITY,
HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Mr. HANSELL. Thank you. Good afternoon, and thank you very
much for giving me the opportunity to testify today on behalf
of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Commissioner Vern Eggleston.
Welfare reform is a great success in New York City. In
March 1995, there were nearly 1.2 million New York City
residents on welfare. Today, the number of people on welfare
has dropped by 63.5 percent to the lowest level since 1965. We
currently have 193,000 TANF clients, 35-percent fewer than
December 2001. To continue this progress, we have intensified
our efforts to help all of our welfare clients, including our
TANF clients, become employed and leave public assistance.
Over the last 3 years, our welfare clients have found more
than 250,000 jobs and a higher proportion of them than ever
before are keeping those jobs. Yet, as people have moved into
employment and as the caseload has dramatically decreased,
those remaining have become more challenging to serve. Slightly
more than half of our TANF caseload today has barriers to
employment engagement, and many of them require new and more
targeted services to achieve and maintain self-sufficiency.
Given these realities, New York City's vision for the next
phase of welfare reform has three overarching goals:
First, maintaining a strong work focus, supplemented by
education and training and providing the services necessary to
help those remaining on public assistance achieve the same
progress toward self-sufficiency as those who have left;
Second, helping those who have successfully left public
assistance to retain their foothold in the workforce; Third,
preventing the next generation from becoming dependent on
public assistance.
Let me discuss our specific recommendations in each of
these three areas. We have just implemented an exciting new
initiative called, ``Wellness Comprehensive Assessment
Rehabilitation and Employment'' (WeCARE). WeCARE is an
intensive program that provides employment-focused services for
public assistance clients with medical and mental health
problems. WeCARE's program elements include a comprehensive
clinical assessment to identify issues that interfere with
employability, a comprehensive service plan for each client,
monitoring and tracking client compliance with prescribed
activities and services, job placement services and retention
support, and assistance in obtaining disability benefits for
individuals who cannot work.
WeCARE is designed to provide the up front services that
clients need, with the goal of ultimately moving them off TANF
more quickly. We believe that the kinds of rehabilitative
activities that our WeCARE program will provide, when based
upon a clinical assessment and provided in a supervised,
structured, and monitored fashion, should be fully credited
toward a client's core work activities of right length of time
they are needed. This will be essential if we are to meet
rising TANF work participation rates.
Supporting employment retention and preventing welfare
recidivism will require substantially increased funding for
child care. New York City is supporting child care for 52,500
children in families on or transitioning off public assistance,
as well as 54,000 children mostly from other low-income working
families. This is a vital service if we expect these parents to
remain in the workforce. We, also, believe that transitional
medical assistance is an important retention support and should
be allowed for up to 24 months after leaving TANF. Health
insurance that allows maintenance of good preventive care and
protection against serious and financially catastrophic illness
is a sound investment in continued employability.
As we take steps to keep former welfare recipients in the
workforce, we must also focus on the next generation--those who
may end up in a cycle of welfare and poverty without adequate
support. The key to keeping them from needing public assistance
is, of course, education, including the practical education
that youth gain through exposure to work experiences. It is,
also, important to support strong family structures and to
reinforce the provision of financial support for children by
all responsible parents. We sponsor programs that promote the
responsibility of noncustodial parents for the well-being of
their children.
We believe that noncustodial parents, with a child on TANF,
should be eligible for TANF services, thereby enhancing the
ability of both parents to work and support their children
because child support can be such an important source of
financial assistance to TANF families, we would urge that the
Federal government waive its share of child support collections
for TANF families up to the level of $400 per month, if a State
chooses to pass that support through to the family.
Support for family strengthening is, also, an important
prevention intervention. If Congress chooses to designate
funding in a reauthorized TANF bill to marriage and family
formation, we believe that States and localities should have
broad discretion to use that funding to support locally
designed programs to strengthen all types of families, through
initiatives that include parenting, education and support,
family reunification and fatherhood involvement.
The success of welfare reform should not be measured solely
by the reduction in caseloads, but, also, by the ability of
people to become and remain self-sufficient. We can accomplish
these successes by providing States and localities the
flexibility to apply resources to meet a range of client work
readiness needs, to support employment retention for those
people who have succeeded in leaving welfare, and to help young
people avoid welfare dependence in the future. We, in New York
City, offer our assistance to the Congress in developing a
viable, successful framework for the next critical stage of
welfare reform. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansell follows:]
Statement of David Hansell, Chief of Staff, New York City Human
Resources Administration, Department of Social Services, New York, New
York
Chairman Herger and Members of the Subcommittee:
Good afternoon. My name is David Hansell, and I am the Chief of
Staff at the New York City Human Resources Administration/Department of
Social Services (HRA), the agency that administers the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program in New York City. I thank
Chairman Herger and the Subcommittee on Human Resources for giving me
the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of Mayor Michael
Bloomberg and Commissioner Verna Eggleston, offering you our
perspective and recommendations on welfare reform reauthorization.
Welfare reform, of which TANF is the key component, is a great
success in New York City. In March 1995, there were nearly 1.2 million
New York City residents on welfare, of whom 864,000 were TANF
recipients, with the remainder in a state and city-funded program. As
of January 2005, the total on welfare had dropped to 424,200, a
decrease of 63.5 percent, and the lowest level since 1965. Of these,
193,000 were TANF recipients, a decrease of 77.6 percent since March
1995.
When Mayor Bloomberg announced the City's proposals for TANF
reauthorization in May 2002, he said: ``We remain committed to the
original goals of welfare reform. First, federal public assistance
should be temporary. If it is not, neither society nor those less
fortunate who are receiving benefits will progress. Second, there
should be zero tolerance for fraud, so that the few who would cheat the
system do not discredit the many who work honorably and hard--And
third, since requiring people to work is the best way to help them move
to self-sufficiency, everyone who can work, should work if they want to
receive public assistance.''
In keeping with the Mayor's commitment, we have intensified our
efforts to help our TANF clients enter the world of work and leave the
world of public assistance. Over the last three years, through an
approach matching structured employment activities and strict
accountability, more than 250,000 jobs were obtained by our welfare
clients, and a higher proportion of them than ever before are keeping
these jobs. In 2004, 77% of these welfare recipients were still
employed after 6 months on the job.
Yet as people have moved into employment and as the caseload has
dramatically decreased, those remaining have become more challenging to
serve. Slightly more than half of our TANF population today has
substantial barriers to employment--55.7 percent in December 2004 were
individuals determined through our assessment process to be fully or
partially unable to engage in traditional employment activities.
Today's TANF clients, especially those experiencing serious health,
mental health, or disability issues, need a broader range of critical
services plus adquate time to enable them to overcome the barriers that
prevent them from achieving and maintaining self-sufficiency.
Given these realities, New York City's vision for the next phase of
welfare reform has three overarching goals:
Creating the necessary programs and services to help
those remaining on public assistance achieve the same progress towards
self-sufficiency as those who have left
Helping those who have successfully left public
assistance to retain their foothold in the workforce, and to continue
their progress toward self-sufficiency, and
Preventing the next generation from becoming dependent
upon public assistance.
Let me now discuss our specific recommendations in each of these
three areas.
Flexibility to Serve Current TANF Recipients
As I indicated, New York City remains firmly committed to the
principles that every client has the capacity to do something, and that
everyone who can work, should work. To those ends, we believe in
engaging every client in activities that will help lead to their
maximum level of self-sufficiency. We support the universal engagement
and family self-sufficiency plan requirements of HR 240 as tools that
would support our efforts in that regard.
At the same time, I mentioned that we are dealing with an
increasing number of clients with significant clinical barriers to
self-sufficiency. We believe that employment is the appropriate goal
for most of these clients also, but we have also learned that they
often require a set of interventions to help them overcome employment
barriers. Our experience has shown that most public assistance
recipients with limitations and disabilities want to work and that,
when given services, accommodation, and support, they can succeed in
the workplace.
To achieve this goal, we have just implemented an exciting new
initiative called the Wellness, Comprehensive Assessment,
Rehabilitation and Employment (WeCARE) program. WeCARE is a new, more
intensive program model to provide employment-focused services for
public assistance clients with physical and mental health challenges.
WeCARE's program elements will include:
Performing a biopsychosocial assessment that includes a
comprehensive medical examination and identification of issues that
interfere with employability
Developing a Comprehensive Service Planthat addresses all
the client's barriers to employment
Developing a Wellness/Rehabilitation Plan for each client
who has an untreated or unstable medical condition(s)
Providing intensive case management services, as
required, to help clients achieve the goals of the ComprehensiveService
Plan
Performing Diagnostic Vocational Evaluations, as
clinically indicated, to assess a client's functional abilities and
limitations
Providing vocational rehabilitation services that enable
disabled and disadvantaged individuals to attain their maximum
vocational potential
Monitoring and tracking client compliance with prescribed
activities and services
Providing job placement services and retention support
Helping eligible individuals who cannot work to obtain
disability benefits
WeCARE is designed to provide the up-front services that clients
need, with the goal of ultimately moving them more quickly from the
TANF caseload either to employment or to a more appropriate disability
benefit. For this reason, we believe that the kinds of rehabilitative
activities that our WeCARE program will provide--when based upon a
clinical assessment and provided in a supervised, structured, and
monitored fashion--should be fully credited toward a client's core work
activities for the length of time they are needed. We are pleased to
see that HR 240 recognizes ``qualified activities'' that include
substance abuse counseling or treatment, and rehabilitation treatment
and services, but it does so only for strictly limited periods of time.
We recommend that reauthorized TANF legislation give States and
localities support for the creation of these programs, which we believe
are necessary to enable more and more of our clients to succeed in the
workforce and achieve financial independence.
Because of the changing nature of the caseload and the increased
cost associated with enhancing the employability of those who remain on
welfare, we recommend that the overall work participation rate be
retained at 50 percent for all recipients. Any mandated increase in the
work participation rate will impose greater programmatic demands on
states and localities. Therefore, any increase must be accompanied by
substantial and proportionate increases in (1) TANF funding for
education and training, job placement, and programs to address special
population barriers to employment, (2) the Child Care and Development
Block Grant (CCDBG), and (3) the Social Services Block Grant.
Currently, for those not otherwise engaged in full-time employment,
the City requires most participants to combine work experience with
another activity. These clients are required to participate in
activities for 35 hours per week, higher than the current TANF
requirement. In most cases they are engaged in supervised work activity
for three days a week, seven hours per day, and they are also engaged
in a work-related activity, such as job search, training, or education,
for two days a week, seven hours per day. The three days of work
activity, if lunch is included, constitute 24 hours of core work
activity. We believe that this is a rigorous and appropriate
expectation of our TANF clients, and hope that reauthorized TANF
legislation will accommodate it. Under local labor contracts, City
supervisors in our work experience program are required to work 7 hours
per day, plus one hour for lunch. We cannot require TANF clients to
work longer hours without incurring great expense to the City.
As we continue to help people move toward employment, the City
supports continuation of the caseload reduction credit and/or the
adoption of an employment credit that fully reflects all job
placements, whether or not they result in immediate case closing.
Credit should also be given for non-custodial parents who are not on
public assistance but obtain employment and provide child support for a
child receiving TANF support. Qualifying sources for employment counts
should include client self-reported, budgeted placements, as well as
placements identified through recognized database matches.
Finally, I would note that New York State has just raised its
minimum wage above the federal level, ultimately to $7.15 an hour by
January 1, 2007. While we support the increase as providing a
reasonable wage base for working families, we also note that it
complicates our compliance with TANF work participation requirements
(as is the case for other states and localities with minimum wage
requirements above the federal level). Federal agency guidance has
suggested that TANF recipients cannot be required to participate in
more hours of work activity than their grants would support, using the
higher of the federal or applicable state minimum wage as a standard.
We estimate that at $7.15 per hour, this would preclude approximately
28 percent of our TANF clients from participating in core work
activities for even the 20 hours per week currently required. We
recommend that TANF clients who are working the maximum number of hours
permitted under a calculation based on their state's minimum wage
should be deemed to be fully participating for TANF purposes.
Retention of Financial Independence
During the first stage of welfare reform, New York City moved
thousands of people into the workforce. We must protect that success by
helping these people remain in the world of work and enhance their
employability, and thereby the self-sufficiency of their families.
Many people have left welfare for low-wage jobs with minimum or no
benefits. A medical or other emergency could result in their return to
public assistance. Others need transitional supports--child care,
transportation, and housing--to remain in the workforce or boost
themselves above the poverty line. We must continue the investment
thatTANF has made in these newly productive members of the workforce,
supporting low-income workers and helping them improve their skills so
that they can continue to work and move their families out of poverty.
States need more flexibility in using TANF funds to support working
families who have left welfare.
We offer the following specific proposals:
Change the definition of ``assistance'' so that employed
families can receive enhanced transitional support. TANF regulations
(not statute) limit the definition of non-assistance to non-recurring,
short-term benefits intended to deal with a specific crisis situation
or episode of need that will not extend beyond four months. We would
recommend a broader definition under which housing support for employed
families, for example, would be considered non-assistance and should
not be subject to fixed time limits. The inability to pay for housing
can be a barrier to family and employment stability, and disruptive to
work participation. We recommend that TANF law be reauthorized to
permit states to subsidize housing beyond the current limitation of
four months.
Child care and transportation should be treated as non-
assistance for both working and non-working families. Child care and
transportation enable parents to look for work, to attend training or
educational opportunities to prepare for work, and to go to work.
Sometimes job search, education, or training activities are full-time,
and sometimes they are combined with each other or with work experience
or paid employment. Whatever the combination of activities a person is
engaged in and whether or not they are still on welfare, if they have
low income they may well need child care and transportation assistance
to help them work toward and enhance their self-sufficiency.
Increase funding of the Child Care and Development Block
Grant by a minimum of $6 billion over the next five years. New York
City is supporting child care for 52,500 children in families on or
transitioning off public assistance where a parent is engaged in work
activities, as well as 54,000 children predominantly from other low-
income working families. This is a vital service if we expect these
parents to remain in the workforce.
Extend transitional medical assistance for the full
duration of a reauthorized TANF program, and allow states to provide
transitional Medicaid for up to 24 months. Ensuring continuity of
health insurance to allow maintenance of good preventive care for
adults and children, and protection against serious and financially
catastrophic illness, is a sound investment in continued employability.
Preventing Future Welfare Dependence
As we take steps to keep former welfare recipients in the
workplace, we must also focus on the next generation--those who may end
up in a cycle of welfare and poverty without adequate support. The key
to keeping them from needing public assistance is, of course,
education, including the practical education that youth gain through
world of work experiences. There can be no long-term, long lasting
welfare reform without education reform. The lack of an education and
of work-related skills is a major barrier to self-sufficiency. It is
also important to support strong family structures, and to reinforce
the provision of financial support for children by all responsible
parents.
There is a need to develop new programs, such as fatherhood
initiatives, that promote the responsibility of non-custodial parents
in the life of their children. We support allowing non-custodial
working parents with a child on TANF to be included in TANF work
activities and to be eligible for TANF services. Research has shown
that families are better able to maintain their financial independence
when both parents are contributing. By extending TANF resources to both
parents of children on welfare, we will enhance the ability of both
parents to work and support their children.
In August 2003, Mayor Bloomberg moved New York City's child support
program back to the Human Resources Administration, thereby re-
integrating the City's TANF and child support activities. Since then,
we have undertaken a number of efforts to ensure that non-custodial
parents are fulfilling their responsibilities to support their children
in harmony with TANF family self-sufficiency objectives. Because child
support can be such an important source of financial assistance to TANF
families, we would urge that the federal government waive its share of
child support collections for TANF families up to the level of $400 per
month, if a state chooses to pass the support through to the family.
Support for family strengthening is also an important prevention
intervention. If Congress chooses to designate funding in a
reauthorized TANF bill to marriage and family formation, we believe
that states and localities should have broad discretion to use that
funding to support a range of locally-designed programs to strengthen
all types of families, through initiatives that include parenting
education and support, family reunification, and fatherhood
involvement. These should include programs to encourage noncustodial
parents to assume greater financial responsibility and involvement in
their children's lives.
We also recommend allowing the use of TANF funds by States and
localities to develop, enhance or expand programs aimed at high-risk
children and youth. As TANF administrators, we need to be in
partnership with other service providers serving youth. These programs
could, among other things:
Address developmental issues, including pregnancy
prevention, domestic violence prevention, and parenting and
relationships skills that will make it less likely that youth will
require public assistance
Offer work-related experiences that introduce youth to
the world of work and help them gain both experience and an
understanding of the skills they need to succeed
Support and expand vocational education closely linked to
local industries that are creating jobs.
Conclusion
The success of welfare reform should not be measured solely by the
reduction in caseloads, but also by the ability of people to become and
remain self-sufficient. We can accomplish these successes by providing
states and localities the flexibility to apply resources where needed
to meet a range of client work-readiness needs, to support employment
retention for those who have succeeded in leaving welfare, and to help
young people avoid welfare dependence in the future. We in New York
City look forward to working with Congress to develop a viable,
successful framework for the next, critical stage of welfare reform.
Thank you.
Mr. ENGLISH. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Hansell. We will
next call up Lisalyn Jacobs, Vice President for government
Relations of Legal Momentum. Thank you so much for being here.
STATEMENT OF LISALYN R. JACOBS, VICE PRESIDENT FOR GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS, LEGAL MOMENTUM
Ms. JACOBS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member McDermott and Members of the Committee, thank you for
allowing me to appear here today. I am Lisalyn Jacobs, Vice
President for government Relations of Legal Momentum, the new
name of the now Legal Defense and Education Fund. We are a
leading national organization, with a 35-year history of
advocating for women's rights and promoting gender equality. I
come before you, as a preacher's kid, a preacher's sister and a
person of faith. Please allow me to introduce my mother, Mrs.
Lynette G. Jacobs. Regrettably, my father, Reverend Solomon
Jacobs, was unable to join us, though he assures me he is
praying for me.
[Laughter.]
Ms. JACOBS. I have inherited a lot from both of them,
including a strong faith tradition, but more about that in a
moment. Our written testimony details our concerns about a
number of issues, including expansion of the family violence
option and access to public benefits for immigrant victims of
domestic violence, sexual assault and trafficking. I commend
that to you.
Recently, Chairman Herger has made a number of statements
indicating that the welfare system is not working and that
welfare recipients face a longer road to independence from
welfare. I agree with the Chair, but I, also, submit to you
that the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program should
not function merely to help families achieve independence from
welfare. More importantly, it should function to help them
escape from poverty.
While the number of people receiving TANF declined by
149,000 at the end of the year 2003, the number of people in
poverty during that same time rose by 1.3 million. In the last
4 years, 4.3 million more Americans fell into poverty. The
overwhelming burden of increased poverty, however, fell on
children and their mothers in single-parent households. We
encourage this Subcommittee to pursue proven solutions to the
problem of rising poverty not measures which will harm children
and their mothers. We strongly urge this Subcommittee to pursue
policies that invest in the education, training and work
supports that empower women to achieve true economic security.
In the year 2000, only 1.2 percent of single mothers with a
college degree who worked full time lived in poverty. Less than
8 percent of single mothers with some college working full time
lived in poverty. This is a clear indication of what strategy
will work best in lifting families out of poverty.
Current law allows, but does not require, States to use
TANF funds for marriage promotion. When TANF was enacted in
1996, an underlying goal was to give States the flexibility to
tailor programs to the needs of their individual TANF
populations. To earmark funding for marriage activities, as
H.R. 240 does, would hamstring States' abilities to provide
their TANF population with what they truly need to gain, an
economic foothold and would, also, undermine the basic approach
of the TANF program.
When the Senate Finance Committee held marriage promotion
hearings last year, even those who supported the program and
conceded that we don't yet know what works, Dr. Haskins said,
``We know so little about marriage promotion programs,
especially with poor and low-income families.'' Chairman
Grassley added, ``There is still a great deal of uncertainty
around the effectiveness of marriage promotion programs.''
Mr. Chair, in these times of fiscal distress, TANF funding
must focus exclusively on programs with a proven record of
success. Recently, President Bush said, ``The important
question that needs to be asked for all constituencies is
whether or not the programs achieve a certain result.'' We
agree, and because the currently funded marriage programs have
not been evaluated for use with low-income, racially diverse
families, fiscal responsibility suggests waiting for the
results of the programs already funded before allocating more
funding. Moreover, recent research supports the concerns that
we and others have raised about the increased risk of violence
poor women face. Study after study demonstrates that between 15
and 25 percent of current welfare caseloads consist of domestic
violence victims. Between half and two-thirds of women on
welfare have suffered domestic violence or abuse at some point
in their adult lives.
As you consider additional marriage promotion funding,
please read Andrew Cherlin's, ``Influence of Physical and
Sexual Abuse on Marriage and Cohabitation.'' Dr. Cherlin is at
the Johns Hopkins University. The study concludes that physical
and sexual abuse are key reasons why many poor women choose not
to marry. Marriage promotion programs that fail to recognize
and respond to the traumatic and long-term effects of physical
and sexual abuse are not only irresponsible, but will fail.
We are, also, concerned that H.R. 240's marriage promotion
provisions lack protections for domestic violence victims. At
minimum, no program should qualify for marriage promotion money
without voluntary participation provisions, collaboration with
domestic violence experts and a guarantee that there will be no
discrimination against single parents. Most importantly,
addressing domestic violence should be an issue on which
marriage promotion money can be spent because dealing with
domestic violence is often the most important first step for a
woman to take before moving on to consider a healthy marriage.
As people of faith, we know that helping the poor is a
prime mandate. Jesus said, ``If you love me, feed my sheep.''
When you combine the rising numbers of people in poverty with
the fact that the TANF roles continue to decline, you know that
we are failing to meet our basic obligation to the people in
greatest need. Welfare reauthorization must focus on programs
that have a proven record for lifting people from poverty,
while not jeopardizing their well-being. Please support a
fiscally responsible TANF bill and one that focuses on the
child care funding and education and training opportunities
that women and their families so desperately need. Thank you so
much, and if I could, respectfully, request, since my oral
remarks are mildly different, that they could be included in
the record as well. I would appreciate that. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jacobs follows:]
Statement of Lisalyn R. Jacobs, Vice President for Government
Relations, Legal Momentum
Legal Momentum (formerly NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund)
appreciates the opportunity to submit this testimony on the issue of
TANF Reauthorization and building stronger families.\i\ We adhere to
our long held belief that anti-poverty efforts must focus on
initiatives that will empower individuals to become economically self-
sufficient and permanently free them from poverty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ The authors would like to thank Shawn Chang for his invaluable
assistance in completing this testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Momentum is a leading national not-for-profit civil rights
organization with a 35-year history of advocating for women's rights
and promoting gender equality. Among Legal Momentum's major goals is
securing economic justice for all. Throughout our history, we have used
the power of the law to advocate for the rights of poor women. We have
appeared before the Supreme Court of the United States in both gender
discrimination and welfare cases, and have advocated for protection of
reproductive and employment rights, increased access to child care, and
reduction of domestic violence and sexual assault. In addition, we
address welfare reform issues from the perspective of ending women's
poverty. To this end, we have convened the Building Opportunities
Beyond Welfare Reform Coalition (BOB Coalition), a national network of
local, state, and national groups, including representatives of women's
rights, civil rights, anti-poverty, anti-violence, religious and
professional organizations.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony to this
Subcommittee on the reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families program. We first submitted testimony to this
subcommittee on April 3, 2001 when it first took up the task of
reauthorizing the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Much
has changed since April 2001 in the life of our nation. What has not
changed, however, is the need for a compassionate safety net for our
poorest families and work supports to enable poor families to improve
their financial situation. What is needed is attention to the
particular problems of women with children who are living in poverty,
especially the issues of violence in their lives, the need for
education and training, the need for child care, and the recognition
that children need time and attention from their parents in order to
thrive. In the four years since we first submitted testimony, the
number of poor Americans has increased. Indeed, every year since 2001,
more Americans have sunk into poverty. From 2000 until 2004, 4.3
million additional Americans fell into poverty.\ii\ A disproportionate
number of those in poverty are women. In fact, women represent 56% of
the poor in this country; and 13.5% of all women in America are poor
compared with 11.2% of men.\iii\ The overwhelming burden of increased
poverty, however, fell on children and their mothers in single parent
households, the very population the TANF program should be trying to
help. We urge this subcommittee to pursue proven solutions to the
problem of increasing poverty, not punitive measures designed to hurt
children and their mothers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ii\ Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, ``Census Data Show
Poverty Increased, Income Stagnated and the Number of Uninsured Rose To
A Record Level in 2003,'' Friday, August 27, 2004.
\iii\ United States Census Bureau, ``We the People: Women and Men
in the United States,'' U.S. Census Special Reports (January, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marriage Promotion is Not A Solution to Women's Poverty. We would
like to begin our testimony by focusing on why government involvement
in personal issues of family formation would not reduce poverty, and
would create a dangerous precedent for the individual liberty of all
Americans. Emphasis on marriage and family formation sidesteps the
underlying causes of poverty, particularly the poverty of women and
children--such as lack of job training and education, ongoing sex and
race discrimination, violence and lack of childcare. At a time of huge
budget deficits and high unemployment it is irresponsible to spend over
a billion dollars on untested, unproven marriage promotion programs,
which is what the proposed House bill would spend over the next 5
years. Further, government involvement in highly personal decisions
such as marriage is a departure from our most basic principles; a
threat not just to poor women, but to all citizens who believe that
liberty entails making fundamental personal decisions without
governmental interference. Critically important is the fact that
because of the prevalence of violence among women forced to turn to
public assistance, promotion of marriage can raise particular and
severe dangers. Nothing in the proposal before this Committee protects
women who are victims of domestic violence from being counseled to
marry an abuser, or, if the abuser is her husband, stay with him.
Without meaningful protections, marriage promotion will put the lives
of poor women at risk. Finally, the amount of money currently being
spent on marriage promotion by the Department of Health and Human
Services is enormous, over $100 million. We agree with President Bush,
who in a recent budget meeting with his Cabinet stated, ``The important
question that needs to be asked for all constituencies is whether or
not the programs achieve a certain result.'' The programs currently
being funded have not been reviewed or tested to see if they are useful
or successful. Common sense dictates treading cautiously in this area
and waiting for the results of the programs already funded before
throwing another $1.6 billion at promotion of marriage among the poor.
The staggering prevalence of domestic violence among women on
welfare presents an insurmountable challenge to ``Healthy Marriage''
Promotion within TANF. When considering marriage promotion within the
context of TANF, Congress must face the reality that violence is one of
the main causes of women's poverty. Domestic violence makes women poor
and keeps them poor. Violence is not an exception to the rule for poor
women; it is an overwhelming reality. Study after study demonstrates
that a large proportion of the welfare caseload (consistently between
15% and 25%) consists of current victims of serious domestic
violence.\iv\ Between half and two thirds of the women on welfare have
suffered domestic violence or abuse at some time in their adult
lives.\v\ Moreover, by an overwhelming margin, these women's abusers
are most often the fathers of their children. For these women and their
children, marriage is not the solution to economic insecurity. For them
marriage could mean death or serious injury; it will almost undoubtedly
mean economic dependence on an abuser. In the population as a whole,
many battered women are economically dependent on their abusers; 33-46%
of women surveyed in five studies said their partner prevented them
from working entirely.\vi\ Those who are permitted to work fare little
better. Ninety-six percent reported that they had experienced problems
at work due to domestic violence, with over 70% having been harassed at
work, 50% having lost at least three days of work a month as a result
of the abuse, and 25% having lost at least one job due to the domestic
violence.\vii\ Thus, battered women are overwhelmingly either
economically dependent on the abuser or are economically unstable due
to the abuse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\iv\ See Jody Raphael & Richard M. Tolman, Taylor Inst. and the
Univ. of Mich. Research Dev. Ctr. on Poverty, Risk and Mental Health,
Trapped by Poverty, Trapped by Abuse: New Evidence Documenting the
Relationship Between Domestic Violence and Welfare, 12 (1997).
\v\ See Mary Ann Allard, et al., McCormack Inst., In Harm's Way?
Domestic Violence, AFDC Receipt and Welfare Reform in Mass., 12, 14
(1997) (64.9% of 734 women); Ellen L. Bassuck, et al., The
Characteristics and Needs of Sheltered Homeless and Low-Income Housed
Mothers, 276 JAMA 640 at 12, 20 (1996) (61.0% of 220 women); William
Curcio, Passaic County Study of AFDC Recipients in a Welfare-to-Work
Program: A Preliminary Analysis, 12, 14 (1997) (57.3% of 846 women).
\vi\ See United States General Accounting Office, Report to
Congressional Committees, Domestic Violence: Prevalence and
Implications for Employment Among Welfare Recipients, 7 (1998).
\vii\ See Joan Zorza, Woman Battering: High Costs and the State of
the Law, 25 Clearinghouse Rev. 421 (1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should realize that violence is most often the cause of a
woman's decision not to marry. Anyone on this subcommittee considering
throwing millions of dollars of taxpayer's money at untested marriage
promotion programs should read Andrew J. Cherlin, `` The Influence of
Physical and Sexual Abuse on Marriage and Cohabitation,'' American Soc.
Rev. 768 (December, 2004). The authors of this study, which included
hundreds of women in three U.S. cities, conclude that physical and
sexual abuse are a key factor in why many poor women choose not to
marry. Without recognizing the traumatic and long term effect physical
and sexual abuse can have on women's attitude toward marriage, any
program to promote marriage is doomed.
Those who would promote marriage in every circumstance sometimes
claim that marriage decreases domestic violence. This idea ignores many
realities of domestic violence. Most importantly, married victims are
less likely to report the abuse. In addition, separation and divorce
frequently incite batterers to increase the frequency and level of
violence.\viii\ The experience of Oklahoma, clearly the leader in
spending public dollars for marriage promotion, is instructive. In a
survey of Oklahoma families, referred to in testimony by the Director
of Public Welfare in that State when testifying before Congress, it was
discovered that almost half (44%) of the state's divorced women cited
domestic violence as a reason for their divorce.\ix\ More than half
(57%) of Oklahoma's divorced welfare mothers, the prime target of
government marriage promotion efforts, cited domestic violence as a
reason for their divorce.\x\ Oklahoma is by no means unique. Around the
country, in survey after survey, low income women report high double
digit domestic violence rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\viii\ See Einat Peled, Parenting by Men Who Abuse Women: Issues
and Dilemmas, Brit. J. Soc. Work, Feb. 2000, at 28.
\ix\ ``Marriage in Oklahoma, 2001 Baseline Survey on Marriage and
Divorce,'' at 16, available at http://www.okmarriage.org/pdf/
survey_report.pdf
\x\ Private communication to NOW Legal Defense & Education Fund
from Oklahoma official; copy available upon request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should the government encourage women to get married or stay
married to men who abuse them? Certainly, proponents of government
marriage promotion do not intend this. But common sense suggests that
this will be the inevitable result of a government ``get married and do
not divorce'' message, especially when success is measured by
superficial statistics such as the divorce rate. Should Congress ignore
the role domestic abuse plays in women's decisions not to marry?
Surely, this is precisely what will happen unless the marriage
promotion provisions in H.R.240 contain specific protections for women
who have been abused during their lives.
Congress itself has repeatedly recognized that domestic violence is
a serious national problem and has made efforts to minimize the severe
risk to women and children from that violence, most recently by
reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act in 2000. But marriage
promotion for TANF recipients ignores the reality of domestic violence.
It ignores its pervasiveness: assertions that proponents intend to
promote only ``healthy marriages'' lose credibility in the face of the
reality that as many as two-thirds of TANF recipients report incidents
of domestic violence. Surveys of low-income women in several cities
show that two of the four main reasons for not marrying are fear of
domestic violence and fear of a power imbalance.\xi\ Requiring marriage
promotion programs to consult with domestic and sexual violence experts
and child advocates on the development and implementation of policies,
procedures, and training necessary to appropriately address domestic
and sexual violence and child abuse issues, as was specified in last
year's Senate Finance Committee welfare reauthorization bill (PRIDE),
but conspicuously absent in H.R. 240, could provide some security. But
even those safeguards do not make marriage promotion within TANF safe.
In light of the high incidence of violence in the lives of poor women,
the complete failure of H.R. 240 to include even the most rudimentary
protections for domestic violence victims is a travesty; domestic
violence is not mentioned anywhere in the legislation and, therefore,
use of marriage promotion dollars to keep women in abusive marriages or
to help persuade them to marry their abuser is a very real threat.
Finally, our review of current grant applications to HHS for marriage
promotion funds indicates that very few programs currently include any
consideration of domestic violence issues in their applications,
indicating that if such protections are not included in the law, they
will not be in the programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xi\ Kathyrn Edin, Joint Center for Poverty Research Working
Papers, What Do Low-Income Single Mothers Say About Marriage?, Aug. 9,
2001, available at http://www.jcpr.org/wpfiles/edin_WP_ediforweb1-
31.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who say that marriage promotion will only be done in
relationships where there is no violence are not sufficiently
knowledgeable about the dynamic of domestic violence and the very clear
truth that most women who are victims of violence are ashamed and
afraid and extremely unlikely to offer the reveal the violence in their
lives to others. Many victims fear the potential consequences of
acknowledging the abuse: the stigma of being a domestic violence
victim; the very real possibility of losing their children to child
welfare agencies; the possibility that disclosure of violence will
escalate the abuse. Marriage promotion programs, no matter how
``sensitive'' to domestic violence on paper, cannot change the fact
that those promoting marriage will probably not know about violence in
the relationship they are trying to make legally permanent. Thus,
programs that push poor women into marriage with the fathers of their
children may inadvertently legitimize abusive situations; similarly,
programsthat discourage divorce may increase the already deep shame and
social pressure to remain with the abuser that women who are married
and are being abused often feel. A government message to poor women who
are violence victims that there is something wrong with being unmarried
will make it even more difficult for women who are trying to leave an
abusive relationship to do so. The complexity of domestic violence and
the danger to women who stay in or formalize abusive relationships make
any government-sponsored marriage promotion program extremely
problematic.
TANF currently includes a Family Violence Option (FVO) allowing
states to confidentially screen for domestic violence, refer to
services, and modify or waive program requirements that would be unsafe
or unfair to victims of domestic violence. While nearly all states have
adopted some version of the FVO, unfortunately, not all states have
done so. With such an overwhelming correlation between violence and
poverty, it is both troubling and illogical that Congress would
consider mandating marriage promotion and providing significant
financial incentives for states to fund marriage promotion while not
requiring states to address domestic violence through the FVO. At a
minimum, Congress should require all states to screen for domestic
violence, refer individuals to services, and should invest TANF dollars
in case worker training, a study of best practices with respect to
addressing domestic violence in TANF, and dissemination of those best
practices to all states to help them address this very real barrier to
economic security. It is also essential that, if indeed, money for
marriage promotion is appropriated under TANF, that there be clear
protections for women who are victims of violence. No program should
get government marriage promotion money unless there is collaboration
with domestic violence experts in developing and administering the
program. Provisions insuring that all participation in marriage
promotion programs will be voluntary and non-coercive are also
essential as well as provisions that guarantee that there will be no
discrimination against single parents. Most importantly, domestic
violence should be an issue on which marriage promotion money can be
spent. In so many cases, dealing with domestic violence is the most
important first step for a woman to take before moving on to consider a
healthy marriage.
HHS is already spending a great deal of money on marriage
promotion; more should not be spent unless there is some indication
this is an effective way to combat poverty. Current law allows but does
not require states to use Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)
funds for marriage promotion and for initiatives aimed at decreasing
out of wedlock births. The current House proposal (H.R. 240) includes
significant funding for marriage promotion initiatives. Although there
is no new TANF funding for economic support in H.R. 240, the bill
authorizes $100 million a year in specifically dedicated federal TANF
funding for a Marriage Promotioncompetitive grant program. States would
be required to match the $100 million and would be allowed to use their
basic federal TANF allocation to do so, thus potentially diverting an
additional $100 million of TANF funds from economic support to marriage
promotion. The bill also authorizes an additional $100 million a year
for new TANF demonstration project funding to ``be expended primarily''
on ``Healthy Marriage Promotion Activities.'' Finally, the bill creates
a fatherhood program funded at $20million a year ``to promote and
support involved, committed, and responsible fatherhood, and to
encourage and support healthymarriages.''
The House bill also adds new requirements that in order to
participate in TANF, states must have a program to ``encourage the
formation and maintenance of healthy 2-parent married families'' and
must set ``specific, numerical, and measurable performance objectives''
for promoting such families. This language suggests that in order to
qualify for any TANF funding, states might have to set numerical goals
for increasing the state marriage rate and reducing the state divorce
rate.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is already
spending a great deal of money on marriage promotion--over $77 million
in contracts and over $25 million in grants. Grant money has been taken
from appropriations for the Child Support Enforcement Program ($2.4
million),\xii\ from the Refugee Resettlement Program ($9
million),\xiii\ from Child Welfare Programs ($14 million),\xiv\ from
the (Native American) Social And Economic Development Strategies
Program (SEDS) ($40 million),\xv\ from the Assets For Independence
Demonstration Program ($16 million),\xvi\ and from the Developmental
Disabilities Program ($3 million).\xvii\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xii\ See HHS 5/9/03 press release ``ACF Approves Child Support
Demonstrations in Michigan and Idaho,'' available at http://
www.acf.dhhs.gov/acf_news.html); and HHS 7/4/03 press release `` ACF
Approves Child Support Demonstration In Virginia,'' available at http:/
/www.acf.dhhs.gov/acf_news.html).
\xiii\ 67 Fed. Reg. 45131-45136 (July 8, 2002); 68 Fed. Reg. 34617-
34726 (June 10, 2003); 68 Fed. Reg. 43142-47 (July 21, 2003).
\xiv\ [xiv] 68 Fed. Reg 34609-34614 (June 10, 2003).
\xv\ 67 Fed. Reg. 59736-59746 (Sept. 23, 2002); 69 Fed. Reg. 8266-
8288 (Feb. 23, 2004).
\xvi\ http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/fy2003ocsfunding/
section2a.html
\xvii\ 68 Fed. Reg. 41816-41828
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is difficult to see why Congress should consider hundreds of
millions of dollars in new funding for marriage promotion before the
results of the Administration's evaluation projects are in. It is
surely putting the cart before the horse to start a major new social
program when the program's potential effects are largely unknown and
demonstration projects to identify and evaluate the effects are just
getting off the ground. In 2003, the Administration awarded contracts
to several prominent national organizations to conduct large marriage
promotion test projects with rigorous evaluation methodologies:
Mathematica Policy Research, ($19 million over nine years for the
Building Strong Families demonstration and random-assignment evaluation
project; MDRC (and other secondary contractors) $38.5 million over nine
years for the Supporting Healthy Marriages demonstration and random-
assignment evaluation project); and RTI International and the Urban
Institute ($20.4 million over seven years for evaluation of community
wide initiatives to promote healthy marriage).\xviii\ Until the results
of these projects are known, Congress should not consider marriage
promotion funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xviii\ See October 3, 2003 ACF press release ``ACF Announces Four
New Projects to Study Healthy Marriage,'' available at http://
www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/press/2003/release-101003.htm; Ooms, Bouchet, &
Parke, ``Beyond Marriage Licenses: Efforts in States to Strengthen
Marriage and Two-Parent Families. A State by State Snapshot'', Center
for Law and Social Policy (April 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HHS has also issued a ``Compendium'' of approaches for achieving
``marriage promotion'' goals, which is a likely indicator of the
recommendations it would make to states for spending marriage promotion
funds were such spending to be required. This Compendium suggests that
states consider completely unproven and coercive methods, such as
paying a $2,000 cash bonus to poor couples who marry and reducing
welfare payments to poor couples who choose not to marry.
(``Strengthening Healthy Marriages: A Compendium of Approaches,'' U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (August 2002), available at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/region2/index.htm.) The Compendium
includes marriage promotion organizations that clearly should not
receive large grants of tax dollars. Some of these organizations
recommend reducing the divorce rate by restricting the right to
divorce. Some teach that the husband should be the leader/breadwinner,
and the wife the follower/homemaker. Several are for-profit commercial
ventures which claim that they can help couples avoid divorce for a
substantial fee. It is irresponsible for legislators to enact a program
that threatens to divert government money intended to help the poor to
fund the untested programs of such organizations.
When the Senate Finance Committee held marriage promotion hearings
last year, even those who spoke in favor of marriage conceded that we
don't yet know what works. Ron Haskins, Senior Fellow at the Brookings
Institute stated ``we know so little about marriage-promotion programs,
especially with poor and low-income families.'' Theodora Ooms of the
Center on Law and Social Policy stated, ``Given the lack of research on
marriage related interventions, policy makers should proceed
cautiously. . .'' Even Chairman Grassley (R-Iowa) stated, ``Do marriage
programs effectively reduce dependence and foster a family's well-
being? We don't know. There is still a great deal of uncertainty around
the effectiveness of marriage promotion programs.''
With such a high degree of uncertainty around what works with
respect to marriage promotion, with millions and millions of dollars
already being spent on marriage promotion programs, why spend billions
more of taxpayer dollars on these programs before the results are in on
which may give direction to a whether such initiatives are successful
and what types of programs work?
As noted above, since 1996, states have been free to use TANF
dollars to support marriage and two-parent families, although most
states have not done so. States have instituted programs that range
from a simple waste of public dollars to outright discrimination
against struggling single parent families. These examples demonstrate
the risks in pushing states to do more to promote marriage. For
example.
In Oklahoma, former Governor Frank Keating earmarked 10% of the
state's TANF surplus funds to fund the $10 million Oklahoma Marriage
initiative, which includes pre- and post-marital counseling to Oklahoma
families, a marriage resource center, a marriage mentor program, and
the creation of a Marriage Scholars-in-Residence.\xix\ The initiative
also contains a specific ``religious track'' under which the state's
religious leaders sign a marriage covenant, thereby committing
themselves to encourage pre-marital counseling for couples in their
house of worship. A few months after Keating made his proposal, the
state hired a pair of ``marriage ambassadors'' with a $250,000 a year
salary to give ``relationship rallies'' on school campuses as well as
meeting with ministers and set up a research project. Last September
the state spent $16,000 flying in pro-marriage speakers from around the
country for a two-day conference. It also developed a workshop called
Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP) that is offered
in schools and community centers.\xx\ Three years after Oklahoma
implemented its marriage promotion programs, the state's divorce rate
has remained unchanged.\xxi\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xix\ Supra Note 156.
\xx\ Tyre, Peg. ``Oklahoma is fighting its sky-high divorce rate
with controversial, state-funded ``marriage ambassadors.'' Newsweek,
Feb. 18, 2002, U.S. Edition.
\xxi\ Ross, Bobby Jr. ``Divorce rate stays steady, study shows''
The Daily Oklahoman (2/10/2002). Citing that for every 100 marriage
licenses issued in 2001, the state granted 76 divorce petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia's state TANF plan adds a $100 marriage incentive to a
family's benefits if there is a legal marriage in a household where
both individuals receive welfare assistance payments. Since West
Virginia's monthly TANF benefit for a family of three is $328, this
$100 per month bonus makes a significant difference in economic support
and gives children in poor married families a significant economic
advantage over children whose poor single mothers have been unable or
unwilling to marry.
Programs such as those described above divert funds from direct
support of poor families or provision of services needed to support
employment. Programs like that in West Virginia discriminate directly
against poor single parent families. Endorsing or increasing funding
for such programs is bad public policy.
The American public overwhelmingly rejects governmental involvement
in personal decisions about when and whether to marry. According to the
PEW Forum on Religion & Public Life opinion poll, there is broad
opposition to government programs aimed at encouraging marriage. Nearly
eight in ten Americans (79%) want the government to stay out of this
area, while just 18% endorse such pro-marriage programs. While those
with a high level of religious commitment are more likely to favor
these programs, fully two-thirds (66%) in that category do not want the
government to get involved.\xxii\ The Administration has tried mightily
to sway public opinion in this area. They have paid columnists like
Maggie Gallagher and Michael McManus thousands of dollars to write
columns favorable to the idea of marriage promotion by the government,
columns written with no disclosure that the columnists were on the
government (read that taxpayer's) payroll.\xxiii\ Despite the HHS
public relations campaign, there is no evidence that the American
public believes that marriage promotion is a good idea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xxii\ The PEW Research Center for the People & the Press and the
PEW Forum on Religion & Public Life, ``American Struggle with
Religion's Role at Home and Abroad,'' News Release, March 20, 2002. at
3.
\xxiii\ http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/27/mcmanus/
print.html; http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36545-
2005Jan25?language=printer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, Americans also strongly reject any proposal that would
divert welfare resources for the poor into marriage promotion programs.
A recent poll conducted on behalf of the National Campaign for Jobs and
Income Support shows that a mere five percent of those surveyed select
marriage promotion as the number-one welfare priority for Congress,
while fully 62% cite work support for people moving from welfare to
good jobs as the top priority.\xxiv\ Similarly, a poll conducted for
the Ms. Foundation found that less than three percent of Americans
believe the principal goal of the welfare system should be to promote
marriage and discourage out-of-wedlock birth.\xxv\ By contrast, giving
people the skills needed to achieve self-sufficiency received the most
support. Most recently, a survey conducted for the Annie E. Casey
Foundation also found that proposals to promote marriage through
welfare programs do not meet with even superficial public support. A
solid 64% of those surveyed reject proposals to provide financial
bonuses to mothers on welfare who marry the father of their children,
and over 70% believe pushing people to get married is the wrong
priority for Congress.\xxvi\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xxiv\ Peter D. Hart Research Associates. ``TANF/Welfare Survey
Findings.'' National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support Memo, April
12, 2002, at 1.
\xxv\ Ms. Foundation for Women. ``Americans Say Welfare Should
Provide Self-Sufficiency Skills, Move People Out of Poverty--Not
Promote Marriage.'' (February 6, 2002) at 1.
\xxvi\ Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. ``Memorandum to
Advocates for Low-Income Families.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government coercion of poor women to marry is contrary to our
fundamental notion of freedom. The American public overwhelmingly
rejects governmental involvement in personal decisions about when and
wether to marry. The Supreme Court has long recognized an individual's
right to privacy regarding decisions to marry and reproduce as ``one of
the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and
survival.'' \xxvii\ Significantly, this constitutional right equally
protects the choice not to marry.\xxviii\ Reproductive privacy,
initially honored as a right of marital privacy,\xxix\ has been firmly
established as a protected right of the individual, irrespective of
marital status.\xxx\ According to the Supreme Court, ``if the right of
privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or
single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters
so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or
beget a child.\xxxi\ Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has
specifically rejected the use of the welfare system to try to influence
the marriage decisions of a child's parents. In National Welfare Rights
Organization v. Cahill, 411 U.S. 619 (1973), a New Jersey welfare
provision that limited benefits to families where there were two adults
``ceremonially married to each other'' was struck down as a violation
of the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. The Court held that
penalizing children by restricting welfare benefits to them because of
the marital decisions of their parents ``is illogical and unjust.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xxvii\ Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541
(1942).
\xxviii\ Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967).
\xxix\ Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 495 (1965).
\xxx\ Eisenstadt v. Baird 405 U.S. 438, 453-54 (1972).
\xxxi\ Id. at 453.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government programs promoting marriage may invade this right to
privacy and may encourage the kind of differential treatment of
children in non-marital families that the Supreme Court condemned in
NWRO v. Cahill. They certainly pose concerns regarding voluntariness
and coercion. It is critical that if Congress funds these programs with
tax dollars, that they neither require nor encourage incentives for
states to coerce low-income women into trading away their fundamental
rights to marry or not to marry. As such, federal mandates on states to
set numerical goals are not appropriate. There are currently no clear
protections in the House bill with respect to voluntariness or non-
coercion. Those protections are essential, although it is hard to
conceive of provisions that would genuinely protect voluntariness in a
program that supplies a lifeline to desperate families in need of help
in supporting their children. Along the same lines, states must not be
permitted to discriminate based on marital status or family formation.
To that end, TANF reauthorization should include language that
prohibits states from treating equally needy families differently based
on marital status or family formation. This will correct discriminatory
policies and practices against married families, without swinging the
pendulum to permit discrimination against single or cohabitating
families.
Marriage does not address the causes of women's poverty and is not
a solution. Common sense tells us that two incomes are better than one
and thus more likely to move people off of welfare. But a closer look
at the facts shows that marriage is not the simple solution to poverty
that it is made out to be.
First, forming a two-parent family does not guarantee economic
security. Forty percent of all families living in poverty are two-
parent families. Thus, two-parent families are not immune to poverty or
the economic stresses single parent families face.
Second, due to death and divorce, marriage does not ensure women's
economic security. Approximately 40% of marriages end in divorce\xxxii\
and 12% end due to the husband's death.\xxxiii\ Among women currently
on welfare, about 40% are married or were married at one time: 18.4%
are married; 12.3% are separated; 8.3% are divorced; and about 1% are
widows. A significant number of divorces and separations are due to
domestic violence. In these cases it is futile to claim that marriage
would provide security, economic or otherwise. Indeed, there is no
simple causal relationship between single motherhood and poverty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xxxii\ The National Marriage Project, Annual Report: the State of
Our Unions: the Social Health of Marriage in America, 2000 (June 2000),
available at http://marriage.rutgers.edu/NMPAR2000.pdf.
\xxxiii\ United States Census Bureau, Current Population Reports,
Series No. P20-514, Marriage Status and Living Arrangements: March 1998
(Update) (2000), available at http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/p20-
514u.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reasons that women, more than men, experience an economic
downfall outside of marriage include: primary care giving
responsibility for children which--without attendant employment
protections and due to lack of quality, affordable, accessible child
care--makes unemployment or underemployment inevitable; discrimination
in the labor market; and domestic violence. Without addressing the
factors that keep women from being economically self-sufficient,
marriage and family formation advocates are merely proposing to shift
women's ``dependence'' from the welfare system to marriage. That
certainly does not promote individual responsibility, nor is it a
policy solution for genuine, reliable, economic security.
On the other hand, a policy that invests in education, training and
work supports empowers women to achieve true economic security. In
2000, only 1.2% of single mothers with a college degree who worked
full-time year round lived in poverty. Less than eight percent of
single mothers with some college working full-time lived in
poverty.\xxxiv\ This is by far the best poverty reduction statistic; a
clear indication of what strategy will work best in lifting families
out of poverty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xxxiv\ Neil G. Bennett, et. al., National Center for Children in
Poverty, Young Children in Poverty: A Statistical Update, June 17,
1999, available at http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/nccp/99uptext.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, the approach to marriage advocated by H.R. 240 has it
backwards. Economic security is more likely to lead to successful
marriage than is marriage likely to lead to economic security. The
outcomes of the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) support this
conclusion. MFIP reached welfare-eligible single and two-parent
families and focused on participation in employment services for long-
term welfare recipients combined with financial incentives to encourage
and support work. These work supports include child care, medical care,
and rewarding work by helping the family to develop enough earning
power to survive financially without cash assistance before cutting off
their benefits. A study comparingthe economic progress of those in the
standard AFDC welfare program with MFIP participants found that only
14% of AFDC recipients compared with 25% of families in the MFIP
program were out of poverty within 2\1/4\ years and the MFIP families
had on average $1400 more in annual income. After 36 months MFIP
participants were 40% more likely to be married than participants in
the standard AFDC program, and nearly 50% less likely to be divorced
after five years. The MFIP program shows that allowing families to
combine welfare and work, and providing work supports to help
individuals become economically secure, are approaches that will
strengthen marriage and reduce divorce.\xxxv\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xxxv\ Manpower Demonstration Research Corp. (MDRC), chap. 6,
available at http://www.mdrc.org/Reports2000/MFIP/MFIP-Vol-1-Adult.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investments in education, training and work supports can both
empower women to achieve economic security (thereby economically
empowering couples as well) and strengthen marriages. If Congress takes
this approach it can enable individuals to achieve their own goals,
without invading their privacy or endangering their families.
Work Hours Should Not Be Increased for TANF Recipients, and Job
Training Oppertunities And Education Should Be Recognized As Work. Job
discrimination is a factor in placement of TANF recipients in jobs that
pay wages that can lift a family out of poverty. Many jobs in which
women are poorly represented, such as jobs in the skilled trades,
technology, law enforcement and the computer industry, to name just a
few examples, pay good wages with benefits and provide opportunities
for career advancement.
The importance of nontraditional jobs for women is highlighted by
the wage gap. In 1999, women earned only 72% of what men earned.\xxxvi\
Median weekly earnings for full-time wage and salary workers in 1999
were $473 for women and $618 for men.\xxxvii\ Nationwide, working
families lose $200 billion of income annually to the wage gap. This
amounts to an average loss of more than $4,000 each for working women's
families every year because of unequal pay, even after accounting for
differences in education, age, location and the number of hours
worked.\xxxviii\ The wage gap is even more pronounced for women of
color. African-American women are paid 65% of the salaries averaged by
white men, while Latinas receive a mere 52%.\xxxix\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xxxvi\ Nat'l Comm. on Pay Equity, ``The Wage Gap: 1999.''
\xxxvii\ U.S. Dep't of Labor, Women's Bureau, ``20 Facts on Women
Workers,'' (Mar. 2000), available at http://www.dol.gov/dol/wb/public/
wb_pubs/20fact00.htm
\xxxviii\ AFL-CIO fact sheets, available at: http://www.aflcio.org/
women/equalpay.htm and http://www.aflcio.org/women/exec99.ht
\xxxix\ Nat'l Comm. on Pay Equity, ``Advocates Take Action for Fair
Pay,'' press release (Mar. 13, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welfare reform has further exacerbated the effects of the wage gap.
The average disposable income of the bottom fifth of single-mother
families increased between 1993 and 1995, but declined between 1995 and
1997 just as welfare reform was being implemented.\xl\ For welfare
recipients who have found jobs, occupational segregation by gender
relegates women to low-paying jobs that provide no way out of poverty.
One study by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., found that 62.6 percent
of welfare recipients were employed in female-dominated service sector
or clerical jobs, with wages averaging $6.50 an hour.\xli\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xl\ Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, ``The Initial Impacts
of Welfare Reform on the Incomes of Single-Mother Families,'' 9 (Aug.
1999).
\xli\ Rangarajan, Anu et al., ``Employment Experiences of Welfare
Recipients Who Find Jobs: Is Targeting Possible?'' Mathematica Pol'y
Res., Inc. (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing the disadvantages women face entering the workforce
solely because of their gender, Congress should be aware of the
benefits of nontraditional employment for women. Numerous studies have
documented the success of nontraditional job training programs in
placing women in higher paying jobs. For example, a study by Wider
Opportunities for Women found that women who received training for
nontraditional jobs earned between $8 and $9 an hour.\xlii\ By
contrast, in 1997 the average welfare recipient moving from welfare to
work earned between $5.60 and $6.60 an hour.\xliii\ Not only do
nontraditional jobs provide higher entry-level wages, but they also
provide career ladders to higher wages. For instance, an operating
engineer could start by earning $9 per hour and eventually earn $24 per
hour.\xliv\ Nontraditional jobs also provide women with increased
access to a full range of benefits, such as health, family leave, sick
leave, retirement plans, and paid vacation. Finally, nontraditional
jobs can provide women with tremendous job satisfaction. Women in
nontraditional jobs may gain confidence in performing physical labor
and take pride in learning new and technical skills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xlii\ Roberta Spalter-Roth et al., ``Welfare That Works: The
Working Lives of AFDC Recipients, A Report to the Ford Foundation''
(1995), cited in Inst. for Women's Policy Research, Welfare Reform
Network News 8 (Aug./Sept. 1997).
\xliii\ U.S. General Accounting Office, ``Welfare Reform: States
and Restructuring Programs to Reduce Welfare Dependence,'' 107 (June
1998).
\xliv\ Wider Opportunities for Women, Women and Nontraditional Work
(June 1998) (citing U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
and the U.S. General Accounting Office).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The good news is that job availability is growing in many
nontraditional fields, including service sector jobs in computer and
data processing, and blue-collar jobs such as law enforcement,
construction, and motor vehicle operation.\xlv\ At the same time,
recent reports have detailed a shortage of workers in nontraditional
fields.[xlvi] Due to demographic and economic changes, the traditional
labor supply for the building industry (men between the ages of 18 and
24) can no longer fill the demand for such jobs. Thus, for instance,
the Home Builder's Institute has identified women as holding
``tremendous promise for helping alleviate the labor shortage.''
\xlvii\ In short, significant job opportunities await women who gain
access to training in nontraditional fields.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xlv\ U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (1999)
(projecting an average annual growth rate of 7.6% for computer and data
processing services, and projecting that law enforcement positions will
grow 30.8% from 1998 to 2008, that construction jobs will grow 8.4%,
and that motor vehicle operation jobs will grow 15.6%.
\xlvi\ Dirk Johnson, ``Facing Shortage, Building and Labor Court
Workers,'' N.Y. Times, Mar. 13, 1999, at A1.
\xlvii\ Home Builder's Inst., ``Nontraditional Labor: Other Sources
of Workers'' and ``Nontraditional Labor: NAHB Women's Council and HBI
Opening New Doors Guide,'' available at: http://www.hbi.org/ls/
index.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current proposal for TANF reauthorization before this
subcommittee increases work hours but decreases flexibility for states
to implement education and training programs that can lead to higher
wages. Congress should instead eliminate the current restrictions on
education and training and encourage states to implement programs that
will lead to placement of former recipients in jobs that pay a living
wage.
Lack of Child Care is A Serious Barrier to Work for TANF Recipients
And Leavers. Both state and federal law recognize the importance of
child care to parents in welfare-to-work programs by providing parents
with certain rights and options. Federal TANF law includes an exemption
from sanctions if a parent cannot work due to lack of child
care.\xlviii\ In addition, TANF requires that information about the
sanction prohibition be given to parents so they are not coerced into
using unsuitable care.\xlix\ In all states, Child Care Development
Block Grant (CCDBG) money is available for TANF recipients and those
moving off of welfare into work. Under the CCDBG, states must insure
parental choice for families with child care subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xlviii\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 607(e)(2) (2000); N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law
Sec. 342(1) (2000).
\xlix\ 45 C.F.R. Sec. 261.56 (2000); 45 C.F.R. Sec. 98.33 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite these legal protections, however, the ``work first''
initiatives of some states have made the sanction protection
ineffective. Many poor women are either sanctioned for failing to
cooperate with work requirements when they cannot find child care for
their children or are forced to use inadequate child care so that they
can meet work requirements and avoid sanctions. In New York City, for
example, a survey conducted by Legal Momentum found that 79% of
respondents had not received written information about their child care
rights, as mandated by the state and city's most recent policy
directives; 95% of respondents were not informed by their caseworkers
that they could not besanctioned if they were unable to work due to
lack of child care; 46% of respondents were threatened with sanctions
if they were unable to work even if the reason was lack of child
care.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Roslyn Powell and Mia Cahill, Nowhere to Turn: New York City's
Failure to Inform Parents on Public Assistance About Their Child Care
Rights (NOW Legal Defense, 1999); Still Nowhere to Turn (forthcoming
April, 2000)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misinformation and threats of sanctions mean that parents may be
effectively coerced into placing their children in inappropriate child
care arrangements in order to comply with work requirements. For
example, in New York, TANF recipients are given only 10 days to find
child care for their children. It is not surprising with so little time
to find care that 89% of parents on TANF in New York City use informal
care--in contrast to only 2% of non-TANF low income families who
receive child care from the City. This powerfully suggests that parents
on TANF are being pressured into using unregulated, informal care--or
no care at all--because they wrongly fear losing their benefits.
At the same time, more money is needed to insure that subsidies
will get to more than a fraction of the families eligible for them.
This is a particularly serious problem for women leaving welfare for
work. A recent HHS study found that only 10% of those eligible for
child care subsidies receive them.\li\ There are long waiting lists for
child care in most states. In New York City alone, over 38,000 children
are on waiting lists for subsidized care; in California, nearly
200,000.\lii\ Lack of child care for welfare leavers virtually assures
they will not be able to retain employment or that their children will
go uncared for. In particular, in light of the acknowledged scarcity of
quality care for very young children, the proposal to raise the work
requirement hours for women with infants and toddlers that is contained
in H.R. 240 isunconscionable. The work hours for single parents with
pre-school age children should not be raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\li\ U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Access to Child Care
for Low Income Working Families, www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ccb/reports/
ccreport.htm
\lii\ Child Care, Inc., A Child Care Primer, Key Facts About Child
Care and Early Education Services in New York City, 2000, i.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic Violence Is A Factor in the Lives of Many Poor Women and
the Needs of Violence Victims Must Be Better Addressed in the TANF
Program. As discussed above, domestic violence is a prevalent factor in
the lives of TANF recipients and, in turn, can pose a significant
barrier when an individual tries to leave welfare for work. Many
abusers actively sabotage their partners' job or job prospects by
verbally abusing their partners before interviews, by inflicting
injuries before important work events or by refusing child care at the
last minute.\liii\ They may stalk, harass or even assault their
partners at their work placements or new jobs.\liv\ In addition,
individuals experiencing domestic violence may need to take time during
business hours to seek legal, medical or other assistance.
Unfortunately, unless the underlying violence is addressed, individuals
who do succeed in leaving welfare may end up losing their new jobs
because of the violence. Studies indicate that up to one-half of
employees who have experienced domestic violence have lost a job due to
that violence.\lv\ For example, in a recent Wisconsin study of current
and former welfare recipients who had experienced domestic violence,
30% had lost a job due to violence and 58.7% were threatened so much
that they were afraid to work or go to school.\lvi\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\iii\ See U.S. Gen. Acct. Office, Domestic Violence Prevalence and
Implications For Employment Among Welfare Recipients 7 (Nov.
1998);Thomas Moore and Vicky Selkowe, Institute for Wisconsin's Future,
Domestic Violence Victims in Transition from Welfare to Work: Barriers
to Self-Sufficiency and the W-2 Response 6 (1999); Jody Raphael, Taylor
Institute, Prisoners of Abuse: Domestic Violence and Welfare Receipt 6-
10 (1996).
\liv\ Studies indicate that between 35 and 56% of employed battered
women surveyed were harassed at work by their abusive partner. See U.S.
Gen. Acct. Office, Domestic Violence Prevalence and Implications For
Employment Among Welfare Recipients 19 (Nov. 1998) (summarizing the
results of 3 studies).
\lv\ See U.S. Gen. Acct. Office, supra note 8, at 19.
\lvi\ Moore & Selkowe, supra note 7, at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1996, Congress recognized that the new welfare work requirements
and time limits might unfairly penalize families attempting to leave
violent relationships when it attached the Wellstone/Murray Amendment
to the TANF statute. This amendment, popularly known as the Family
Violence Option (FVO), permits States to provide temporary waivers of
TANF program requirements.\lvii\ The goal of the FVO is to permit
individuals to engage in activities other than work that will help them
escape from violence in the long run, such as attending counseling or
seeking legal assistance, and to give extra time to families to become
self-sufficient so that they are not forced to rely on batterers for
financial assistance. Specifically, a state that adopts the FVO must
create a mechanism to screen for domestic violence; refer recipients
who screen for domestic violence to services; and may waive any TANF
requirement that ``would make it more difficult for individuals
receiving assistance... to escape domestic violence or unfairly
penalize such individuals.'' \lviii\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\lvii\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 602 (a)(7).
\lviii\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 1996, a majority of states have adopted the FVO or have made
some provision for domestic violence in their state policies or
procedures.\lix\ Unfortunately, implementation of the FVO continues to
lag. Experience with the FVO has indicated that caseworker training is
desperately needed so that caseworkers will understand how to talk to
women who are victims of violence and that better screening techniques
are needed. A mandatory FVO would both add violence protection for
women who are victims and also enable oversight of the way in which the
FVO is implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\lix\ See generally, Jody Raphael and Sheila Haennicke, Taylor
Institute, Keeping Battered Women Safe Through the Welfare-to-Work
Journey: How Are We Doing? A Report on the Implementation of Policies
for Battered Women in State Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) Programs 4 (1999)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acess to Public Benefits for Immigrant Victims of Domestic
Violence, Sexual Assault and Trafficking. Like many other immigrants
who entered the country after August 22, 1996, immigrant victims of
domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking, and other crimes, face
restrictions to essential safety net services, including TANF. These
services are critical in assisting victims' escape from family
violence. Although current laws make allowances for some of these
women, gaping holes in eligibility remain.
We know that the level of economic resources available to an abused
woman is the best indicator of whether a victim permanently escapes
domestic violence. Many immigrants who are victims of domestic
violence, sexual assault, and trafficking are economically, culturally,
and socially isolated. They are more likely to have limited English-
speaking skills, lack education or employment skills, and be totally
dependent on their abuser for support. In fact, many immigrant victims
stay trapped in violent and abusive relationships for years because
there is no way for them to support themselves or their children
economically. Without access to public benefits, too many immigrant
victims of crimes against women cannot adequately feed, clothe, or care
for their children. These crime victims and their children often lack
health care or live in substandard housing, and some even become
homeless.
To remedy these problems, we support inclusion of the Women
Immigrant Safe Harbor (WISH) Act in TANF Reauthorization. WISH would
ensure that no five-year bar to accessing services will apply to cases
of immigrant victims of domestic violence, trafficking, and sexual
assault and would provide direct access to public benefits for these
victims. Additionally, WISH would ensure that all immigrant victims of
violence would have the full protection of VAWA confidentiality
provisions and would be able to start violence-free and self-sufficient
lives for themselves and for their children.
Mothers' Care Giving Is Work and Does Have Value. The idea that a
mothers' care giving work has no value is central to the welfare reform
debate. It is repeated over and over again that reform aims to move
recipients ``from welfare to work,'' as if only mothers with paid
employment are working. Rising employment for TANF recipients is said
to show success in inculcating the work ethic, as if recipient mothers
have been idling away their time in activities with no social value.
This notion that mothers' care giving work is valueless is false and
pernicious.\lx\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\lx\ Fathers also give care, but even when fathers are present,
mothers still typically perform the bulk of the care giving work. Ann
Crittenden, The Price of Motherhood at 24-25 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As indicated in the discussion of child care, mothers who receive
public assistance and former recipients of assistance are likely to be
single and more likely than other low income women to have small
children.\lxi\ It is outrageous to claim that these women caring for
their pre-school children have no exposure to a work ethic. Mothers
were well acquainted with ``24-7'' eons before there were dot coms and
e-commerce. Mothers have been obligated to work from the first instant
of a child's life long before ``work first'' became a slogan for
denying women the opportunity to participate in education and training
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\lxi\ See n. 20, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps mothers' care giving work is ignored and dismissed because
it is not paid, and therefore is not included in our Gross National
(Domestic) Product. But our economicsystem's failure to properly
account for unpaid care giving should not blind us to care giving's
fundamental importance. Indeed, probably never before in human history
has care giving been more important or essential to social and economic
well being. Today, human capital is an even more important component of
a nation's riches then natural capital or physical capital. The quality
of early care is one of the most important determinants of human
intellectual and emotional development. Care and guidance of the young
child lays the essential groundwork for the formation of knowledge and
skills. Where valuing of care has been done, the value has been found
to be high. In Canada, the 1996 census for the first time measured
unpaid care giving work done at home. The value placed on that work--
two thirds of which was done by women--came to between $221 and 324
billion.\lxii\ Those advocating this valuation stated that they did not
expect actual payment, but their goal was to have this work ``counted
and recognized when formulating public policy.'' Policy debates in the
United States must also start counting and recognizing the valuable
work that all mothers--including poor single mothers--perform when they
care for their young children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\lxii\ Robin Harvey, ``Women Want Value Placed on Unpaid Work in
the Home,'' TORONTO STAR (February 5, 1998) B5, available 1998 WL
17792562.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed the dollar cost to the nation of providing quality care for
poor young children while their mother works outside the home is
potentially greater than the cost of income maintenance for that mother
to care for her own child. Child care monthly reimbursement rates under
the CCDBG, uniformly seen as inadequate, are still higher for a single
infant in a licensed care facility in 40 states than is the monthly
income maintenance grant for a family of 3 under TANF in those
states.\lxiii\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\lxiii\ National Child Care Information Center, Child Care and
Development Block Grant (HHS, March 1998), 63-67; compare with GREEN
BOOK, n. 4, supra, Table 7-10, pp. 389-390.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While it is important that TANF maintain a focus on providing
pathways to good jobs for poor families, it is also important that the
value of the work done by women caring for young children be recognized
and valued. Particularly in the absence of affordable child care for
very young children, Congress should ask the question whether it might
not be better, more moral and, indeed, more economical, to allow poor
women who wish to do so to care for their young children in their own
homes rather than insisting that the only valuable work to be performed
is that which is done outside the home.\lxiv\ At a minimum, however,
the work requirements for single parents with young pre-school children
should not be raised from what they currently are under the TANF
program and efforts to do so under H.R. 240 should be rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\lxiv\ For an excellent portrait of a welfare ``success story,''
and the enormous costs to both children and mothers when working
outside the home is the paramount goal, see Katherine Boo, ``After
Welfare,'' The New Yorker (April 9, 2000), pp. 93-107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. ENGLISH. Certainly, that is by unanimous consent. The
Chair will now recognize Kathleen Curran, policy advisor for
the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN A. CURRAN, POLICY ADVISOR, THE U.S.
CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS
Ms. CURRAN. Thank you very much. I want to thank Chairman
Herger, and the Ranking Member, Mr. McDermott, and all of the
Committee Members for the opportunity to be here today to share
with you the views of the Bishops Conference on TANF
reauthorization.
The Conference views TANF reauthorization as both an
opportunity and a challenge to sharpen our Nation's focus on
the persistent problem of poverty and the tragedy of so many
families living without dignity and hope. The moral measure of
our society is how we treat the least among us, and the goals
of national welfare policy should be to reduce poverty and to
improve the lives of our children.
In a recent statement, A Place at the Table, the bishops
observed that in order to address poverty effectively, four
institutions in our society must work together according to
their respective roles and responsibilities: First, families
and individuals must work for and respect their own dignity and
rights and those of others. Community organizations and faith-
based institutions have a role to play in helping families make
good choices and assisting them with material needs. The
private sector contributes to the common good through
production and the creation of jobs. Finally, government.
Government serves the common good by providing a safety net for
the vulnerable and addressing problems that are beyond the
capacity of the individual or communities to address.
One problem I see in the poverty debate sometimes and in
the TANF debate is that many focus on just one of these
institutions and ignore the important roles of the others. We
believe all four are essential to effectively address poverty.
The Bishops Conference have developed criteria for welfare
reform, which I would like to share with you now, and they are
based upon both Catholic social doctrine and our church's
experience in serving the poor among us. The criteria call for
welfare policies that will protect human life and human
dignity, strengthen family life, encourage and reward work,
preserve a safety net for the vulnerable, build public-private
partnerships working to overcome poverty and invest in human
dignity.
With those criteria in mind, TANF policy should seek to
reduce poverty through a three part strategy of supporting
work, strengthening family life and marriage and sustaining the
needy and vulnerable among us, especially our children, and, of
course, we need to ensure adequate resources to accomplish
these goals. My written testimony goes into more detail in each
of these three areas, but I will just make a few points right
now. First, the conference agrees that TANF should support and
encourage efforts by recipients to work. Work is the ordinary
means by which individuals support themselves and their
families and contribute to the common good.
The TANF program should provide participants with the
support they need to get and keep productive work, with wages
and benefits, so they and their families can leave welfare and
poverty behind for good. In this area, we urge Congress to
consider giving States more flexibility to consider serious
efforts of education and job training toward the work
requirements, for example, by letting education and training
count for more than the current 12 months allowed under the
law. We, also, urge you to make sure that working parents have
access to safe, affordable child care at the hours that they
need it for different shifts that they might work.
Second, on marriage. The Catholic community has
consistently affirmed the vital importance of marriage for
raising children. Children do better economically, emotionally
and spiritually when raised by both parents in the context of a
stable, healthy marriage. Our Nation should make appropriate
efforts to support healthy marriages by assisting single
parents considering marriage and helping married parents stay
together.
Unfortunately, domestic violence, destructive behavior, and
the widespread tragedy of divorce are realities for far too
many families, leaving many single parents struggling to
support children on their own. It is essential to do three
things: to develop appropriate policies and programs to support
and strengthen marriage; to assist and protect families
threatened by domestic violence; and to enable all parents,
married or single, to meet the needs of their families.
Third, on the eligibility of legal immigrants for public
benefits, the Bishops Conference has long advocated for the
availability of basic necessities to all those in need,
regardless of their race, creed, ethnic origin or nationality.
Immigrants who come here and play by the rules, and work and
pay taxes and make significant contributions to our economy
with their labor, when they are in need, as a matter of
justice, they should have access to the public programs,
especially the children in the families who are paying taxes.
They should have access to the public programs in need. In
conclusion, I would just like to say that welfare policy should
not be a choice between encouraging greater individual
responsibility or greater social responsibility. Both are
necessary to help families overcome poverty.
Welfare policy should not be a choice between investing, on
the one hand, in work, child care or education and training or,
on the other hand, recognizing the importance of healthy
marriages and responsible parenthood. Both are necessary to
improve children's lives. Children's lives and their hope for
the future are enhanced or diminished by the choices of their
parents and by the policies of their government. Thank you very
much for the opportunity today to share the Bishops' views. We
are grateful for the Subcommittee's hard work over the last 3
years on TANF reauthorization, and we hope our comments prove
helpful as you return to the task this year.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Curran follows:]
Statement of Kathleen A. Curran, Policy Advisor, The U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops
Chairman Herger and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is
Kathleen A. Curran and I am a policy advisor on health and welfare
issues with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I welcome
this opportunity to share with you the views of the Bishop's Conference
as you consider proposals for reauthorization of the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families block grant program (TANF). This
testimony reflects the criteria for welfare reform adopted by the
Administrative Committee of the Conference.
When considering proposals for TANF reauthorization, the Bishops'
Conference turns to both Catholic social doctrine and experience in
serving the poor. The Bishops are guided by consistent Catholic moral
principles and traditional values: respect for human life and dignity;
the importance of family and the value of work; an option for the poor
and the call to participation; and the principles of subsidiarity and
solidarity.
The Bishops' Conference also draws upon the Church's experience
living with, serving, and welcoming as members the poor among us. The
poor are our neighbors and our parishioners. The Catholic community is
the largest nongovernmental provider of human services to poor
families. We meet the poor in our soup kitchens, shelters and Catholic
Charities agencies. The Catholic community has lived with the realities
of welfare reform, encouraging and helping people to make the
transition from welfare to work. Some are moving ahead and we welcome
and celebrate their progress. But we also live with those who are left
behind, who turn to our parishes, eat in our soup kitchens, sleep in
our shelters and ask for our help. Refining our policy to help ``the
least of this'' is the unfinished task for our nation, pledged to
Aliberty and justice for all.
As the Bishops wrote in their statement, A Place at the Table, our
efforts to serve and stand with the poor recognize and build on the
essential roles and responsibilities of four institutions. Families and
individuals must work for and respect their own dignity and rights and
those of others. Community organizations and faith-based institutions
help families by helping them make good choices, assisting with
material needs and working to overcome discrimination and injustice.
The private sector--the marketplace and institutions of business, labor
and commerce--contributes to the common good through production and the
creation of jobs, and should do so in a way that reflects our society's
values and priorities. A key measure of the marketplace is whether it
provides decent work and wages, especially for those on the margins of
economic life. Finally, government has an essential role and
responsibility in serving the common good, providing a safety net for
the vulnerable, helping to overcome injustice and addressing problems
beyond the capacity of individual or community efforts. One problem in
the poverty debate is that many focus on one of these institutions and
ignore the importance of the others.
With these themes and our everyday experiences in mind, our
Conference applies six principles, first articulated by the
Administrative Board of the Bishops Conference in 1995, in evaluating
proposals for changes during TANF reauthorization. The Conference urges
lawmakers to enact policies that:
Protect human life and human dignity: A fundamental criterion for
all public policy, including welfare policy, is respect for human life
and human dignity. Our nation must protect the lives and dignity of all
children, both born and unborn, and develop policies that safeguard
children and discourage inappropriate or morally destructive behavior.
Strengthen family life: Welfare policy should affirm the importance
of marriage, strong intact families, personal responsibility, self-
discipline, sacrifice and basic morality. It should help mothers and
fathers meet the social, economic, educational and moral needs of their
children. Our society should strive to keep marriages strong and
families together, and, when that is not possible, to keep both mothers
and fathers involved in the lives of their children in a healthy and
constructive manner.
Encourage and reward work: Work is the means by which individuals
support themselves and their families, and participate in Gods
creation, express their dignity, and contribute to the common good of
society. Those who can work, should work. The challenge is to ensure
that our nations policies support productive work with wages and
benefits that permit a family to live in dignity.
Preserve a safety net for the vulnerable: Society has a
responsibility to help meet the needs of those who cannot care for
themselves, who cannot work or whose work is caring for young children
or disabled family members. Our policies should help and sustain the
most vulnerable among us, enhancing the ability of all children,
including immigrant children, to grow into productive adults. Legal
immigrants should be eligible for benefits on the same terms as
citizens, and the children of undocumented persons should not be left
without help.
Build public/private partnerships to overcome poverty: Overcoming
poverty and dependency requires creative, responsive and effective
actions in both the public and private sectors. Our nation must bring
together the roles and responsibilities of the federal and state
governments, private entities, and faith-based institutions and
community organizations in fighting poverty. While the active role of
states and of faith-based and community groups is crucial, their
efforts cannot replace the essential responsibility of the federal
government, on behalf of our entire society, to establish just public
policy and to commit sufficient national resources to insure that the
basic needs of the American people are met.
Invest in human dignity: The commitment and effort of individuals
seeking to leave welfare for work, poverty for self-sufficiency, must
be met by continued public commitment to provide jobs, training,
education, child care, health care, transportation and other supports
necessary to make that transition successfully and to help families
live in dignity.
In pursuing these principles, the Bishops' Conference believes
welfare policy should not be a choice between encouraging greater
responsibility or promoting greater social responsibility B both are
necessary to help families overcome poverty. Welfare policy should not
be a choice between investing in work, child care, and education and
training, or recognizing the importance of healthy marriages and
responsible parenthood B both are necessary to improve childrens lives.
Childrens lives and their hope for the future are enhanced or
diminished by the choices of their parents and the policies of their
government. Reauthorization is an opportunity to improve TANF to
encourage wise choices by their families and wise investments by our
nation in decent work, child care, and education and training.
In considering how to amend TANF, Congress must keep in mind the
real families, real individuals, and real children whose lives will be
deeply affected by the changes that will be made in TANF. TANF
reauthorization is both an opportunity and a challenge. Congress must
sharpen its focus on the persistent problem of poverty and the tragedy
of so many families living without dignity and hope in our nation. The
goals of national welfare policy should be to reduce poverty in this,
the most prosperous of nations, and to improve the lives of our
children.
To accomplish this, TANF policy should seek to reduce poverty
through a three-part strategy of (1) supporting work, (2) strengthening
family life and marriage, and (3) sustaining the needy and vulnerable
among us, especially our children, and it should ensure adequate
resources to accomplish these goals. The Bishops' Conference is
grateful that over the past two years Congress has remained committed
to maintaining the current TANF block grant funding level, and we urge
you to continue that commitment.
The Bishops' Conference advocates several specific policy
directions in each of these three areas, some of which have been
included in bills considered by this subcommittee over the past two
years.
Supporting Work
The Bishops' Conference strongly supports continuing the emphasis
of TANF on work. Work is the ordinary means by which individuals
support themselves and their families and contribute to the common
good. Our nations policies should support productive work with wages
and benefits that permit families to leave welfare and poverty behind
and to live in dignity and self-sufficiency. Many who leave welfare,
even those who leave for jobs, are still living in poverty. The TANF
program must be improved to provide participants with the support they
need to get, and keep, a job that will take them out of poverty.
Policies that would continue the work-first focus of TANF while
supporting family life include:
Expanding the definition of work: TANF recipients need more than
just any job B they need a pathway out of poverty, and for many that
means access to education and job training, and in some cases,
treatment for substance abuse or mental or physical disability, as well
as a job. Serious efforts at education, job training or overcoming
addiction are hard work and should be recognized as such. States should
have greater flexibility to count genuine job training, vocational and
post-secondary education as work. Currently, states may only allow
individuals to count such activities as work for 12 months; the
Bishops' Conference supports increasing that to 24 months. The
Conference also supports allowing states to count serious treatment for
substance abuse, mental or physical disabilities, and domestic violence
toward core work requirements, for a length of time sufficient to
complete effective treatment programs.
Sensible and fair work requirements: Under TANF, states are
evaluated on the basis of the proportion of families receiving TANF who
are engaged in work activities (the work participation rate) for a
minimum number of hours per week. The caseload reduction credit rewards
states for reducing their caseloads with a reduction in the work
participation rate they must satisfy. Many of the proposals considered
over the past two years have called for increases in the work
participation rate, the minimum weekly work requirement, or both, as
well as changes in the caseload reduction credit.
The combined effect of any changes in these policies should not
unfairly burden either states or families on TANF. Our welfare policy
should have sensible and fair work requirements that will allow parents
on welfare to meet their obligations to their families while working.
The Congress should also be wary of limiting state flexibility by
imposing ``one size fits all'' rules that would hinder states' ability
to continue or create programs that will effectively help TANF families
move from welfare to achieving self-sufficiency through work.
The Bishops' Conference has previously expressed our deep concerns
about bills that have come before the House of Representatives that
would both increase the work participation rate for all states to 70%
and raise the minimum weekly work requirement to 40 hours--for all
parents, including those with children under six years old. We would
urge Congress to maintain the current weekly hours requirement, and to
continue to require fewer hours of parents with young children. The
Conference also suggests that Congress consider replacing the caseload
reduction credit with a mechanism that rewards states for placing TANF
recipients in stable jobs with adequate wages. Finally, any increase in
the work participation rate should focus on encouraging states to
improve their own current efforts, instead of imposing a uniform
requirement on all states.
Work supports: child care, Medicaid and food stamps: Finding and
paying for adequate child care can be one of the biggest challenges
facing parents trying to move from welfare to work. The problem is
exacerbated for parents who work at times when child care is
particularly hard to find. All working parents, including those who
must work weekend or night shifts, must have access to safe, affordable
child care at the times they need it by increasing funding for federal
child care assistance.
As welfare recipients make the transition from cash assistance to
relying on their wages alone, access to noncash benefits such as food
stamps and Medicaid can mean the difference between success or failure,
hunger and illness or progress. The law should ensure that those
leaving welfare automatically receive transitional Medicaid and food
stamps for a full year after they leave TANF.
Because of our concern that parents struggling to leave welfare
receive these and other work supports, the Bishops' Conference has
expressed concern with two aspects of bills previously approved by the
Subcommittee: the provisions to allow some states to block grant food
stamps, and to all Cabinet agencies to grant cross-departmental waivers
in several programs. We urge you to reconsider these proposals to make
sure that families leaving welfare are guaranteed access to the
supporting benefits they need, such as food stamps for example, to
successfully leave welfare behind.
Strengthening Family Life and Marriage
The Catholic community has consistently affirmed the vital
importance of marriage for raising children. Children do better
economically, emotionally, and spiritually when raised by both parents
in the context of a stable, healthy marriage. Our nation should make
appropriate efforts to encourage abstinence before marriage, to assist
single parents considering marriage and to help married parents to stay
together. Unfortunately domestic violence, destructive behavior and the
widespread tragedy of divorce are realities for far too many families,
leaving many single parents struggling to support children on their
own. These families deserve our help, too.
It is essential to provide the resources necessary to enable all
parents, married or single, to meet the needs of their families; to
develop appropriate policies to support and strengthen marriage; and to
assist and protect families threatened by domestic violence.
Remove barriers and disincentives to two-parent families. Many
states continue to implement policies that make it harder for two-
parent families to qualify for and receive TANF assistance. For
example, two-parent families may be forced to wait longer for benefits
to begin than single-parent families, or be disqualified because of the
parents recent work history, even if the familys income is below the
poverty level. Congress should require states to discontinue policies
that act as a disincentive to marriage. Congress should also end the
separate, more stringent work participation rate requirements for two-
parent families in TANF itself. The Conference was grateful that the
bills previously approved by this Subcommittee encouraged states to
treat two-parent families equitably.
Help States Do More to Support Effective Marriage Programs: States
should be encouraged to assist low-income married couples who would
benefit from marital counseling or marriage-skills programs. The
Conference supports efforts to provide new funding, in addition to the
block grant, for grants to states to help low-income parents who are
married, or who seek to marry, gain access to services they otherwise
might not be able to afford, such as marriage counseling, relationship
skills classes, premarital counseling and marriage preparation,
marriage-skills classes. While many groups and faith-based
organizations, including our Church, sponsor a range of marriage-
support programs, there is still much to learn about what strategies
are most effective in addressing specific problems. Research and
demonstration programs can help to identify and share effective and
appropriate marriage and family formation programs. The Conference was
pleased that several reauthorization proposals, including bills
previously approved by the Subcommittee, would create funding for these
purposes.
Involve non-custodial fathers in their childrens lives. When
parents are not married, our welfare policy should encourage the active
presence of both parents in the lives of their children. Most often,
that means keeping non-custodial fathers involved with their children.
As with marriage-support programs, TANF should assist states to
identify and support effective fatherhood programs that help fathers
develop the economic and emotional capacity to support their children.
The law should be also amended so that child support paid by non-
custodial fathers actually goes to support their children on TANF. This
is another area where, the Conference is pleased to note, the bill
approved by the Subcommittee last Congress took promising steps
forward.
Sustaining the Needy and Vulnerable
Restore benefit eligibility to legal immigrants: The 1996 welfare
reform law treated legal immigrants harshly, categorically barring them
from public benefits programs. The Bishops' Conference has worked to
change the law, and are grateful for improvements that have restored
eligibility for some legal immigrants. But most legal immigrants are
still ineligible for public benefits such as food stamps, Medicaid and
TANF unless they have been here for more than five years. The Bishops
Conference has long advocated for the availability of basic necessities
to all those in need, regardless of their race, creed, ethnic origin,
or nationality. Legal immigrants pay taxes and make significant
contributions to our economy with their labor. As a matter of justice,
when people are in need, especially children, they should have access
to the public programs supported by their family's taxes.
End state family cap laws: The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
has long opposed policies that restrict or deny additional cash
benefits when a TANF familys size increases because of the birth of a
baby. The Conference is deeply concerned about their impact on the
well-being of children, both born and unborn. We urge Congress to amend
TANF to ban state family cap policies on both pro-life and pro-family
principles. States should not be allowed to tell women they will pay
for their abortions, but will not help them support new children.
Policies that penalize families for having a new child by denying them
additional TANF resources cannot be seen as pro-family or pro-life
Allow TANF recipients to care for young children and disabled
family members: Young children, the sick and the disabled are among our
societys most vulnerable members. Their well-being often depends upon
the ability of parents and family members to take care of them on a
full-time basis. Under current law those same parents and family
members may be forced to work outside the home or face the loss of the
cash assistance their family needs to survive. Congress should amend
the law so states have the option of using federal funds to continue
cash assistance to full-time care givers for children under six or
seriously ill or disabled family members.
Ameliorate harsh sanction policies: It is not easy to develop
welfare policy that ensures assistance for the needy without enabling
the dependency of those who can and should support themselves. We must
continue to demand responsibility and hard work from all those who can
work, but we cannot abandon those among us who cannot help themselves,
or who, with a little more time, patience and assistance would be able
to help themselves and their families. The nation's goal must be to
ensure that no one falls through the cracks of federal or state
bureaucracies. To that end, the Bishops' Conference urges Congress to
take a careful look at TANF sanction polices, and to consider requiring
states to provide clear, understandable information to all recipients
on what is required of them and the sanctions they face if they violate
those requirements; to identify and work with families at risk of
sanctions; to end full-family sanctions for a first violation; and to
restore benefits immediately when a violation has been remedied by
positive action by a recipient.
Thank you for the opportunity to share the Bishops Conferences
principles and policies on TANF reauthorization. As a nation we must
strive to create an effective and flexible system of accountability and
incentives for both individuals and states, a system that empowers a
partnership of government agencies, community groups and recipients to
meet the needs of individual families and to give them the tools they
need to leave poverty and government assistance. The moral measure of
our society is how we treat At the least among us.. The Bishops
Conference is grateful for the Subcommittee's hard work and efforts
over the past two years to address TANF reauthorization, and we hope
our comments prove helpful as you take up the task again this year. The
Bishops Conference looks forward to working with this Subcommittee and
Congress on the moral imperative of overcoming poverty in our land.
Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you. The Chair will now recognize Dr.
Deborah Frank, pediatrician of Boston Medical Center. Thank you
for joining us.
STATEMENT OF DEBORAH A. FRANK, M.D., PEDIATRICIAN, BOSTON
MEDICAL CENTER, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
Dr. FRANK. Thank you for having me. I am a pediatric
clinician. Yesterday, our program treated, within the past day-
and-a-half, about 20 malnourished children, and it is to those
children that I dedicate this testimony. I am, also, one of the
principal investigators of the Children's Sentinel Nutritional
Assessment Program or C-SNAP, which has been monitoring the
well-being of very young children under the age of three since
1998 around the country. I imagine that you don't spend a lot
of time reading medical journals, but before you vote on H.R.
240, you need to know the published and peer-reviewed medical
evidence, suggesting that this measure entails unintended, but
grave risks, for the health of your youngest constituents.
Our research has found that little children in working poor
families and those with stable TANF benefits already suffer
unacceptable levels of food insecurity, but that this health
risk increases 50 percent for children under three and families
who experience welfare sanction, whether full family or
partial, including simply having a child subject to the family
tax. Now, why are we so worried about ``food insecurity''?
Well, because food insecurity is a serious health problem.
Inadequate nutrition impairs the body's ability to heal and
decreases immune function, causing anyone, but particularly
children who are already immunologically immature, to be more
susceptible to illness.
It is important to notice that you don't have to have
reported hunger to have an effect on health. After considering
a lot of family background characteristics, we have found that
young children in food-insecure families, whether or not they
are TANF participants, are 30-percent more likely than their
peers in food-secure families to be hospitalized before the age
of three. As you would expect, what they tend to be
hospitalized for are severe respiratory and gastrointestinal
infections. Those of you who, as parents or grandparents, have
sat long hours by the bed of a hospitalized baby or child can
readily imagine the suffering that this entails for parents and
their children.
Food insecurity during the period of most rapid growth of
body and brain in the early life, also, has lasting effects,
even if the family's economic situation eventually improves to
the point where they are no longer food insecure. Children are
not only at risk for increased infections, but persistent and
lasting deficits in cognitive development and for behavioral
and emotional problems that impede their future success in
school and their later productivity as adults in the workforce.
Now, if what I have just told you is true for otherwise
normal young children, what about kids who are chronically ill?
That doesn't have to be chronically ill enough to qualify for
SSI, but children with things like asthma, sickle cell, things
that require a lot of active management to keep the child
functioning. Seventy 5 percent, about one in four children on
welfare, as 1998, were chronically ill. Seventy 5 percent of
children who are chronically ill find the child's illness is a
substantial barrier to finding and keeping a job. Yesterday, I
saw a malnourished child whose mother came to clinic because he
wasn't doing well, and he had asthma and food allergies, but
she was told she would lose her job if she came, and she was
told that Protective Service would be called if she didn't
come. That is an impossible choice.
Also, chronically ill children who experience hardship such
as food insecurity are much more likely than other chronically
ill kids to have to be hospitalized, and that has been shown
longitudinally. We, actually, had a child die in our hospital,
a little girl who became septic while left in the care of an
older child, an adolescent. It was perfectly legal. Her mother
tried to comply with welfare reform. I anticipate that the
increased work requirements in H.R. 240 will lead to similar,
preventable tragedies, but also a lot less dramatic
deteriorations in the well-being of infants and children.
I think H.R. 240, as proposed, is a treatment that has an
unacceptable risk-benefit ratio. It may help some families, but
will hurt many more. If there is a medical treatment which
possibly helps some people and, predictably, irreversibly
injured others, we would be very careful as doctors as to
evaluate each person individually before instituting the
therapy. We would, then, follow up to make sure that the ones
that we had administered the therapy to were doing okay.
I cannot imagine that the distinguished Members of this
Committee really intend to make America's babies hungrier and
sicker; you know now the medical data that suggests that if you
pass a bill that triggers a sanctions epidemic by having
unrealistic work requirements, hungrier and sicker children
will incur more health care costs in the short term and be less
likely in the long term to succeed in school and participate in
the future workforce. The lives of these children are in your
hands as much as if you stood over them with a surgical
scalpel. I urge you, as we always tell our new doctors, first
of all, do no harm. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Frank follows:]
Statement of Deborah A. Frank, M.D., Pediatrician, Boston Medical
Center, Boston, Massachusetts
Distinguished chairman and members of the committee, I am here
today on behalf of my young patients and my colleagues. I am one of
many pediatric clinicians who daily treat sick and hungry children in
America. I am also one of the Principal Investigators with other
pediatric researchers in the Children's Sentinel Nutrition Assessment
Program (C-SNAP) initially funded by a grant from the W.K. Kellogg
Foundation and other private donors. Since 1998 we have monitored the
impact of current public policies and economic conditions on the
nutritional and health status of low income children less than 3 years
old in six medical institutions serving Baltimore, Boston, Little Rock,
Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Washington DC. As busy policy makers you
probably do not have time to peruse the pediatric and nutrition
journals, but before you vote on H.R. 240, the Personal Responsibility,
Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2005, you need to know that the
medical evidence suggests that this measure entails unintended but
grave risks to the health of your youngest constituents. The special
needs of infants, toddlers, and chronically ill children are not, as
far as I know, reflected in any of the non-medical evaluations of
welfare reform to which the committee website refers. I would like to
dedicate this testimony to the children I treat for malnutrition at
BostonMedicalCenter, many of whom are from families who have
experienced welfare sanctions.
We and researchers in other disciplines have found that, except for
white, non-Hispanics, the number of American children who experience
food insecurity has increased since the start of the 21st century. As
you know, food insecurity is defined by the federal government as
limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate safe foods
or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially
acceptable ways. While we have found that little children in working
poor families and those with stable TANF benefits experience
unacceptable levels of food insecurity, it is particularly concerning
that this health risk is increased a further 50% for young children in
families who experienced welfare sanctions, whether full family or
partial, including simply having a child subject to the child exclusion
(family cap) provision. Even without sanctions, the risk of food
insecurity is increased 37% for families whose benefits are reduced for
purely administrative reasons. Dr. John Cook and the rest of our C-SNAP
team initially published this finding in an article in the 2002
Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine (information on accessing
this article appears at the end of this testimony). These data were
based on results from 2,718 children evaluated from August 1998-
December 2000. We more recently reassessed these findings among 4,430
infants and toddlers seen through mid-2004 and the magnitude of
increased risk was identical.
Why are we as pediatricians so deeply concerned about increasing
``food insecurity'' among these families whose welfare benefits are
sanctioned or reduced? Because food insecurity is a serious health
problem!Food insecure children are prone to the infection-malnutrition
cycle increasing their risk of severe illness and hospitalization. A
lack of essential nutrients impairs the body's ability to heal and
decreases immune function causing a child to be more susceptible to
illness. With any acute illness, most children lose weight and need,
after recovery, to eat more than usual to regain lost weight and resume
normal weight gain. Because food insecure families cannot provide the
extra food children require to regain weight after an illness, the
child becomes more malnourished and more susceptible to the next
infection. It is this infection-malnutrition cycle which in settings
without adequate medical care leads to the death of malnourished
children. In this country the cycle often manifests in preventable
recurrent illness and a need for costly therapeutic health resources.
It is important to note that food insecurity even in the absence of
outright hunger injures children's health. C-SNAP data show that young
children in food insecure households with hunger are 2.3 times more
likely to be in fair or poor health than children in food secure
households. Children in food insecure households without hunger are
still 1.7 times more likely to be in fair or poor health than children
in food secure households. We have consistently found that after
considering background family characteristics, young children in food
insecure families (whether or not they have a history of TANF
participation) are 30% more likely than their peers in food secure
families to be hospitalized before the age of 3 years. As would be
expected from the physiology of food insecurity that I just outlined,
these children from food insecure families are more likely than their
peers to be hospitalized for severe respiratory and gastrointestinal
infections. Those of you who as parents or grandparents have sat long
hours by the bed of a hospitalized baby or child can readily imagine
the suffering this entails for parents and their children. What you may
not realize is how very expensive such excess hospitalizations are for
us all as taxpayers--the average cost of a brief 3-4 day pediatric
hospitalization is more than $11,000.
Food insecurity during the period of most rapid growth of body and
brain in early life can also have lasting effects, even if the
families' economic situation eventually improves to the point where
they are no longer food insecure. Children in food insecure households
are at increased risk not only for short term infections but for
persistent deficits in cognitive development, and behavioral and
emotional problems that can impede their future success in school and
their later productivity as adults in the workforce.
Paradoxically, food insecurity may also place older children at
risk for being overweight or obese. In order to prevent hunger, food
insecure families often sacrifice the quality of the food they eat to
get enough quantity to prevent the sensation of hunger, particularly in
their children. Low nutrient quality cheap foods with high calories and
fat content will prevent a child from experiencing painful pangs of
hunger, but they do not protect the child from nutrient deficiencies
that put the child at risk for being overweight.
While I reflect pediatricians' special concerns about infants and
toddlers, other colleagues have reported deeply troubling data about
the potential impact of increased work requirements on caregivers of
chronically ill children of any age. Families on welfare are more
likely than other poor families to have children with chronic illness.
These children miss more days of school and have more scheduled and
urgent doctor visits, emergency department visits and hospitalizations
than other children. Their home medical regimens require substantial
parental involvement to keep them healthy. When chronically ill
children get sick, their primary caregivers have the experience and
expertise to care for them. The primary caregivers know their complete
medical histories, are able to recognize subtle early signs of illness,
know how their illness episode should be managed at home and when to
seek urgent medical care. Substitute caregivers will likely not have
the necessary experience, expertise or inclination to care for these
children when they are ill.
Low-income families whose children are chronically ill face
substantial challenges in finding appropriate day care for their
children. In a study of current and former welfare recipients with
chronically ill children, my colleague Dr. Lauren Smith found that 40%
of current welfare recipients had difficulty finding appropriate child
care because of their child's condition and 34% indicate that
difficulty in finding adequate day care for their children is a
substantial barrier to employment. She and her co-authors have also
found that 60% of current recipients and 80% of former recipients have
missed work due to their child's illness, and 75% of these parents
report that their child's illness is a substantial barrier to finding
and keeping a job. Her team also found that over time, chronically ill
children experiencing household hardships, such as food insecurity,
utility disconnections and housing problems were found to have
increases in subsequent emergency department visits and
hospitalizations.
I am aware of a distressing case from Boston Medical Center where I
work of a chronically ill little girl who died while in the care of an
adolescent sibling while her mother was out of the home trying to work
to avoid welfare sanctions. I anticipate that the proposed increased
work requirements in bill H.R. 240 will lead to other similar
preventable tragedies as well as less obvious but serious deterioration
in the well-being of infants, toddlers, and chronically ill children.
These particularly vulnerable children would then consume even more
medical resources, experience further preventable disability, and
experience more difficulties functioning in school and in the
workplace.
Knowing this medical information, you can understand why
pediatricians around the country are so gravely concerned about the
prospect of inflicting food insecurity upon more families with young
and chronically ill children via mandated full-family sanctions if
parents cannot meet the more stringent work requirements outlined in
H.R. 240.
To use a medical analogy, H.R. 240 proposes a ``treatment'' for
America's most impoverished families that has an unacceptable risk
benefit profile. Requiring more families to participate in work
activities and imposing longer work hours may result in mitigating
deprivation for a few children whose parents are lucky enough to
succeed in finding and keeping adequately paid work. However, many more
families, particularly those with young or chronically ill children, or
with parents burdened with poor mental and physical health, cognitive
impairments, or sequelae of physical and sexual abuse will lose all
income for their survival needs. The side effects of H.R. 240's
increased and unrealistic work requirements are predictably the
exposure of more families and children to mandated full family
sanctions and thus to food insecurity, ill health, and excess
hospitalizations.
If there was a medical treatment, which possibly helped some
patients and predictably and possibly irreversibly injured others, we
as physicians would be bound to do an extremely careful and
individualized assessment of each patient before applying the
treatment. If the treatment were to be applied, we would use the lowest
possible dose, and closely follow up and monitor those who received the
treatment to try to reverse it if harm emerged. I would urge you to
take a similarly thoughtful approach to issues of welfare reform, with
avoidance of unrealistic work requirements on families suffering
barriers to meaningful employment, particularly those with young or
chronically ill children. Clearly full family sanctions should be
avoided, since our data show even partial sanctions, like the family
cap, have adverse effects on young children. Just as a hazardous cancer
treatment must first be reviewed by a tumor board before being
undertaken, any proposed sanctions could be reviewed by a third party
and a sanction avoidance plan devised to help families to overcome
barriers to compliance. If a family does experience sanctions, repeated
follow-up and assessment of the safety and well being of affected
families and their children should be mandatory.
In closing, I cannot imagine that the distinguished members of this
committee really intend to make America's babies hungrier and sicker.
You now know the medical data that demonstrate declining welfare
caseloads do not automatically indicate an improvement in the well-
being of American children. On the contrary, families who leave welfare
because of sanctions or who have their benefits reduced before they
have reached family stability are more likely to have hungry, sick
children.
H.R. 240 will inevitably increase the number of children exposed to
sanctions. If you pass a bill that triggers a ``sanctions epidemic,''
hungrier and sicker children will incur more health care costs in the
short term and be less likely in the long term to succeed in school and
participate productively in the future workforce. The lives of these
children are in your hands as much as if you stood over them with a
surgical scalpel, and I urge you, as we always urge new doctors,
``primo no nocere!'' (First do no harm!).
Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you. The Chair will now recognize Mr.
Peter Goldberg, President and chief executive officer of The
Alliance for Children and Families. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF PETER GOLDBERG, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, THE ALLIANCE FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
Mr. GOLDBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and, Mr. McDermott.
Thank you very much. I am here today on behalf of The Alliance
for Children and Families, a nonprofit Membership association,
representing 320 child and family serving organizations in
North America. Our Member organizations provide an array of
community-based programs and services for all generations and
serve close to 8 million people each year in more than 6,700
communities.
The debate over the reauthorization of TANF has been
extensive in recent years and proposed reforms to the current
welfare system have been widely discussed. At this point, we
hope we do not lose sight of the ultimate goal of welfare
reform, moving children and families out of poverty. Central to
our testimony today is the notion that TANF must continue to
protect the well-being of children while transitioning their
parents into the workforce. It is quite clear from the research
in the field that family economic success is critically
important to the well-being of children, that the more families
we are able to move out of poverty, the more likely it is they
can contribute to child well-being.
Therefore, the workforce development aspects of TANF are a
means to a very important end, but not an end in and of
themselves, and we trust that our testimony reflects our utmost
concern for child well-being. In 2002, The Alliance for
Children and Families partnered with the Community Service
Society of New York to publish ``Faces of Change,'' which
provides the personal experiences of welfare reform in America
from over 200 former welfare recipients, detailing their
experiences in six primary areas: employment, child care,
public benefits, health care, job training and transportation.
Based on that analysis, we believe that the following five
topics and strategies need to be incorporated in discussions
that lead to the framing of meaningful welfare reform
reauthorization. First, the establishment of a system of worker
supports, particularly adequate child care options. As the
testimonies of working and nonworking participants in our study
reveal, finding jobs, sustaining employment and advancing in
the labor market do not occur in a vacuum. These goals are
mediated by the level of family and work supports that may or
may not be in place to meet vital needs such as child care and
transportation. The vast majority of transitioning workers and
TANF recipients do not have these supports readily available to
them.
We recommend preserving and increasing funding for the
Child Care and Development Block grant to ensure that working
families have access to safe and reliable child care. We must
recognize that child care is an essential ingredient critical
to helping parents get and keep the jobs they need to lift
themselves out of poverty and, thus, improve their potential to
realize long-term self-sufficiency and well-being for their
children.
Second, choosing between parenting and wages, and this is
just such a profound issue. Given the low wages, poor benefits
and limited opportunities in the labor market, many
participants in our study were faced with the choice between
meeting their parental responsibilities and working. Although
all parents have difficulty balancing work and family, those
working low-wage jobs are less able than more affluent parents
to rely on employer-based provisions, such as vacation and sick
leave, to cover time missed to care for a sick child or manage
a day care conflict without the fear of a loss of income or a
loss of job. We believe that promoting a family friendly work
environment should be a national priority, offering tax
incentives to employers who offer flexible work schedules for
parents, on-site day care, health benefits and other forms of
family leave would be beneficial to all employees, but would
provide critical assistance and support the transitional
workers struggling to balance work and family life.
Third, emphasizing education and job skills training. TANF
recipients often discover that participating in educational and
vocational training programs that would best prepare them for
the workforce means they cannot meet TANF's work requirements.
As a result, they must either give up their education or rely
on family and other sources of help, such as student financial
aid to complete their studies or training programs. We
recommend giving States more flexibility to determine which
activities count toward mandatory work requirements, especially
allowing full-time college attendance and permitting recipients
to participate in vocational education for up to 24 months.
Fourth, is reducing barriers to employment. Many of the
unemployed individuals participating in our study had to
contend with multiple barriers, which limit their education and
work experience. These hardest-to-serve families with something
barriers increasingly make up the bulk of welfare recipients
remaining on caseloads. To overcome their multiple barriers,
this group needs to be differentiated so at the appropriate
time an array of supports can be tailored and made accessible
to them. Any determination about TANF must reconsider or must
consider varied strategies that address the needs of
individuals with multiple barriers and ensure a TANF safety net
for these families.
Fifth and finally, improving accessibility of jobs.
Transportation is one of the main challenges facing lower
income people, including those making the transition from
welfare to work. Without a vehicle, many jobs and child care
centers are inaccessible, especially in rural areas or
locations where there is no reliable public transportation.
Many workers may not have the credit or employment history to
qualify for traditional car loans. Innovative programs to
provide loans to purchase a car, such as Ways to Work, one of
our affiliates and other programs that help transitioning
workers gain access to private transportation provide an
effective strategy to help families manage the competing
demands of work and family, as well as promoting self-
sufficiency. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldberg follows:]
Statement of Peter Goldberg, President and Chief Executive Officer, The
Alliance for Children and Families
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I am
testifying here today on behalf of the Alliance for Children and
Families, a nonprofit membership association representing 320 child and
family serving organizations in North America. Our member organizations
provide an array of community-based programs and services to all
generations, and serve close to 8 million people each year in more than
6,700 communities. Motivated by a vision of a healthy society and
strong communities for all children and families, the Alliance's
mission is to strengthen the capacities of North America's nonprofit
child and family serving organizations to serve and to advocate for
children, families and communities.
By holding this hearing, the Subcommittee has taken up a timely
topic that merits our collective attention. Debate over the
reauthorization of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families has been
extensive over the past years, and proposed reforms to the current
welfare system have been widely discussed. I understand that HR 240,
the TANF reauthorization bill introduced in the 109th Congress is very
similar to HR 4 which was passed by the House by a vote of 230-192 in
February of 2003. Contentious disagreements still remain but it is
necessary to muster the political will to tackle this important
unfinished business.
In the past years since 2002, the Alliance for Children and
Families partnered with the Community Service Society of New York to
publish important and innovative research on the experience of
individuals affected by welfare reform. Faces of Change: Personal
Experiences of Welfare Reform in America contains first-hand accounts
from over 200 former welfare recipients detailing their experience in
six primary areas: employment, child care, public benefits, health
care, job training, and transportation. Based on the trends identified
in the Faces of Change testimonies, the Alliance believes that the
following major topics need to be addressed in discussions that lead to
the framing of meaningful welfare reform reauthorization:
Reducing Barriers to Employment--Many of the unemployed individuals
participating in the Faces of Change study had to contend with a
significant single barrier or multiple barriers to work. These barriers
ranged from chronic health problems to drug addiction, mental health
limitations to domestic abuse, limited education and work experience.
These ``hardest to serve'' families with significant barriers
increasingly make up the bulk of welfare recipients remaining on
caseloads. To overcome their multiple barriers, this group needs more
time and access to an extensive array of supports. Any discussion of
TANF reform must consider strategies that address the needs of
individuals with multiple barriers and that ensure a TANF safety net
for these families.
Improving Accessibility to Jobs--Transportation is one of the main
challenges facing lower income people, including those making the
transition from welfare to work. Without a vehicle, many jobs are
inaccessible, especially in rural areas, or locations where there is no
reliable public transportation. Access to a car was deemed an important
factor in the group of success stories collected through the Faces of
Change study. Innovative programs that provide loans to purchase a car,
such as Ways to Work, an affiliate organization created by the
Alliance, and other programs that help transitioning workers gain
access to private transportation are likely to be an effective strategy
to help families manage the competing demands of work and family as
well as promoting self-sufficiency.
Emphasizing Education and Job Skills Training--Individuals engaged
full-time in job training or education programs. While limited space is
available in job readiness programs through TANF, individuals who are
pursuing educational classes or vocational training have often been
terminated from receiving TANF assistance. As a result they must rely
on family and other sources of help such as student financial aid to
complete their studies or training programs, thereby decreasing their
potential for self-sufficiency after they graduate.
Choosing Between Parenting and Wages--Given the low wages, poor
benefits, and limited opportunities in the labor market, many
participants in Faces of Change were faced with a choice between
meeting their parental responsibilities or working. Although all
parents have difficulty balancing work and family, most parents are
able to rely on employer-based provisions such as vacation and sick
leave to cover time missed to care for a sick child or a daycare
conflict without fear of a loss of income or loss of job. Parents who
participated in Faces of Change frequently acknowledged their limited
employment options, and identified clearly the trade-offs that working
in certain jobs present for their families. Many transitioning workers
accept unfavorable employment and pursue jobs with long hours and/or
work multiple jobs to compensate for absences due to familial
obligations.
Establish System of Worker Support, Particularly Adequate Child
Care Options--As the testimonies of working and nonworking participants
reveal, finding jobs, sustaining employment, and advancing in the labor
market do not occur in a vacuum. These goals are mediated by the level
of family and worker supports that may or may not be in place to meet
such vital needs such as child care, transportation, and health care.
The vast majority of transitioning workers and TANF recipients do not
have these supports readily available to them. The need for child care
assistance and greater access to quality child care programs is a
monumental barrier to securing and sustaining full-time employment.
Increasing the available funding for the Child Care and Development
Block Grant would increase the ability of families to access
affordable, quality child care--increasing their potential to realize
self-sufficiency.
Recommendations
The Alliance for Children and Families recommends incorporating the
following policies and strategies into welfare reform reauthorization
legislation:
Increase significantly funding for the Child Care and Development
Block Grant, recognizing that child care is an essential work support.
Without subsidized, accessible childcare services, the employment
efforts of TANF recipients are undermined. Ensuring safe and reliable
child care to working families is essential so parents can get and keep
the jobs they need to lift them out of poverty.
Give states more flexibility to determine what counts as meeting
the work requirement, especially allowing full-time college attendance
and permitting recipients to participate in vocational education for up
to 24 months, instead of the current 12 month maximum.
Adopt a ``balanced work first'' approach that acknowledges that the
current standardized system of job readiness with an emphasis on
immediate employment is not appropriate for the majority of welfare
recipients. This would require a reevaluation of the definition of work
to include activities such as job training and post-secondary education
and an easing of the federal work participation requirements for
individuals facing multiple barriers to employment.
Make it a national goal to promote a family-friendly work
environment. Provide tax incentives to employers who offer flexible
work scheduling for families, on-site daycare, health care, and other
provisions and forms of leave. TANF funds can be used in various ways
to provide these incentives to employers who hire TANF recipients.
Ask the states to keep track of their former recipients and provide
follow-up job assistance, supports, and assessments to ensure that the
workers and their families are on the path to leaving poverty, not just
off the welfare rolls.
Increase support for innovative programs, such as Ways to Work that
provide car loans to parents transitioning from welfare to work who are
unable to qualify for traditional loans but must have a car for job
and/or child care accessibility.
Establish new temporary waivers that ``stop the clock'' for
recipients who cannot meet work or looking-for-work mandates due to
chronic physical and mental health conditions of recipients and their
children; childcare, domestic violence, housing or transportation
emergencies; or when unemployment is high or when available jobs
require advanced skills that the welfare recipient does not possess.
Conclusion
On behalf of the Alliance's 320 nonprofit child and family serving
agencies and more than 50 Ways to Work programs nationwide, I can tell
you from experience that the nonprofit sector takes very seriously our
mission to provide supports and services to all people in need. Through
job training provision, increasing availability of private
transportation to working families, and supporting families through
community-based programs and services, the Alliance stands ready to be
a full partner with you, the state, and our communities to enact
effective, responsible reforms to the welfare system to ensure self-
sufficiency and dignity for individuals and families receiving TANF.
The Alliance for Children and Families would welcome the continuing
opportunity to share the voices of America's service providers with the
Subcommittee as it further explores welfare reform reauthorization
proposals.
I would like to thank the Subcommittee for giving me the
opportunity to testify, and would be happy to answer any questions at
this time
Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you very much. Again, I would like to
thank this panel. I have a couple of questions, and then I
would like to yield to my colleague, Mr. McDermott, as well.
Going over the testimony, in preparing for this, I noted that,
in 2003, Rebecca Blank, one of President Clinton's former
economic advisers, co-authored a study that looked at changes
in family income over the 1990s. The report found that incomes
increased the most among poor children's families following
welfare reform. It, also, found that contrary to the dire
predictions that this Subcommittee heard from reform opponents
at the time, sanctions for failure to work and meaningful time
limits on benefits were associated with higher income gains,
and here I quote, ``States with strict or moderate penalties
for not working consistently show higher income gains among
poor children throughout the income distribution than do States
with lenient penalties.''
This is perhaps surprising, since many had predicted that
strong penalties would lead to greater impoverishment among
those who lose their eligibility for welfare, but are unable to
replace benefits with earnings. Instead, it is the more lenient
States with softer penalties where children's income seemed to
grow the least. Now, Dr. Frank, as I was listening to your
testimony, this seems inconsistent with the findings you report
from your study. If you could, I would, also, like you to
explain an aspect of your study, in which you note that your--
and here I have a quote--``Your sample is not random or
nationally representative and the extent to which these
findings can be generalized is limited.'' Given that, how much
weight can we apply to your study?
Dr. FRANK. Well, let us start with that first question,
which is a very good one. It is what is called a sentinel
sample, which means that when you are looking for a serious
problem, like bioterrorism or drug overdose, you don't go door
to door, you sit where those problems are likely most to show
up, and that is exactly what we did, which is we sat in
hospital settings and emergency rooms where children are most
likely to show up who are in difficulties. You cannot do a
calculation fully, but we found, in fact, that our sample is
very similar to low-income children, in general, when we look
at the demographics compared to the census. You are right, it
is a sentinel sample, the same way you monitor for anthrax. You
don't go door to door. You sit in the ER, and you see what
shows up.
Mr. ENGLISH. I realize that, and, also, I used to be an
internal auditor, and I, also, understood sampling and how it
can be useful statistically. Let me jump to your July 2002
report says, and I quote, ``The sample is not random or
nationally representative, and the extent to which these
findings,'' I had mentioned that. Further, ``possible selection
bias and the lack of a specified a priori temporal sequencing
of events, longitudinal data and random assignment of children
to different benefit categories preclude drawing inferences
about causal relationships.'' Isn't that a something point?
Dr. FRANK. Well, the problem is that nobody is--you are
right. It is not a perfect study, but why has the Federal
government not been looking at what happened to babies when
they got cut off welfare? The Manpower thing, for example, only
looked at kids in pre-school and older. In fact, you don't know
because you don't look. I agree that there needs to be better
work done, nationally representative, but it hasn't been, and
you are going to go forward without any data, except this,
which is imperfect, but if it was anthrax cases I was
reporting, you would take it pretty seriously.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Goldberg, I noted your suggestion that
``immediate employment is not appropriate for the majority of
welfare recipients.'' If I could, I would like to insert into
the record a copy of the National Evaluation of Welfare to Work
Strategies, which found that work or work in combination with
education and training is the most promising path to
independence and financial stability for welfare recipients. Do
you have a comment on that study?
Mr. GOLDBERG. I can't recall the study off the top of my
head, but I think that I would just only comment there that
while we really do promote and applaud increases in earnings
potential and employment, I just keep picturing back to so many
low-income women that we have met in our agencies who are just
struggling to balance those competing demands of being a
responsible worker, climbing up the scale of wages and the
employment ladder, at the same time trying to fulfill on the
demands of being the good parent who faces the needs of a child
who is ill or a day care provider who doesn't show up and those
kinds of things. My only point there is that, while income, and
earnings, and employment are so preciously important to this
entire thing, the balancing act that has to be placed to enable
a low-income parent to meet those twin demands of increasing
income and being a good parent are profound.
Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you. I have a couple more questions, but
I would like now to yield to my colleague, Mr. McDermott, to
inquire.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all
the Members of this panel. I am a little puzzled about how to
extract from you what I want. This bill that we are
considering, is it going to make it better for you? Is it going
to make it better for the people that you are representing?
Ms. CURRAN. No.
Mr. GOLDBERG. No, I think----
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Do the Bishops endorse it?
Ms. CURRAN. The Bishops, we haven't taken a position on
240. We did not support the bill last time mostly because of
concerns over the combined effect of the work requirements, the
three prongs of the work requirements--how food stamps would be
treated and a couple other issues.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. As I look at it, I keep asking myself, if
you put people off welfare, and you wind up with 700,000 more
children in poverty, how is that considered a success? What is
the success that is being measured--just getting people off
welfare; is that the----
Mr. GOLDBERG. No, sir. No, sir. At least in our estimation,
it really has to do with a more comprehensive set of child
well-being indicators, that we are able to enable low-income
people who are struggling to make that move from public
assistance to the world of work to also be good parents. This
is still a very important issue. Family economic success is
linked to having a good home, to a certain extent, but not
totally, and we have to build in those supports with
employability that enable these parents to succeed as parents,
as well as just income earners.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. The use of the money that is put in here for
marriage promotion, you would like to see it more open, to be
used for a variety of things?
Mr. GOLDBERG. I think so. I represent an organization that
does a lot of family counseling. What is family counseling?
Family counseling, in some ways, can be marriage promotion, but
we approach it with the view in mind of what is best--our
counselors would view it in mind of what is best for that
family and what is best for those children.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Under the bill, $300 million is set aside
each year for this marriage-promotion business. Are the States
interpreting that as if you are dealing with abused situations
or whatever is going on in a situation or mental illness? Is
that all part of marriage promotion? Can money be used for
that?
Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Ranking Member, marriage promotion is
currently something that States can pursue under the way that
TANF is set up at the moment. It was an option under TANF. I
think it is fairly instructive that probably only about seven
States have chosen to do it because, for the reasons that have
been discussed today, States do not have the money. States are
focused on the kinds of programs that they know are successful
and will help to get folks from welfare to work or to education
or other things.
You were asking where--I think there were a number of
people asking where the $2 billion was that Dr. Horn was
talking about. I can't claim to have an answer to that
question, utility I can tell you that the illegitimacy bonus
has been identified as a source where one could find this $1.5
billion for marriage promotion. I think everybody fairly
readily acknowledges that there needs to be more child care
funding, for instance, and that that is a known support which
will help people make a good transition.
Part of what I was discussing earlier was this whole
incidence of domestic violence. Poor women, as that Hopkins
study will demonstrate--I am happy to make it available to the
Committee--poor women are victimized as children when they
witness violence in their homes. Sometimes they are victimized
as victims themselves. They grow older and sometimes do not
make wise decisions about the partners they have, and they are
victimized at that point as well, and that has dire impacts on
their, but perhaps it is a reflection of sanity. They make
choices based on the violence they have experienced in their
past or in their present about whether or not they wish to get
married, and it is a very dangerous thing for the government,
however well-intentioned, to decide that they want to encourage
people to get married because they are not aware of the past
violence, sexual and intimate partner violence and violence
people may have witnessed. They are not aware of that level of
violence.
I listened to Robert Rector sort of talking about the low
incidence of violence and the fact that the folks at Princeton
had asked women about whether or not they were domestic
violence victims. If you read the Cherlin study, you will note
that it took women a long time to disclose about whether or not
they were victims of domestic violence because it is a very
intimate and personal thing. The fact that they chose not to
tell the researchers, with whom I am going to guess they
interacted perhaps once, is in no way reflective of the
violence that folks have suffered and the danger that would be
visited upon some of these folks if people, however well-
intentioned, pursued this kind of programming without
coordinating with folks who work on domestic violence and with
domestic violence advocates on a daily basis in trying to
pursue this in the most wise manner possible.
Dr. FRANK. I was just going to say that the devastating
effects of exposure to violence start very young and that we
have found that exposure to violence increases suicidal
ideation in children as young as nine. We are talking about,
again, the mental health of the next generation if we force
people to stay in situations where they are exposed, and the
fact that they get to adulthood very traumatized is also
absolute here.
Ms. CURRAN. I may be the lone voice on the panel, but I do
just want to say that the Bishops Conference does believe that
it is appropriate to help low-income families struggling,
either couples trying to decide whether to get married or
couples who are married, to help them to build healthy
marriages because that is important for the well-being of
themselves, and their children, and our society. We absolutely
agree that domestic violence is a terrible problem and that any
program just be sensitive to the concerns of domestic violence,
must have the appropriate resources to counsel people who are
victims of domestic violence, know the signs so they can figure
out when violence might be about to occur and, in fact, prevent
those marriages from happening.
I just want to reiterate what I said in my opening remarks,
which is we don't see this as a help between helping strengthen
families and marriage and providing work supports, and cash
benefits, and other TANF benefits. We think we need to address
both of these things and are very pleased that the basic block
grant has remained steady. We hope that that will continue,
that commitment to that level of funding, and I think
additional----
Mr. MCDERMOTT. You wouldn't like it to go up?
Ms. CURRAN. We would love to go--yes.
[Laughter.]
We do believe in miracles, so we would ask for it to go up.
[Laughter.]
An appropriate amount of money targeted to helping low-
income families get the kinds of counseling and assistance that
they can't get because they can't pay for it--middle-income
families can--I think is appropriate, if done well.
Mr. ENGLISH. The gentlemen's time has expired, but,
fortunately, the line of questioning he opened up was what I
was going to pursue.
Ms. Curran, I noted in your testimony your support for
marriage promotion efforts included in H.R. 240. Do you want to
any further elaborate on why you think those efforts are
important?
Ms. CURRAN. I go into it a little bit more in the
testimony. As I said, I think I would just reiterate that we
need to help folks on TANF on all of the different areas that
their families are struggling. We need to help them support
their families and strengthen their families. We need to help
them get out of poverty, and I think healthy marriage is part
of that. It is important for the well-being of the economic,
and the emotional, and the spiritual well-being of the children
and families. I think it is appropriate. Low-income families
can get assistance in how to be a better parent through
programs, and I think it is appropriate that they get
assistance in learning how to be a better marriage partner,
which will help them to be a better parent and help them to
support their children.
Mr. ENGLISH. On that point, Ms. Jacobs, I am very grateful
to you for your focus on domestic violence in your testimony.
My wife serves on the board of one of our local domestic
violence shelters, and I admire the work that is done there
with extremely limited resources. In their case, they have had
to struggle with some of the State budget cuts in Pennsylvania.
An earlier witness noted that domestic violence is more likely
to occur among couples that are cohabitating than married
couples. I realize it is difficult to generalize, comparing
couples that way, but do you agree with that assessment?
Ms. JACOBS. I think you are taking me all the way back to
my days of statistics because we are dealing with questions of,
you know, on the one hand causality and sort of correlation and
things of that nature. I think that part of what you are
looking at--and I would have to look at that particular study,
and I would be happy to--part of the problem is that there is a
self-selecting process there. Again, what you will see in that
Hopkins study is that women who are victimized as adults by
intimate partner violence make a decision not to marry. They
are not in the cadre of people who marry. Sometimes the folks
who get married are more stable. In the Hopkins study, you will
see there are a vast majority, there were probably maybe about
40 percent of the people who were in the study who were
married, and there was a much lower incidence of violence.
I don't think that one could assume that marriage is some
sort of amazing, you know, if you will, you touch it with a
magic wand. You are not married today. You are in an abusive
situation, and you get married tomorrow and that stops. That, I
think when that kind of data is put forward in a way that is
not sufficiently unpacked is the impression that you are left
with, but it is an erroneous one. I think there is a different
question of causality there that needs to be explored.
Mr. ENGLISH. I think that is a point very well made. I
guess, finally, I would like to say I think your basic point
that may be consistent with the flexibility we have tried to
introduce into the welfare system under TANF, if we can use
this reauthorization to promote better linkages between welfare
services and access to domestic violence services, I think that
could have a very substantial benefit.
Ms. JACOBS. That would be tremendous. As you may be aware,
the Violence Against Women Act is due to be reauthorized later
this year, and we would look forward to working with you on
that as well.
Mr. ENGLISH. Very good, and I look forward----
Ms. JACOBS. This commercial has been brought to you by----
[Laughter.]
Mr. ENGLISH. I look forward to working with you, and I am
grateful for your time. I want to thank all of the panel
Members for bringing their expertise and their perspective to
this debate, which will be very helpful. I thank, also, the
distinguished Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, the gentleman
whom I know is going to make a big contribution to this debate
on reauthorization as well. I want to thank all of you, and I
will yield to the gentlemen.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. I just want to ask unanimous consent to put
into the record testimony from a number of groups, my State and
others, who have submitted testimony, but did not have the
opportunity to come and testify today.
Mr. ENGLISH. By unanimous consent, that will be included in
the record.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you.
Mr. ENGLISH. I thank the gentlemen.
[The information was not received at time of printing.]
I thank you all for coming. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:47 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Submissions for the record follow:]
Statement of Andrew Robert Klein, Ph.D., Advocates for Human Potential,
Inc., Sudbury, Massachusetts
H.R. 240, ``The Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion
Act of 2005'' seeks to promote laudable goals. However, it will not,
cannot achieve those goals. To the extent it succeeds to encourage
``family formation and healthy marriage,'' it will fail to make these
families' lives better, it will make things worse. It will increase the
suffering and victimization of tens of thousands of poor women and
their children. It will endanger lives.
I am talking about the tens of thousands of poor women and their
children who disproportionately receive temporary cash assistance to
support themselves, not because they lack a spouse but because they
have a spouse or partner who is abusive. A significant proportion of
women and children on TANF rely on TANF to help them escape their
abuse.
Leaving abusive relationships is almost always tremendously
difficult for abused women. It takes incredible courage and fortitude.
It can be extremely risky, even lethal for abused women and their
children. The majority of domestic homicides, including the murder of
the abused women's children, occur when women attempt to leave their
abusers.
Abused women should be encouraged and assisted in that effort, not
pushed back for more abuse. That is why there are over 1,600 domestic
violence shelters in every state of the nation. The shelters, and
related services, help abused women and their children safely leave, so
they are not faced with the horrible dilemma, remain and suffer or be
forced to fight back as best they can.
And it's working. The homicide of male intimates by their female
partners has plummeted over the last several decades, way below the
national decline in all homicides during the same period. According to
the Justice Department Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 1976 to 2002,
the number of men murdered by their partners dropped 71%. It is easier
for women to flee their abusers, not fight back.
Unfortunately, the homicide of women by their male intimate
partners has not fallen as dramatically, declining far less than the
overall decline in the rate for non-domestic homicides. The number of
women killed by their partners declined between 1976 and 2002 by only
25%.
The reason we haven't been as successful in regard to reduction in
the homicides of women by their male intimate partners is because we
have failed to appreciate the true danger and intransigence of abusers.
The kind of positive things envisioned by this Act, the promotion
of anger management, communication skills, conflict resolution, budget
counseling, etc. are not remedies for domestic violence. To think that
several thousand women and their children are killed every year and
tens of thousands hospitalized by their intimate partners because of
inadequate financial management and temper tantrums tragically
trivializes their deaths.
Domestic violence is not about relationships, good or bad,
sanctified by marriage vows or not. It is about abusers and their use
of violence. Domestic violence is instrumental, not accidental
violence; purposeful, not incidental violence; premeditated, not
spontaneous violence. Abusers do not strike their partners because they
are out of control. They strike their partners to maintain control over
them, humiliate and debase them, isolate them, or punish them for
asserting their independence.
Bank robbers do not rob banks because they have relationship
problems with the banks or an inability to control their anger over
capitalism. They rob banks because, as Willie Sutton aptly explained,
that is where the money is. The same applies to abusers and why they
abuse.
The studies are clear. Domestic violence cannot be wished away as
much as we would like it to be by a 26 week anger management program or
the like, no matter how well-intentioned. Batterers cannot become
nurturing parents after completing a 52-week batterer intervention
program.
To improve the outcomes for children as specified in the Act, we
must nurture the relationship and circumstances between the child and
the non-abusive parent. Studies demonstrate that the adverse effects of
children being exposed to domestic violence can be mitigated by the
existence of a strong, nurturing non-abusive parent.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Schecter, S. & Edelson, J. (2000). Domestic Violence and
Children: Creating a Public Response, New York, NY: Center on Crime,
Communities & Culture of the Open Society Institute, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The goal should be safety and security for the non-abusive parent
and children, not marriage formation. Marriage, marked by spousal
abuse, is a dangerous sham. The research is clear that it will promote
the opposite effects in children the Act desires. It will increase
juvenile delinquency, school failure, adult criminality and all the
other problems associated with being raised in families with an abusive
parent.
Earlier, we said domestic violence did not have to do with
relationships. That may sound counter-intuitive. It involves intimate
couples, therefore it must be about relationships. Right?
Wrong. Because the fact is that research conclusively demonstrates
that if deprived of his victim, the abuser will go on to abuse another.
It has little to do with the victim, or the quality of the
relationship; it has all to do with the abuser.
Massachusetts was the first state in the union to computerized its
domestic violence registry. As a result, it was able to track a very
large sample of more than a thousand abusers who had restraining orders
taken out against them in 1992 for the next six years. It found that
one quarter of those restrained in 1992 went on to have as many as
eight new court orders taken out against them by as many different
victims.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Adams, S. (December 1999). Serial Batterers: Probation Research
Bulletin. Boston, MA: Office of the Commissioner of Probation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A more recent state study followed over 2,000 charged with
violating a court restraining order in 1998 through 2004. It found that
43% had more than one victim. 16% had three or more victims.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Bocko, S., Cicchetti, C., Lempicki, L. & Powell, A. (November
2004). Restraining Order Violators, Corrective Programming and
Recidivism. Boston, MA: Office of the Commissioner of Probation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A study I am currently completing in collaboration with the
American Probation and Parole Association, funded by the National
Institute of Justice, documents that these findings are not unique to
Massachusetts. We found among the 40% of offenders on probation for
domestic violence who were arrested for re-abuse, the only difference
between these abusers who repeatedly abused the same woman or went on
to abuse different women was the available of the initial victim.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A. (2005 Draft). Evaluation of
Rhode Island's Specialized Domestic Violence Probation Supervision
Unit. Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association & BOTEC
Analysis Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who are these abusers?
Study after study refute the assumptions underlying this Act.
Abusers are not otherwise like every other person except they happen to
have some cognitive and skill deficiencies and poor relationships with
their partners.
Again, the research is clear. The vast majority of abusers,
identified as abusers by their partners or the criminal justice system,
sport extensive criminal records for a wide variety of crimes of
violence, substance abuse, drunk driving, as well as other crimes.
In 1990, when I was a probation officer in the Quincy Court in
Massachusetts, I looked at the 664 men who had restraining orders taken
out against them by their female partners. At the time, it was one of
the first studies to think to examine the prior criminal careers of
abusers. Although these men were brought to court by their wives and
girlfriends, not the police, 80% had prior criminal histories,
averaging 13 criminal complaints that had resulted in half a dozen
different court arraignments. Almost half had prior assaults, mostly
against men. 54% had prior arrests for drunk driving and drug abuse.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Klein, A. ( 1996). Re-Abuse in a population of court-restrained
male batterers. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.) Do Arrests and
Restraining Orders Work?: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,192-214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And my research was just the first. Study after study has followed
confirming these findings. Most recently, a study of 1,982 domestic
violence misdemeanor cases filed in the Toledo, Ohio Municipal Court
between April 2000 and March 2001 documented that 89% had a prior
history of at least one arrest. More than a quarter, 26.4%, had at
least one prior violent felony offense and half had at least one non-
violent felony charge on their record.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Ventura, L. & Davis, G. (October 2004). Domestic Violence:
Court Case Conviction and Recidivism in Toledo. Toledo, OH: Urban
Affairs Center, University of Toledo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These men have records like criminals, behave like criminals, and
recidivate like criminals. To the extent this Act includes these
abusers, it would more aptly be named the ``Criminal Offender/Victim
Marriage and Father Promotion Act.''
Further, their crimes of domestic violence are not isolated
incidents, but part of chronic criminal campaigns. This too is widely
documented. A study in Lincoln, Nebraska, for example, reveals that of
1,217 domestic violence arrests in 2002, 16 percent involved the same
abuser arrested multiple times, including 8 who were arrested four or
more times that year for domestic violence.\7\ Similarly, I just
collaborated with the Rhode Island Supreme Court's Domestic Violence
Unit on an analysis of 18,000 domestic violence incident reports filed
by police from 2002-2004 in that state. Just shy of 20% of the reported
abusers, almost 3,000, were cited multiple times--up to 13 times--
generally within a 12 month period or less.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ LMEF-Family Violence Council 2002 Domestic Violence Report
(2003). Lincoln, NB: Family Violence Council.
\8\ Dubois, J. & Klein, A. (2005). Rhode Island Domestic Violence
Recidivists, 2002-2004, Wakefield, RI: Domestic Violence Training and
Monitoring Unit, R.I. Supreme Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research is also clear about something else. Anger management,
batterer treatment, probation supervision is only marginally effective
at best in stopping abusers and their effect is limited to low risk
abusers to begin with. A recent meta-analysis of all batterer treatment
research with any claim of scientific reliability concludes these
programs have minuscule if any treatment effect.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Babcock, J., Green, C., & Robie, C. (In press). Does Batterer's
Treatment Work? A Meta-analytic review of Domestic Violence Outcome
Research, Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 46-59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The same recent Massachusetts study cited earlier found that the
results of anger management were even less encouraging. The research
revealed that the re-abuse rates for those who completed the anger
management programs, generally 12 to 20 week programs, were not
statistically significantly lower from those who were assigned anger
management but failed to complete the program!
And the majority of offenders (55.7%) who completed anger
management were arrested for a subsequent crime, 42.6% for a violent
crime. Eighteen percent were arrested for a violation of their
restraining order.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Bocko, S. (2004). Op. cit. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nor is there any evidence that these programs make abusive fathers
better, even safe parents.
That is why the Justice Department's Office of Violence Against
Women, under the leadership of Diane Stuart, a former shelter director,
won't fund these programs. A recent study based on victim assessments
of their partners' participation in state-mandated batterer programs
found these programs did not improve batterers as fathers, their
relationships with their children or their children's mothers.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Klein, A. (2004). Victim Views of Batterer Intervention
Programs. Waltham, MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation (Study commissioned
by the Rhode Island Justice Commission.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other studies have found that arrests, restraining orders,
prosecution, intensive supervision, even short term incarceration fail
to deter a significant portion of abusers.\12\ As mentioned, our
current evaluation for the National Institute of Justice of Rhode
Islands model domestic violence probation supervision program has found
a 38% re-arrest rate specifically for domestic violence within 18
months, almost 60% for all crimes despite intensive supervision.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to
Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning/Wadsworth.
\13\ The specialized program does significantly reduce re-abuse and
all other arrests among lower risk abusers representing 52% of the
domestic violence caseload.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is why over half of the states, including Iowa and Montana,
have amended their criminal domestic violence laws to enhance
penalties, making repeat simple misdemeanor domestic assaults felonies
with minimum mandatory sentences of up to five years in prison.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See, e.g., Mississippi Code Ann. Sec. 97-3-7(30); Minnesota
Stat. Ann. Sec. 609.2242.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If all these efforts don't stop abusers, do we really expect
marriage and fatherhood promotion programs to protect their victims?
Congress has done so much to stop domestic violence, including
passage and funding of VAWA, community oriented policing; enactment of
federal firearm prohibitions for court-restrained or convicted domestic
assaulters, inclusion of the Family Violence Option for TANF
recipients. To abruptly reverse course at this time would be a huge
mistake.
I am currently completing an evaluation of the RI Family Violence
Option Advocacy Program. As a result of universal screening for
domestic violence completed by that state's Department of Human
Services, state officials have waived child support requirements for
hundreds of recipients deemed to be victims of domestic violence. It is
not that state officials don't care about collecting child support
reimbursement from abusers, they don't demand the women to cooperate in
its collection because they realize it is too dangerous to ask them to
do so.
Are these the same abusers we want to focus on to promote family
formation and healthy marriages?
The money proposed to support this Act should go for increased
prosecution of chronic abusers, more transitional housing programs for
victims and their families who are forced to flee their abusers and for
better TANF screening and service programs for victims of family
violence and their children.
Thank you.
Statement of Lisa Maatz, American Association of University Women
Introduction
Enacted in 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act dramatically altered the way the federal government
provides financial assistance to needy families. This act created
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which limited
assistance to 60 months and required recipients to work. TANF, however,
failed to contain sufficient provisions for education and job training.
As Congress reauthorizes the 1996 act, AAUW believes that welfare
programs should end the cycle of poverty and promote self-sufficiency
through the proven methods of education and job training to help ensure
that women are not locked into low-wage, low-benefit jobs.
The success of current law must be based on the number of people no
longer living in poverty--not on the number of people no longer
receiving assistance. Current law seeks only to reduce the number of
people on welfare by promoting job search and early employment rather
than increasing earnings for welfare recipients through education and
job training. By failing to provide roads to permanent self-
sufficiency, the law has failed to significantly lift women and
families out of poverty.
While welfare rolls dropped 22 percent between 1995 and
1997, poverty among families headed by single mothers dropped by only 5
percent.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Carnevale, A.P. and Reich, K. (2000). A Piece of the Puzzle:
How States Can Use Education to Make Work Pay for Welfare Recipients.
p. 14. Princeton: Education Testing Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1999, 28 percent of TANF recipients worked for
substandard pay while still qualifying for aid, compared to just 8
percent in 1994.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Patel, N. (2001). Workforce Development: Employment Retention
and Advancement Under TANF. Nov. 28, 2001. http://www.clasp.org/pubs/
jobseducation/technical%20paper.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
People leaving welfare earn about $6.61 an hour\3\ or
$8,000 to $12,000 annually.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Carnevale 13.
\4\ Patel.
As a result of the drastic increase in families working without a
significant increase in earnings, working poverty has replaced welfare.
Further, while poverty has declined overall, statistics show that poor
people are poorer and more working families are living in poverty.\5\
Of the 2.1 million adults who left welfare between 1995 and 1997, 29
percent had returned by 1997.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Boushey, H. and Gundersen, B. (2001). When Work Just Isn't
Enough: Measuring Hardships Faced by Families After Moving From Welfare
to Work. Nov. 28, 2001. http://www.epinet.org.
\6\ Carnevale 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the 108th Congress, the House completed action on the
Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003 (H.R.
4) to reauthorize the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act
(PRWORA--PL 104-193). AAUW opposed H.R. 4 because it lacked the
necessary access to education and training, increased work requirements
without providing adequate childcare provisions, included $300 per year
for experimental marriage programs, and reauthorized $50 million in
funding for abstinence-only education programs. AAUW has reservations
about the welfare reform proposal introduced January 4, 2005 by Rep.
Deborah Pryce (R-OH), the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family
Promotion Act of 2005 (H.R. 240) but we remain hopeful that
improvements can be made before its consideration by the full House.
Education and Training: The Proven Path Out of Poverty
The focus on work first and the federally-imposed limitations on
how states can use their TANF funds have shaped the way states
implemented current law. The law does not allow welfare recipients
adequate time to attain a degree or worthwhile job training and
arbitrarily tells states how many welfare recipients can be in such
programs at any given time. TANF gives states limited options in
helping welfare recipients find and retain jobs that pay a livable wage
and get families out of poverty and off welfare permanently. These
limitations on states have resulted in significant declines in welfare
recipients engaged in education and training--2.7 percent in 1999, down
from 5.8 percent in 1996.\7\ In fact, in 1999, 44 percent of adults
receiving TANF benefits reported having less than a high school
diploma.\8\ AAUW believes that education and training must complement
work to best serve the needs of the local job market and individuals
with varying levels of work experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Strawn, J., Greenberg, M., and Savner, S. (2001). Improving
Employment Outcomes Under TANF. Retrieved Nov. 28, 2001. http://
www.clasp.org/pubs/jobseducation/BlankHaskinsFebruaryFinal.htm.
\8\ Zedlewski, S. (2001). Do Families on Welfare in the Post TANF
Era Differ From Their Pre TANF Counterparts? October 9, 2001. http://
newfederalism.urban.org/pdf/discussion01-03.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because statistics prove that educational access is inextricably
linked to economic security (see below), AAUW believes that women and
girls must have access to education and job training to achieve
economic security. Only by improving their employability through
education and job training can women attain jobs that pay a livable
wage and stay off public assistance permanently. States must also have
the flexibility to target recipients with job search, education, and
job and skills training to respond to the needs of the local labor
markets. Education and training programs must not be viewed as separate
from work but as part of a continuum of activities that result in work.
Education and training make a critical difference in employability,
earnings, and job retention. Single female heads of households with a
high school diploma are 60 percent more likely to have jobs than those
without a high school diploma or GED, and those with an associate's
degree are 95 percent more likely to be employed.\9\ In 1999 average
earnings for someone with a high school diploma was 50 percent higher
than those with no diploma.\10\ Further, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics found that people in jobs requiring the least education will
experience the lowest professional growth over the next 10 years, while
the jobs requiring at least an associate's degree will experience a job
growth rate of 31 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Buck, E. (2001). The Impact of Postsecondary Education on
Poverty, Employment and Labor Force Participation Among Single Female
Heads of Household With Children. San Diego, CA: San Diego State
University.
\10\ Trends in College Pricing. (2001). Washington, DC: The College
Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To increase earning potential, women should also be trained in
nontraditional jobs--defined as employment in which women comprise 25
percent or less of total workers. Women make up the majority of low-
wage workers, 57.5 percent of employees earning $5.15 to $6.14 an hour,
and part-time workers. In contrast, women working in nontraditional
jobs can earn between $8 and $9 an hour. For example, the average
yearly income for auto mechanics and repair persons, a nontraditional
field, is $26,718, whereas the median annual salary for full-time
workers in service occupations, traditionally female jobs, is just over
$15,000.
The Inescapable Link Between Violence and Women's Poverty
Survivors of violence must overcome many hurdles to escape abuse
and access needed services. Unfortunately, poverty is among the most
formidable barrier of all. There is an undeniable link between poverty
and violence against women. In fact, as many as 60 percent of women
receiving welfare have been victims of domestic violence as adults
(compared to 22 percent of women in the general population), and as
many as 30% reported abuse within the last year.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. ``Welfare and Poverty:
Domestic and Sexual Violence,'' http://www.nowldef.org/html/issues/wel/
violence.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Family Violence Option (FVO) is an important provision that
gives states the option to flex program requirements for victims of
domestic violence when those requirements could put them and/or their
families in danger. The FVO is a crucial tool for helping poor women
achieve economic self-sufficiency by proactively addressing violence in
their lives. However, not all states have adopted this critical option,
and implementation is uneven. TANF reauthorization should require
states to uniformly implement the FVO and provide incentives designed
to ensure successful implementation.
TANF Reauthorization Proposals
AAUW believes the following changes must be made during
reauthorization of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act:
Eliminate the 12-month limit on vocational education or
job training.
Eliminate the 30 percent cap on the number of families
participating in vocational education or on teen parents pursuing a
high school diploma in a state's caseload that can be counted toward
federal work participation rates.
Allow education leading to a diploma, GED, certificate,
associate's degree, bachelor's degree, or postsecondary degree to count
toward federal work participation rates.
Extend the Family Violence Option (FVO) to all 50 states.
Conclusion
Despite some signs of improvement in last year's labor market,
wages still fell, job growth lagged, and unemployment spells remained
long. With the nation in a recession, people must be given the option
of improving their employability through gaining new skills and
advancing their education without the threat of losing federal
assistance. In this way women and families can achieve self-sufficiency
and get off welfare permanently.
Statement of Laura W. Murphy, American Civil Liberties Union
The ACLU is a nationwide, non-partisan organization of nearly
400,000 members, dedicated to protecting the individual liberties and
rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Through its Women's Rights Project and Reproductive Freedom Project,
the ACLU has long focused on the needs of women, especially those low-
income women and women of color who make up the majority of adult
recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). In
addition, through its Immigrants Rights Project, the ACLU has committed
itself to preserving the rights of immigrants--a group treated
particularly harshly under the TANF program. We believe that
reauthorization must ensure that TANF operates fairly and offers
meaningful paths out of poverty for families. We appreciate the
opportunity to submit this statement for the record to the Subcommittee
on Human Resources describing the changes necessary to guarantee that
the TANF program operates effectively and consistently with
constitutional principles.
TANF MUST NOT ARBITRARILY DENY ASSISTANCE TO DISFAVORED GROUPS OF NEEDY
INDIVIDUALS
The purpose of TANF is to provide assistance to needy families and
children and to promote job preparation and work.\1\ Yet the program
provides assistance only to some needy families while arbitrarily
denying benefits to others equally in need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 601(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Immigrants and Their Children
Perhaps the most egregious provision of the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) was its bar on
immigrant eligibility for many federal programs. PRWORA prohibited most
legal immigrants from receiving Food Stamps and Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) until they had worked in the U.S. for at least ten years.
It barred new immigrants from receiving TANF, Medicaid, or assistance
from the Child Health Insurance Program for five years, and states were
given the option of extending that bar. Thus, legal immigrants were
deprived of the very services their tax dollars support. Even when
these time-bars expire, new ``sponsor deeming'' rules created by PRWORA
continue to render most legal immigrants ineligible for federal
assistance. Even more harshly, ``unqualified'' immigrants, which
include not only undocumented aliens but also other groups permitted to
remain in the United States without permanent residence, were flatly
barred from receiving any federal public benefits at all. While some
minor adjustments have been made to these discriminatory rules since
1996, as a result of PRWORA most immigrants continue to be denied the
federal benefits extended to other similarly needy individuals.
Not only is the law cruelly discriminatory in its treatment of
immigrants, it has hurt many citizens as well. According to the Urban
Institute, 78% percent of children with immigrant parents are
themselves eligible for welfare assistance.\2\ Because of confusion or
fear, many non-citizen parents do not seek the benefits for which their
citizen children are eligible, and thus these children do not receive
the vital services they need for survival.\3\ Reauthorizing legislation
should permit legal immigrants to receive public assistance, repeal
PRWORA's deeming rules, and require states to perform outreach to non-
citizen-headed families, informing them of their children's eligibility
for benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Randy Capps, Urban Institute, Hardship Among Children of
Immigrants: Findings from the 1999 National Survey of American's
Families, (2001).
\3\ See generally Michael Fix and Wendy Zimmerman, Urban Institute,
All Under One Roof: Mixed-Status Families in an Era of Reform (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug Offenders Who Have Paid Their Debt to Society
Federal law currently prohibits individuals who have been convicted
of a drug-related felony from receiving TANF or Food Stamps. Even when
a person has completed a prison sentence or a drug treatment program
and is making every effort to turn her life around, she is still
ineligible for federal aid. The intent of PRWORA was to promote
personal responsibility, but permanent denial of federal assistance
erects new barriers that prevent people who have previously made
mistakes from taking responsibility for their lives and starting fresh
to become productive citizens. Reauthorization should remedy this
discrimination.
Children Born Into Needy Families
For the first time, PRWORA allowed states to refuse to provide
benefits to a child conceived and born while a parent was receiving
TANF assistance. When reauthorized, TANF should prohibit such child
exclusion rules (also known as family caps) as these exclusions
discriminate against children based on the circumstances of their birth
and punish the child for the poverty of his or her parents. Such a
policy is akin to laws that denied children benefits because their
parents were not married or because their parents were not legal
residents, laws which have been held unconstitutional because of their
basic unfairness to the child.\4\ The child exclusion is no less cruel
and is in tension with fundamental principles of equal protection. In
addition, child exclusion laws interfere with a woman's fundamental
right to bear a child. By withholding dollars from newborns (and thus
reducing the total income available to TANF families), the exclusion
creates a government incentive for TANF recipients to end their
pregnancies. A law designed to aid needy families should not turn its
back on poor children, leaving them to swell the ranks of children in
poverty in this country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See, e.g., Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) (``Even if the
State found it expedient to control the conduct of adults by acting
against their children, legislation directing the onus of a parent's
misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental
conceptions of justice.''); see also Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety,
406 U.S. 164 (1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TANF REAUTHORIZATION MUST PROTECT AGAINST DISCRIMINATION AND PROMOTE
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
Since PRWORA, states have too often failed to provide services to
all TANF applicants and recipients without discrimination. Reports
indicate that TANF recipients of color face barriers in moving from
welfare to self-sufficiency because they receive fewer supportive
services and are more likely to be sanctioned for non-compliance with
program rules than their white counterparts. States also have often
failed to accommodate the needs of recipients with limited English
proficiency, disabilities, and other barriers to employment. In
addition, states have tended to push women into low-paying,
traditionally female jobs rather than training them for higher wage,
nontraditional work.
End Discrimination Against Racial and Ethnic Minorities
Studies show that people of color receive harsher treatment than
white TANF recipients under welfare reform. Researchers have found that
TANF recipients of color are less likely than white TANF recipients to
be referred to important services such as educational programs,
transportation assistance, and child care and are less likely to access
vital work supports such as Medicaid and Food Stamps.\5\ As a result,
recipients of color have been less likely to leave welfare for work
than white recipients.\6\ In addition, higher percentages of black
recipients have been disqualified from TANF because of punitive
sanctions than white participants.\7\ Finally, welfare recipients in
many states have reported discriminatory and insulting treatment by
both caseworkers and employers based on their race, ethnicity, or
gender.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Bonnie Thornon Dill et al., Racial, Ethnic and Gender
Disparities in Access to Jobs, Education and Training Under Welfare
Reform at 16 (2004); Applied Research Center, Race and Recession: A
Special Report Examining How Changes in the Economy Affect People of
Color at 15-16 (2002); W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Racial and Ethnic
Disparities in TANF: Barriers to the Viability of Low Income Families
(2001); Susan T. Gooden, ``All Things Not Being Equal: Differences in
Caseworker Support Toward Black and White Welfare Clients,'' Harvard
Journal of African American Public Policy, Vol. 4 (1998).
\6\ Dill, supra note 5 at 5 (2004); Elizabeth Lower-Basch,
``Leavers'' and Diversion Studies: Preliminary Analysis of Racial
Differences in Caseload Trends and Leaver Outcomes, Office of Assistant
Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (2000); Sarah Karp, ``Minorities Off Welfare Get Few
Jobs,'' Chicago Reporter, January 2000.
\7\ Lower-Basch, supra note 6.
\8\ Applied Research Center, Race and Recession: A Special Report
Examining How Changes in the Economy Affect People of Color at 13
(2002); Equal Rights Advocates, The Broken Promise: Welfare Reform Two
Years Later (San Francisco, CA: 2000); Urban Justice Center, Human
Rights Project, Assessing the Intersection of Race and Welfare Reform
for New York City Households (New York City Welfare Reform and Human
Rights Documentation Project, 2001); Rebecca Gordon, Cruel and Unusual:
How Welfare ``Reform'' Punishes Poor People (Applied Research Center,
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This kind of discrimination cannot be tolerated, as racially
disparate treatment shuts down opportunities for women of color and
their children and creates a two-tiered welfare system that traps
African-American and Hispanic families in poverty. To address these
racial disparities, at a minimum, reauthorizing legislation must
clarify that labor and civil rights laws protect TANF recipients.
Further, states should be required to set out procedures for handling
civil rights complaints in the state plans required for receipt of TANF
funds.
The only true method of measuring progress in civil rights
compliance within TANF, however, is data collection. Without this
information it is difficult to identify parity problems and patterns in
states' administration of the TANF program. States must be required to
collect data by race and ethnicity reflecting diversion of potential
applicants, benefits and services provided to recipients, sanction
rates, and recipient outcomes. States should also be required to
aggregate information to detect racial disparities and to take
meaningful action to address these disparities. Just as the No Child
Left Behind Act holds schools accountable for improving the performance
of students of all races, so should TANF reauthorization hold state
welfare programs accountable for helping welfare recipients of all
races move out of poverty and reward those states that achieve
equitable outcomes.
Accommodate Recipients with Special Needs
Many states have failed to make TANF programs accessible to
individuals with special needs, including those who speak little or no
English and those with disabilities. Reauthorization must require that
states provide interpreters and materials in languages other than
English, and that states accurately assess the disability status of
applicants and recipients and take any disability into account in
imposing program requirements. Before attempting to find job placements
for TANF applicants, states should be required to conduct an initial
assessment of each individual in order to determine what support
services may be necessary to address any employment barriers, such as
limited English proficiency, domestic violence, disability, mental
illness, or substance abuse, that may exist. States' current failure to
conduct such assessments and to take special needs into account often
leads to inappropriate sanctions reducing or eliminating a family's
benefit and thrusting the family into a dire situation.
While recipients facing these barriers may be less likely to find
employment and leave the TANF rolls prior to the five-year federal time
limit, under PRWORA, states are only permitted to exempt 20 percent of
their average monthly caseload from the time limit. This arbitrary cap
ignores the fact that far more than 20 percent of caseloads may face
substantial barriers to employment and self-sufficiency. Thus, without
accommodation of their special needs, many recipients facing
significant barriers to employment are likely to be left without
support when they reach the five-year lifetime limit on receipt of
benefits. Reauthorization should permit states to accommodate TANF
recipients with special needs by abolishing the 20 percent cap on the
hardship exemption.
Open Doors to Opportunity for Women
Many jobs held by TANF recipients, the vast majority of whom are
women, will never lift a family out of poverty because the wages from
these jobs are simply insufficient to support recipients' families.
Studies indicate that caseworkers typically steer TANF recipients into
jobs traditionally held by women, which generally pay the lowest wages
and that low-income single mothers primarily work in traditionally
female occupations.\9\ In contrast, nontraditional jobs for women, such
as carpentry, drafting, electrical work, firefighting, or driving a
taxi or bus, pay a sustainable wage. Such occupational segregation is a
primary cause of the wage gap between men and women. Indeed, poverty
rates for single mothers would fall by half if they received wages
equal to those received by men with similar qualifications. \10\
Nontraditional jobs also are more likely to provide opportunity for
advancement and benefits such as health insurance and sick leave. TANF
recipients should be given these opportunities to support their
families and achieve independence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Institute for Women's Policy Research, A Report to the NOW
Legal Defense and Education Fund, Working First But Working Poor: The
Need for Education and Training Following Welfare Reform, Executive
Summary (October 2001); Janice Peterson et al., Life After Welfare
Reform: Low-Income Single Parent Families Pre- and Post-TANF (Research-
in-Brief) (May 22, 2002).
\10\ Institute for Women's Policy Research, Equal Pay for Working
Women (Research--in-Brief) (June 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access to education and training, however, is both effective and
essential for TANF recipients to move out of low-wage, gender-
segregated jobs into this higher-wage employment with career
advancement potential.\11\ Yet PRWORA limited the education and
training that could be counted toward federal work participation
requirements and set quotas on the percentage of recipients who could
engage in certain education and training programs. As a result, the
percentage of TANF recipients engaged in education or training has
fallen dramatically since PRWORA.\12\ Taking the wrong lesson from
welfare reform, H.R. 240 further restricts states' flexibility to
implement education and training programs for recipients, while
simultaneously increasing the hours recipients are required to work,
thus increasing the likelihood that recipients will be pushed into
dead-end, low-wage, ``women's jobs.'' This is the wrong choice for
women and their families. Reauthorizing legislation should instead
eliminate arbitrary restrictions on the length of time that TANF
participants may participate in education and training and expand the
types of educational programs in which recipients may permissibly
engage. It should also stop the clock for recipients in education and
training programs, so that choices regarding education and training are
not artificially restricted by the five-year lifetime limit. Finally,
reauthorization should ensure that all programs that provide funding
for education and training, including TANF, encourage women's access to
training for non-traditional jobs and include safeguards eliminating
gender discrimination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Dill, supra note 5, at 23-26 (2004).
\12\ Center for Law and Social Policy, Improving Employment
Outcomes Under TANF (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TANF REAUTHORIZATION MUST PROTECT THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OF RECIPIENTS
The ``charitable choice'' language adopted in PRWORA allows federal
funds to flow directly to religious organizations, thus permitting
government-sponsored religion in violation of the First Amendment.
Although the Supreme Court has allowed religiously affiliated
organizations to provide government-funded services in a secular
manner, it has never allowed religious institutions themselves to
receive direct government aid. Unless the statute is amended through
reauthorization, this provision may allow sectarian religious
organizations, including houses of worship, to contract with a state to
administer a welfare program (by determining eligibility, giving out
monthly checks, providing counseling, etc.) in an environment replete
with religious symbols and activity. In such a setting, recipients
undoubtedly will be threatened with religious discrimination and can
reasonably interpret the relationship between the state TANF agency and
the religious organization as government endorsement of a particular
religion.
TANF recipients do not concede their First Amendment rights simply
because they are in need of assistance. Yet religious organizations
administering TANF programs will potentially discourage recipients from
exercising their own religious beliefs, because, from a religious
institution's perspective, a recipient's right to express his or her
religious beliefs may endanger the effectiveness of the social service
program, particularly in a group setting. Recipients' rights to
exercise their own religions, however, are protected by the Free
Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
The ``charitable choice'' provision also threatens to undermine the
fundamental civil rights principle--now more than 60 years old--that
federal dollars should not fund employment discrimination. TANF
provides that a religious organization's receipt of TANF funds does not
restrict it from preferring members of its own religion in employment.
Allowing federal funds to go to organizations that discriminate based
on religion would be a sharp break with a long civil rights history.
The ``real life'' impact this could have on individuals cannot be
overstated. Applicants for jobs with federally funded religious TANF
administrators may have to answer such questions as: What is your
religion? Are you married or divorced? Was your marriage annulled? Is
your spouse the same race as you? What does your church teach about
sexual orientation? Such questions have no place in the federally
funded workplace. Reauthorization must make clear that religious
providers cannot engage in religious employment discrimination with
TANF funds or include sectarian worship, instruction, or
proselytization in a program funded by TANF.
TANF REAUTHORIZATION MUST NOT ENDANGER THE LIVES OF YOUNG PEOPLE BY
REQUIRING EDUCATION PROGRAMS TO FOCUS EXCLUSIVELY ON ABSTINENCE
While discussion of abstinence is an important component of any
educational program about human sexuality, programs such as those
authorized under PRWORA, which focus exclusively on abstinence,
endanger young people's health by censoring other valuable information
that can help young people make responsible and safe decisions about
sexual activity and reproduction. Moreover, these programs create a
hostile environment for lesbian and gay youth, and dangerously entangle
the government with religion, as a successful court challenge by the
ACLU in Louisiana shows.
Under PRWORA, federally funded programs must offer curricula that
have as their ``exclusive purpose'' teaching the benefits of
abstinence. Programs may not provide adolescents with any information
that is inconsistent with this message in the same setting as the
abstinence program. Consequently, programs funded under PRWORA may not
advocate contraceptive use or teach contraceptive methods except to
emphasize their failure rates. This constitutes a gag order that
censors the transmission of vitally needed information. These programs
thus infringe on constitutional rights of free expression by censoring
the transmission of vitally needed information about human sexuality
and reproduction, either omitting any mention of topics such as
contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and AIDS or presenting these
subjects in a nonscientific, inaccurate fashion.
A growing body of evidence shows that most abstinence-only programs
do not help teens delay having sex. As an independent, federally-funded
evaluation of the abstinence-only education programs authorized under
PWORA concluded, there is ``no definitive research [linking] the
abstinence education legislation with'' the downward trend in ``the
percentage of teens reporting that they have had sex.'' \13\ More
troubling, some programs show evidence of increasing risk-taking
behaviors among sexually active teens.\14\ On the other hand, evidence
shows that comprehensive programs that provide information about
abstinence and effective use of contraception can help delay the start
of sexual activity and increase condom use among sexually active
teens.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Barbara Devaney et al., Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., The
Evaluation of Abstinence Education Programs Funded Under Title V
Section 510: Interim Report 1 (2002).
\14\ See Peter S. Bearman & Hannah Bruckner, Columbia Univ. Inst.
for Social & Econ. Theory & Research, Promising the Future: Virginity
Pledges as they Affect Transition to First Intercourse 35 (2000).
\15\ See Douglas Kirby, The Nat'l Campaign to Prevent Teen
Pregnancy, Emerging Answers: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce
Teen Pregnancy, Summary 16 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstinence-only programs also entangle the government with
religion. Many abstinence-only curricula contain religious
prescriptions for proper behavior and values, in violation of First
Amendment guarantees. A popular abstinence-only curriculum called ``Sex
Respect,'' for example, was originally designed for parochial school
use and retains strong religious undertones, citing religious
publications as its reference sources. This is an inappropriate and
unnecessary entanglement of government with religion. In 2002, the ACLU
challenged the use of taxpayer dollars to support religious activities
in the Louisiana Governor's Program (GPA) on Abstinence, a program
funded under PRWORA. A federal district court found that GPA funds were
being used to convey religious messages and advance religion, in
violation of the Constitution's requirement of separation of church and
state.
Reauthorizing legislation should eliminate or significantly reduce
funding for abstinence-only-unless-married education and should instead
appropriate funds for comprehensive sexuality education that would both
teach abstinence and provide young people with the tools necessary to
make responsible choices about sexual activity and reproduction.
TANF REAUTHORIZATION MUST PROTECT THE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF PROGRAM
PARTICIPANTS
PRWORA demanded personal responsibility from TANF applicants and
recipients as a key to accessing benefits. As administrators of the
TANF program, states have a corresponding public obligation to treat
applicants and recipients fairly. Since PRWORA was enacted, too often
the broad discretion granted the states and the emphasis on caseload
reduction above all else have eclipsed the commitment to fairness. The
result has been arbitrary and inconsistent treatment of applicants and
recipients; widespread misinformation about program requirements; and
an absence of meaningful review of administrative decisions. Such due
process failures have a serious impact on low-income parents as they
simultaneously attempt to negotiate program requirements, fulfill work
obligations, and raise their children and can push families out of the
social safety net and into dire need. The next wave of welfare reform
must hold states accountable for providing procedural fairness to
applicants and recipients.
Provide Complete and Accurate Information to Recipients
PRWORA communicated a clear message to states: reduce your welfare
rolls. Heeding this message, many states adopted TANF programs that
emphasized ``diverting'' potential applicants by dissuading them from
filing applications. Reports from advocates and court cases demonstrate
that in some states, one result of this emphasis on diversion was a
widespread failure to provide individuals seeking assistance with
accurate, complete information about the assistance available and the
requirements for obtaining it.\16\ Some programs mislead individuals
regarding the effects of the federal time limit on their benefits, fail
to provide individuals with information about child care assistance,
and fail to inform recipients that they cannot be sanctioned for a
failure to comply with work requirements based an inability to find
appropriate child care.\17\ In one woman's account, ``One social worker
told a friend of mine, ?It's not our responsibility to tell you [about
these programs]. If you ask me about a program, I have to tell you. But
if you don't ask me [then I won't tell you.]'' \18\ A failure to
provide information means that families often do not gain access to the
support they need to move toward independence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ E.g., Reynolds v. Giuliani, 35 F. Supp. 2d 331 (S.D.N.Y.
1999).
\17\ The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Committee
on Social Welfare Law, Welfare Reform in New York City: The Measure of
Success, 56 The Record 322, 331-332 (Summer 2001).
\18\ See Doris Y. Ng and Ana J. Matosantos, Equal Rights Advocates,
The Broken Promise: Welfare Reform Two Years Later (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reauthorization must make explicit that TANF applicants and
recipients have a right to receive accurate information about available
benefits and eligibility requirements from the moment they seek
assistance. States should be required to set out their methods of
providing comprehensive and accurate information in their state plans
and held accountable for failures to abide by these plans.
In addition, reauthorization should encourage states to provide
complete and accurate information by making clear that poverty
reduction, rather than caseload reduction, is the goal of TANF. One
method of doing this is by measuring states' performance by and
allotting bonuses based on success in reducing poverty. If states are
held accountable for their success in moving applicants and recipients
out of poverty, rather than just off the rolls, they will have new
incentives to provide applicants and recipients with good information.
End Arbitrary and Inconsistent Program Practices
PRWORA sought to maximize state flexibility and experimentation by
providing welfare monies through block grants with comparatively few
restraints on the design of state programs for distributing these funds
to needy families. This new flexibility radically increased states'
discretion in administering TANF programs. In most instances, TANF also
meant that caseworkers and individual administrators exercised far more
discretion. Such a broad grant of discretion increases the potential
for arbitrary, inconsistent, and discriminatory treatment of TANF
applicants and recipients. And indeed, advocates and researchers report
numerous examples of such problems under TANF. For example, advocates
in Wisconsin report that the degree of supportive services offered to
recipients and the leniency shown when rules are violated varies
significantly from region to region and caseworker to caseworker.\19\
When the decision whether to provide particular information or access
to particular programs lies entirely within a caseworker's discretion,
the potential for differential treatment for recipients and applicants
of different races or ethnicities (discussed above) is also magnified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Welfare Law Center, Due Process and Fundamental Fairness
in the Aftermath of Welfare Reform, Welfare News (September 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arbitrary and inconsistent treatment results in real harm to poor
families, causing applicants to be denied benefits or recipients to
lose benefits without cause. Bureaucratic whim should not cause
families to go hungry or lose their housing. Reauthorization must
balance the flexibility created by TANF with basic requirements that
states administer their programs according to consistent, written rules
regarding eligibility, sanctioning, provision of supportive services,
and screening for barriers to employment that all individual
administrators or caseworkers are obligated to follow. States that fail
to follow their own rules (or to ensure that private, county, or city
administrators follow state rules) should be subject to penalty.
Provide Fair Notice and Hearings
Fundamental fairness requires that recipients be given notice of
the rules governing their behavior before they can be held liable for
violating them. Fundamental fairness also demands that TANF recipients
whose benefits are being reduced or cut off be given written notice of
the reasons for this action prior to the reduction or termination, as
well as a meaningful opportunity to contest the adverse action. Such
procedural safeguards aid in accurate decisionmaking, as they help
ensure that states will not base sanctions or other benefit reductions
on erroneous information. They also help protect needy families from
losing benefits and being thrust into dire financial circumstances as
the result of errors, misunderstandings, or misinterpretations of
program rules.
TANF reauthorization should require that as a condition of receipt
of funds states institute essential procedural safeguards, including
provision of clear and adequate notice (with appropriate modifications
for limited English proficiency recipients or disabled recipients) of
an adverse action and provision of an opportunity to challenge such
actions through a fair hearing prior to the discontinuation of
benefits.
End Full Family Sanctions
Under PRWORA, many states have taken the option of punishing adult
TANF recipients' failure to comply with program and work requirements
through termination of all cash assistance to the family, including
assistance allotted to children. Punishing individuals for the actions
of others outside of their control violates core due process
principles, and the violation is even more egregious when the
individuals being punished are children. Reauthorizing legislation must
reject H.R. 240's proposal to make full family sanctions mandatory and
instead forbid states from instituting full family sanctions.
TANF REAUTHORIZATION MUST NOT ALLOW WAIVER OF CRUCIAL PROTECTIONS UNDER
FEDERAL LAW
Various reauthorization proposals include a demonstration project
provision, referred to as a ``superwaiver,'' that would grant broad
discretion to federal cabinet secretaries to allow states to waive a
host of statutory and regulatory requirements relating to programs
serving low-income individuals. Granting such authority to the
Executive without Congressional oversight or any means for independent
evaluation greatly undermines the separation of powers between the
Legislative and Executive branches of government because the Executive
could freely waive laws enacted by Congress.
While the language of such superwaiver provisions is vague, we
believe the superwaiver poses serious dangers to a broad cross-section
of federal programs and the people they serve. It would allow the
transfer of substantial resources from one program to another,
undermining congressional appropriations. For example, the Secretary of
Education could waive any rules related to federal education funding,
including formulas that direct resources to low-income children. More
significantly, the superwaiver could permit the elimination of
important protections for people served by federal programs (i.e.
public housing programs, programs for the homeless, food stamp
programs, adult education programs, child care and development
programs, etc.), with no opportunity for input or oversight on the part
of affected communities.
In conclusion, while welfare caseloads have fallen precipitously
since passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996, poverty rates have steadily risen
in recent years. The most current Census data show the largest jump in
child poverty in a decade and women's poverty increasing at a faster
rate than men's. In addition, a growing proportion of poor people are
living in extreme poverty, with incomes of less than half of poverty
level--more than at any time since 1975.\20\ In recent years,
employment rates for single mothers, the group primarily served by
TANF, have also fallen, with black single mothers faring the worst.\21\
TANF reauthorization must focus on changing these trends by lifting
women and children out of poverty, rather than simply shuttling them
off the welfare rolls. Making the changes outlined above will help
ensure that states address themselves to the problem of poverty and do
so in a way that respects the fundamental rights of those they serve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Census Data Show
Poverty Increased, Income Stagnated, and the Number of Uninsured Rose
to a Record Level in 2003 (August 27, 2004); National Women's Law
Center, NWLC Analysis of New Census Data Finds Poverty of Women and
Children Increases for Third Straight Year (August 26, 2004).
\21\ See Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Employment Rates
for Single Mothers Fell Substantially During Recent Period of Labor
Market Weakness (June 22, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this written statement for
the hearing record on welfare reform.
Statement of Jon Hobbs, American Institute for Full Employment, Klamath
Falls, Oregon
My name is Deborah Chassman, and I am providing comments on behalf
of the American Institute for Full Employment (AIFE), on the work and
self-sufficiency provisions contained in the House TANF reauthorization
legislation. As a consultant to the American Institute for Full
Employment, I am frequently called upon to advise and assist states to
operate programs that are more effective in moving individuals toward
self-sufficiency. In addition to consulting activities with AIFE, I
work directly with state and local governments, assisting them to plan,
implement, and refine welfare reform initiatives. I also teach a
seminar in Welfare Law and Policy at the George Mason University Law
School.
The American Institute for Full Employment firmly believes that,
with the right kinds of help, most adults can provide for their
families without welfare cash assistance. AIFE supports programs that
encourage employment and assist individuals to attain the work-related
skills that they need to obtain and retain unsubsidized jobs in our
economy.
AIFE's experience working with states reinforces the findings in
the evaluation literature that direct work activities are successful in
moving individuals from welfare to self-sufficiency. Frequently what
welfare clients lack is familiarity with the basic requirements of the
world of work. These individuals cannot obtain jobs because they do not
know how to conduct themselves at job interviews or to describe the
personal strengths and abilities they would utilize to perform well if
hired; they cannot retain jobs because they are not familiar with the
basic rules of workplace behavior. Short workshops providing a job
readiness curriculum can familiarize individuals with the basic skills
employers are seeking in new hires. A daily or weekly combination of
job readiness training and actual work experience can provide
individuals with all the necessary skills they need to obtain jobs.
Additional assistance can be provided, where needed, through case
management and mentoring, to assist new workers to retain their
employment. And educational advancements can be supported by state
welfare agencies and employers once a job is obtained.
AIFE is not opposed to providing job specific training. But in most
cases, this training does not require years of education. In fact, the
JOBS Plus subsidized work program we assisted the state of Oregon to
implement, was a successful on-the-job training program, where the
training period and the subsidy generally lasted only four to six
months. During this period, employers provided some direct training but
also, where needed, sponsored individuals attending skill-specific
training on a part-time basis. Even though Oregon selected individuals
for subsidized positions who were unable to obtain jobs without the
subsidy, over 80% of the subsidized workers obtained good unsubsidized
jobs either with their subsidized employer or another local business.
AIFE is now in the process of assisting the state of Hawaii to
institute a similar subsidized work program and employer response has
been extremely encouraging. They are listing good jobs with Hawaii's
Supporting Employment Empowerment (SEE) program and have expressed
willingness to hire and train individuals who lack previous work
experience.
AIFE reviewed a New York City program that contained requirements
very similar to the work requirements proposed by the legislation
introduced in the House of Representatives. Participants in New York
City were required to combine training and/or education with actual
work. New York City's 35 hour a week participation design permitted
contractors to utilize different models to combine work experience and
classroom training or education. Although the most usual model was a
mix of three days a week of work experience and two days a week of
classroom training, New York permitted providers to vary the exact
structure as long as the program basically maintained the same
relationship between work and training hours, and a contextual mix of
training and work or work experience. Whatever the exact design of the
mixed training/work experience model, workers interviewed by AIFE felt
that it was important to direct both the training and the work
experience toward the individual's chosen employment area.
Both the Oregon and the New York City programs recognize the
importance of contextual learning, particularly valuable for the TANF
population. The combination of skill-specific training with actual work
in the area of the training is a very powerful design mechanism.
Contextual training, as was provided in the New York program is an
excellent tool for assisting individuals to obtain good jobs and the
time limited nature of TANF makes such programs quite sensible. TANF is
a program that limits benefits to only 60 months in the whole lifetime
of the individual. Even if permitted, this does not provide enough time
for most high school drop-outs to obtain the remedial education they
need to enter a post-secondary program and to complete a college
degree. However, TANF does permit states to continue to provide
individuals with educational and training assistance once they leave
welfare, and AIFE supports state action to do this.
Moreover, although I as a part-time educator am reluctant to admit
this, many individuals on welfare do not benefit very much from non-
contextual basic education programs provided prior to beginning
employment. One reason why this is so is few individuals who lack basic
educational skills are able to achieve GED certificates. A University
study I reviewed reported that in one state only 6 percent of welfare
clients who entered a basic education program with very low skills
passed the GED, while about 30 percent of those who entered without a
high school diploma but strong reading and math skills were able to
pass the exam. Based on these findings, the University study indicated
that a key policy question was whether some TANF participants would be
more productive in activities other than basic education.
MDRC reported overall GED achievement of only 16.5 percent over a
five-year period in the NEWWS evaluation sites, and noted that those
who achieved this credential were likely to be individuals who entered
the program with literacy skills at or close to the high school level.
Furthermore, both MDRC and the above cited University study question
whether obtaining a GED increases employment and earnings. It appears
that employment and earnings gains are only achieved if an individual
receives vocational training after passing the GED and, unfortunately,
very few welfare participants complete this sequence.
AIFE also supports the requirements in the legislation for more
immediate work entry. In fact, ideally individuals should test the
labor market before they become dependent on welfare. Thus, AIFE
supports state efforts to provide employment assistance services to
divert work-ready applicants from welfare, and we have encouraged
states to establish up-front work programs that individuals enter when
they first apply for TANF. Diversion programs can provide individuals
with jobs and prevent dependence on welfare.
New York City's diversion program utilized vendors under contract
with the City to provide employment-related services to applicants, and
applicants had to participate in the program to become eligible for
TANF.
We are currently assisting the state of Hawaii to implement their
work diversion program. In Hawaii individuals applying for TANF are
first sent to register with an employment provider. They spend up to
four months in a 32 hour saturation program receiving work readiness
training, and assistance with job search. Very short-term contextual
computer skill training is being added to the curriculum, because many
individuals have no familiarity at all with computer functions, and
Hawaii's contractor believes it will be able to widen the scope of
available jobs if individuals are able to demonstrate basic keyboard
competency. Individuals who do not quickly obtain an unsubsidized job
are placed in subsidized work or in short-term work experience
assignments to prepare them for employment.
Some individuals obtain full-time employment during the four month
period and are earning enough so that they never enter into the TANF
cash program. These families can obtain assistance from Hawaii with
child care and health care. Individuals who obtain only part-time
employment or are unable to obtain unsubsidized work during the four
months are entered into the time-limited TANF program and immediately
placed with a ``First to Work'' employment counselor to continue to
pursue self-sufficiency activities. Hawaii believes that the lack of
success in the four months of up-front employment-related activities
provides counselors with valuable assessment information, and that the
up-front program will make counselors better able to design activities
that support employment entry.
Although Hawaii has embraced the diversion program, the state has
expressed concern that it will not receive full credit for families
which it diverts from TANF. For example, although individuals
participate full-time in the New York City and Hawaii diversion
programs, since they are not welfare recipients neither jurisdiction
can claim their participation to help them meet TANF work participation
requirements. This is because the family will never be entered into the
TANF program and so will not directly show up as a family that has left
the caseload. AIFE hopes that reauthorization legislation will provide
incentives for other states to join Hawaii in sponsoring up-front work
diversion, by finding a way to more fully credit states for diverting
individuals and their families from dependence on welfare.
Although AIFE supports strong work requirements, we are concerned
that the difficulty in obtaining full-time work participation for 70%
of all recipients may produce perverse incentives. For example, under
the current program, 23 states have created ``separate state programs''
using maintenance of effort (MOE) rather than TANF money to pay two-
parent families, to avoid the extremely difficult to meet 90% two-
parent work participation requirements.
In addition, states also provide benefits under separate state
programs to other populations which are difficult to serve to avoid
time limits and work participation requirements for these hard-to-serve
groups. For the most part the states then ignore individuals placed in
such programs, recognizing that they are more costly to serve and that
if served the success rate will probably be less robust than for more
work-ready welfare recipients. The trend to shunt aside hard-to-serve
population is likely to intensify with a 70% all-family participation
requirement. Yet it is the hard-to-serve clients who most need the
services that states can provide. AIFE would like to see
reauthorization legislation eliminate disincentives to serve those who
most need help and instead offer incentives for states to provide
services to those who need them most.
Our reviews of state programs provide support for the House
provision requiring states to implement full-family sanctions. We have
been struck by the frustration of workers in partial sanction states,
who find themselves unable to assist so-called ``happily sanctioned''
adults to obtain employment services. While forcing their families to
live on sanction-reduced grants, partial sanctions make it easy for
these individuals to avoid work participation. But how do the children
fare when the family has less money for food and rent; and what happens
to the children when the five years that the family can receive welfare
benefits runs out, and their parents still lack work skills and work
experience?
In our reviews we have seen no instance where states deliberately
utilize full family sanctions harshly, to penalize clients for failure
to participate. Rather, the workers we have interviewed in full-family
sanction states advise that they use such sanctions as useful tools to
motivate individuals to comply with participation requirements.
Although full-family sanctions can be used effectively to motivate
participation in self-sufficiency activities, workers in full-family
sanction states do point out that full-family sanctions that they are
required to continue for a minimum number of months limit their ability
to immediately return to work participation activities individuals who
have become willing to comply. Welfare clients like the rest of us are
rational economic actors and so are unlikely to resume compliance when
doing so will not restore their family's benefits.
In summary the American Institute for Full Employment supports many
of the work-related provisions in the pending legislation, since they
encourage work and self-sufficiency.
Statement of Lori Valencia Greene, American Psychological Association
The American Psychological Association (APA) maintain that in order
for welfare reform efforts to be successful, critically needed mental
health and substance abuse services must be readily available and
accessible to help women to overcome barriers to work and achieve
economic self-Sufficiency.
Since enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), there have been dramatic decreases
in the numbers of families who receive Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families (TANF) block grant funds. However, women who face multiple
barriers to obtaining and maintaining employment have been the least
likely to achieve economic self-sufficiency. According to the 2000
University of Michigan's Women's Employment Study, barriers to
employment for these women include mental health and/or substance abuse
problems, the lack of a high school diploma, transportation
difficulties, health concerns (theirs and/or their children's), and
domestic violence. Following are some of APA's most significant
recommendations for provisions to be included in TANF reauthorization
legislation:
1. Provide screening and treatment for mental health and substance
abuse problem.
Rationale: Mental health and substance abuse problems represent
significant obstacles to employment and economic self-sufficiency for
women receiving TANF benefits. TANF clients with mental health
problems, if not identified and treated, are more likely to continue to
require public assistance over a long period of time. A 1998 Department
of Health and Human Services (DHHS) study reports national estimates of
up to 28% of TANF clients with mental health problems, and state and
local estimates of up to 39%. Major depression is the most common
mental health problem among TANF clients, followed by posttraumatic
stress disorder (PTSD) and generalized anxiety. Mental health and
substance abuse problems can affect employment directly through
absenteeism, illness, injury, reduced capacity, and lost productivity,
or indirectly through lowered self esteem and self concept. TANF
recipients may be especially reluctant to disclose mental health and
substance abuse problems for fear they will lose their children, their
TANF benefits, or both.
Recommendation: States should develop a plan to ensure that
standards and procedures are in place to address the needs of
individuals who face barriers to work such as, but not limited to, a
mental health problem (including learning disabilities), substance
abuse problem, physical impairment, and/or have been subjected to
domestic or sexual violence. The state plan must ensure that:
Trained caseworkers or qualified professionals conduct a
preliminary screening and assessment of each TANF client. If the client
is identified as experiencing a barrier to work, the caseworker or
professional must refer, at the client's option, the client and her
family for appropriate mental health or substance abuse treatment,
counseling, vocational rehabilitation, and/or job training. Such
services must be individualized and appropriate for families, gender-
specific, and culturally competent. Support services, such as child
care and transportation, must also be offered to help ensure
accessibility to the other services.
For those clients for whom treatment or services are
unavailable, the five-year benefits clock must stop until the treatment
or services are available.
The caseworker or qualified professional assigned to the
client's case must collaborate with employment case managers, with the
client's consent, to ensure that the client receives integrated,
comprehensive services.
2. Repeal the lifetime ban on cash assistance and food stamps for
individuals convicted of a state or federal felony offense involving
the use or sale of drugs.
Rationale: This ban undermines the efforts of mothers to overcome
addiction, develop essential marketable skills, become more productive
members of their communities, attain economic self-sufficiency, and
provide a safe and healthy environment for their children. As women
return to their communities, it is counterproductive to endanger their
access to food, housing, and clothing for themselves and their children
while they are trying to enter or complete substance abuse treatment
programs or maintain recovery for addiction.
Recommendation: The ban should be repealed so that women with
substance abuse problems can be referred for treatment and obtain vital
TANF and food stamps.
3. Urge states to adopt the Family Violence Option (FVO)
Rationale: The FVO allows states to screen recipients for domestic
violence victimization, provide referrals to specialized services, and
provide good cause waivers from the five-year lifetime limit on TANF
assistance and mandatory work requirements. Only 36 states and the
District of Columbia have adopted all or part of the option, and two
states have authorized at the county level. Women who have experienced
intimate violence, either as children or in their adult lives,
frequently suffer from low self esteem, PTSD, substance abuse, and
homelessness. They are more likely to be unemployed and exhibit high
rates of job turnover. Failure to identify and address issues of
violence leaves victims at greater risk both for more violence and for
long-term poverty. Because disclosing violence in their lives is risky
for low-income women, accurate assessment of the prevalence of violence
is difficult to obtain. A report for DHHS provides estimates that up to
65% of TANF clients have experienced intimate violence in their lives.
Recommendation: DHHS should create incentives for states to adopt
the FVO. In addition, states should provide exemptions to, and
extensions of, time limits to all women identified as victims of past,
recent, and/or current abuse.
4. Include mandatory state and federal data collection, evaluation, and
reporting provisions of referrals and services, especially
those regarding mental health and/or substance abuse.
Rationale: Although there have been studies of how individual
states have addressed the needs of TANF clients with substance abuse
and/or mental health problems, states do not routinely report this
information. Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether or not
TANF clients are receiving the necessary services to overcome barriers
to economic self-sufficiency.
Recommendation: The reauthorization of TANF should include state
and federal mandatory data collection, evaluation, and reporting
provisions for referrals and services, especially those regarding
mental health and substance abuse. The DHHS Secretary should:
review programs receiving funding from the TANF block
grant or funded with maintenance of efforts funds to determine the
amount of funds spent on services, including, but not limited to,
mental health services, substance abuse treatment, domestic violence
counseling, and rehabilitation for people with physical disabilities;
and
Evaluate the process of referral, such as, but not
limited to, whether recipients received referrals and services, and how
such services affected their economic status.
Statement of Douglas W. Nelson, Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore,
Maryland
Thank you for this opportunity to submit written testimony to the
Human Resources Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means of the
U.S. House of Representatives, regarding the ``Personal Responsibility,
Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2005'' (H.R. 240), which would
reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block
grant.
I am Douglas W. Nelson, President of the Annie E. Casey Foundation
of Baltimore, Maryland, a national philanthropy devoted to improving
the circumstances and life outcomes for disadvantaged children and
families. This testimony is submitted on behalf of the Casey Foundation
and a consortium of other national funders interested in the well-being
of the nation's children and families and how TANF can contribute to
their well-being.
Our testimony focuses narrowly on one provision of H.R. 240:
section 116(a)(1)(a), which would authorize $10 million annually for
the Bureau of the Census to:
implement or enhance a longitudinal survey of program
participation, . . . to allow for the assessment of the
outcomes of continued welfare reform on the economic and child
well-being of low-income families with children, . . . and, to
the extent possible, shall provide State representative
samples. The content of the survey should include such
information as may be necessary to examine the issues of out-
of-wedlock childbearing, marriage, welfare dependency and
compliance with work requirements, the beginning and ending of
spells of assistance, work, earnings and employment stability,
and the well-being of children. (emphasis added)
Under H.R. 240, the overarching goal of TANF would be to increase
the flexibility of states in operating a program designed to improve
child well-being. We applaud that goal and believe that better state-
level data on TANF and other devolved safety net programs are needed,
both for managing the programs and for monitoring their consequences
and outcomes, especially with regard to the well-being of our nation's
most vulnerable children and families. Yet H.R. 240 would devote the
$10 million not for data useful to all of the states administering
fifty TANF programs with widely varying policies, characteristics, and
environments, but rather to a research survey designed for analysis at
the national level, with state-representative samples in only a dozen
or so of the largest states.
As national philanthropies, we believe in and are working toward
the promising possibility of a ``joint funding'' opportunity between
our institutions and the federal government regarding the child well-
being survey provisions of H.R. 240. Specifically, we think that timely
and reliable state-level data would be so valuable that if the bill
were to provide funding for a state-level cross-sectional survey on
child and family well-being we would be prepared to commit in excess of
$1 million annually in the analysis and dissemination of the data under
section 116(a)(1)(a), as part of a significant private/public
partnership.
The survey we propose would allow the provision and dissemination
of important data and information relative to the implications of TANF
for the well-being of children and families in each and every state,
rather than just the dozen or so feasible in the current provision. As
representatives of several of the nation's largest private
philanthropies, we approach this issue from the perspective of wanting
to ensure that state policy-makers have the tools they need to
implement, manage and monitor key elements of TANF and other health and
social programs that have devolved to the state level. Our
organizations invest many millions of dollars annually in this effort,
and we want it to be as effective as possible.
A state-level cross-sectional survey would ensure sample sizes of
at least 2,000 households with children in each and every state,
providing states with an invaluable resource to everyone concerned
about the well-being of children and families. By contrast, under the
current provision, sample sizes in more than half the states would be
so small as to preclude state-level analyses on low-income children and
families. Only a handful of states--California, Texas, New York,
Florida, and Illinois--would have sample sizes close to 2,000 or
larger. Disproportionately represented among the states with inadequate
sample sizes under SIPP would be the nation's less-populated and
relatively rural states, including Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii,
Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon,
South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Moreover, data
from a cross-sectional survey would be available to state policy-makers
on a far more timely basis than those of a national longitudinal study,
a matter of months instead of years.
We do recognize the value of a national-level longitudinal survey--
one that would provide national scholars and think tank researchers
with very detailed data for a few states and the nation as a whole.
Better national data on TANF and other devolved safety net programs are
unquestionably important, both for managing the programs and for
evaluating their consequences and outcomes, especially with regard to
the well-being of disadvantaged children and families. The ideal
situation would be to make resources available to support both types of
surveys. If, however, funds are available for only one, we believe it
is critically important to ensure that hard-pressed policy-makers, TANF
administrators, the media, and the public in all fifty states have
timely and reliable state-specific data to inform their on-going
management and monitoring of TANF and related programs. This point is
further reinforced to the extent that additional federal-to-state
devolution of health and social programs affecting child and family
well-being occurs. As program responsibility devolves, so should the
data.
Just one example will show how important state level data is to
furthering the goals of this legislation. H.R. 240 contains numerous
provisions intended to encourage and facilitate the formation and
sustenance of healthy marriages and intact two-parent families, as well
as the avoidance of non-marital and teenage pregnancies, as important
ways to improve the well-being of children. Recognizing that we lack
reliable data about how best to achieve those goals, the proposed bill
would encourage states to adopt a variety of different approaches and
initiatives. Yet, the national level survey funded under H.R. 240 would
be virtually worthless in helping state TANF administrators to either
manage their healthy marriage and family formation programs or to
assess the degree to which their efforts are succeeding. By definition,
a national-level survey cannot provide state-specific outcome data on
this or any other aspect of the TANF program the way a state-level
survey can.
That is why we are prepared to step up and jointly fund this effort
and to discuss with you what such a jointly funded program would look
like. We are willing to make this $1 million commitment because we
believe in the critical importance of state-specific data designed to
help state-level TANF managers and policy-makers.
We hope that this analysis is helpful to you. Our effort is to
inform you of pertinent facts and the results of different outcomes. We
are mindful of the federal lobbying restrictions on private foundations
and express no opinion on the merits of any particular bill. We do
believe, however, the exception for jointly funded projects--at
Sec. 53.4945-2(a)(3)--provides us an opportunity to testify on this
important issue.
If you or your staff have any questions or wish to discuss this
further, please do not hesitate to contact any of us at your
convenience. Again, thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony
on this important matter.
Statement of Deborah A. Frank, Boston Medical Center, Boston,
Massachusetts
Distinguished chairman and members of the committee, I write on
behalf of my young patients and my colleagues. I am one of many
pediatric clinicians who daily treat sick and hungry children in
America. I am also one of the Principal Investigators with other
pediatric researchers in the Children's Sentinel Nutrition Assessment
Program (C-SNAP) initially funded by a grant from the W.K. Kellogg
Foundation and other private donors. Since 1998 we have monitored the
impact of current public policies and economic conditions on the
nutritional and health status of low income children less than 3 years
old in six medical institutions serving Baltimore, Boston, Little Rock,
Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Washington DC. As busy policy makers you
probably do not have time to peruse the pediatric and nutrition
journals, but before you vote on H.R. 240, the Personal Responsibility,
Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2005, you need to know that the
medical evidence suggests that this measure entails unintended but
grave risks to the health of your youngest constituents. The special
needs of infants, toddlers, and chronically ill children are not, as
far as I know, reflected in any of the non-medical evaluations of
welfare reform to which the committee web site refers. I would like to
dedicate this testimony to the children I treat for malnutrition at
Boston Medical Center, many of whom are from families who have
experienced welfare sanctions.
We and researchers in other disciplines have found that, except for
white, non-Hispanics, the number of American children who experience
food insecurity has increased since the start of the 21st century. As
you know, food insecurity is defined by the federal government as
limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate safe foods
or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially
acceptable ways. While we have found that little children in working
poor families and those with stable TANF benefits experience
unacceptable levels of food insecurity, it is particularly concerning
that this health risk is increased a further 50% for young children in
families who experienced welfare sanctions, whether full family or
partial, including simply having a child subject to the child exclusion
(family cap) provision. Even without sanctions, the risk of food
insecurity is increased 37% for families whose benefits are reduced for
purely administrative reasons. Dr. John Cook and the rest of our C-SNAP
team initially published this finding in an article in the 2002
Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, which I would request to
insert in the record. These data were based on results from 2,718
children evaluated from August 1998-December 2000. We more recently
reassessed these findings among 4,430 infants and toddlers seen through
mid-2004 and the magnitude of increased risk was identical.
Why are we as pediatricians so deeply concerned about increasing
``food insecurity'' among these families whose welfare benefits are
sanctioned or reduced? Because food insecurity is a serious health
problem! Food insecure children are prone to the infection-malnutrition
cycle increasing their risk of severe illness and hospitalization. A
lack of essential nutrients impairs the body's ability to heal and
decreases immune function causing a child to be more susceptible to
illness. With any acute illness, most children lose weight and need,
after recovery, to eat more than usual to regain lost weight and resume
normal weight gain. Because food insecure families cannot provide the
extra food children require to regain weight after an illness, the
child becomes more malnourished and more susceptible to the next
infection. It is this infection-malnutrition cycle which in settings
without adequate medical care leads to the death of malnourished
children. In this country the cycle often manifests in preventable
recurrent illness and a need for costly therapeutic health resources.
It is important to note that food insecurity even in the absence of
outright hunger injures children's health. C-SNAP data show that young
children in food insecure households with hunger are 2.3 times more
likely to be in fair or poor health than children in food secure
households. Children in food insecure households without hunger are
still 1.7 times more likely to be in fair or poor health than children
in food secure households. We have consistently found that after
considering background family characteristics, young children in food
insecure families (whether or not they have a history of TANF
participation) are 30% more likely than their peers in food secure
families to be hospitalized before the age of 3 years. As would be
expected from the physiology of food insecurity that I just outlined,
these children from food insecure families are more likely than their
peers to be hospitalized for severe respiratory and gastrointestinal
infections. Those of you who as parents or grandparents have sat long
hours by the bed of a hospitalized baby or child can readily imagine
the suffering this entails for parents and their children. What you may
not realize is how very expensive such excess hospitalizations are for
us all as taxpayers--the average cost of a brief 3-4 day pediatric
hospitalization is more than $11,000.
Food insecurity during the period of most rapid growth of body and
brain in early life can also have lasting effects, even if the
families' economic situation eventually improves to the point where
they are no longer food insecure. Children in food insecure households
are at increased risk not only for short term infections but for
persistent deficits in cognitive development, and behavioral and
emotional problems that can impede their future success in school and
their later productivity as adults in the workforce.
Paradoxically, food insecurity may also place older children at
risk for being overweight or obese. In order to prevent hunger, food
insecure families often sacrifice the quality of the food they eat to
get enough quantity to prevent the sensation of hunger, particularly in
their children. Low nutrient quality cheap foods with high calories and
fat content will prevent a child from experiencing painful pangs of
hunger, but they do not protect the child from nutrient deficiencies
that put the child at risk for being overweight.
While I reflect pediatricians' special concerns about infants and
toddlers, other colleagues have reported deeply troubling data about
the potential impact of increased work requirements on caregivers of
chronically ill children of any age. Families on welfare are more
likely than other poor families to have children with chronic illness.
These children miss more days of school and have more scheduled and
urgent doctor visits, emergency department visits and hospitalizations
than other children. Their home medical regimens require substantial
parental involvement to keep them healthy. When chronically ill
children get sick, their primary caregivers have the experience and
expertise to care for them. The primary caregivers know their complete
medical histories, are able to recognize subtle early signs of illness,
know how their illness episode should be managed at home and when to
seek urgent medical care. Substitute caregivers will likely not have
the necessary experience, expertise or inclination to care for these
children when they are ill.
Low-income families whose children are chronically ill face
substantial challenges in finding appropriate day care for their
children. In a study of current and former welfare recipients with
chronically ill children, my colleague Dr. Lauren Smith found that 40%
of current welfare recipients had difficulty finding appropriate child
care because of their child's condition and 34% indicate that
difficulty in finding adequate day care for their children is a
substantial barrier to employment. She and her co-authors have also
found that 60% of current recipients and 80% of former recipients have
missed work due to their child's illness, and 75% of these parents
report that their child's illness is a substantial barrier to finding
and keeping a job. Her team also found that over time, chronically ill
children experiencing household hardships, such as food insecurity,
utility disconnections and housing problems were found to have
increases in subsequent emergency department visits and
hospitalizations.
I am aware of a distressing case from Boston Medical Center where I
work of a chronically ill little girl who died while in the care of an
adolescent sibling while her mother was out of the home trying to work
to avoid welfare sanctions. I anticipate that the proposed increased
work requirements in bill H.R. 240 will lead to other similar
preventable tragedies as well as less obvious but serious deterioration
in the well-being of infants, toddlers, and chronically ill children.
These particularly vulnerable children would then consume even more
medical resources, experience further preventable disability, and
experience more difficulties functioning in school and in the
workplace.
Knowing this medical information, you can understand why
pediatricians around the country are so gravely concerned about the
prospect of inflicting food insecurity upon more families with young
and chronically ill children via mandated full-family sanctions if
parents cannot meet the more stringent work requirements outlined in
H.R. 240.
To use a medical analogy, H.R. 240 proposes a ``treatment'' for
America's most impoverished families that has an unacceptable risk
benefit profile. Requiring more families to participate in work
activities and imposing longer work hours may result in mitigating
deprivation for a few children whose parents are lucky enough to
succeed in finding and keeping adequately paid work. However, many more
families, particularly those with young or chronically ill children, or
with parents burdened with poor mental and physical health, cognitive
impairments, or sequelae of physical and sexual abuse will lose all
income for their survival needs. The side effects of H.R. 240's
increased and unrealistic work requirements are predictably the
exposure of more families and children to mandated full family
sanctions and thus to food insecurity, ill health, and excess
hospitalizations.
If there was a medical treatment, which possibly helped some
patients and predictably and possibly irreversibly injured others, we
as physicians would be bound to do an extremely careful and
individualized assessment of each patient before applying the
treatment. If the treatment were to be applied, we would use the lowest
possible dose, and closely follow up and monitor those who received the
treatment to try to reverse it if harm emerged. I would urge you to
take a similarly thoughtful approach to issues of welfare reform, with
avoidance of unrealistic work requirements on families suffering
barriers to meaningful employment, particularly those with young or
chronically ill children. Clearly full family sanctions should be
avoided, since our data show even partial sanctions, like the family
cap, have adverse effects on young children. Just as a hazardous cancer
treatment must first be reviewed by a tumor board before being
undertaken, any proposed sanctions could be reviewed by a third party
and a sanction avoidance plan devised to help families to overcome
barriers to compliance. If a family does experience sanctions, repeated
follow-up and assessment of the safety and well being of affected
families and their children should be mandatory.
In closing, I cannot imagine that the distinguished members of this
committee really intend to make America's babies hungrier and sicker.
You now know the medical data that demonstrate declining welfare
caseloads do not automatically indicate an improvement in the well-
being of American children. On the contrary, families who leave welfare
because of sanctions or who have their benefits reduced before they
have reached family stability are more likely to have hungry, sick
children.
H.R. 240 will inevitably increase the number of children exposed to
sanctions. If you pass a bill that triggers a ``sanctions epidemic,''
hungrier and sicker children will incur more health care costs in the
short term and be less likely in the long term to succeed in school and
participate productively in the future workforce. The lives of these
children are in your hands as much as if you stood over them with a
surgical scalpel, and I urge you, as we always urge new doctors,
``primo no nocere!'' (First do no harm!).
Statement of Fred Burg, West Long Branch, New Jersey
Honorable Chair and Members of the Committee:
I submit this statement on behalf of no specific individual or
entity other than myself but please recognize that what I say below
affects many people in the same or similar situation. All of what I say
below is based on personal experience.
The situation is one of being a father with two great children and
an ex-wife. My concerns have nothing to do with them but with a system
that works fine most of the time. But when it doesn't work, it is very
hard to fix. As is said, ``the devil's in the details.''
I live in New Jersey but would suspect that the issues I address
are not local to the Garden State. As a result of my divorce, I have a
child support order to fulfill; my alimony obligation no longer exists
since my ex-wife was remarried about five years ago. However, my
comments relate to the process surrounding both child support and
alimony. I have worked with my New Jersey legislators with regard to
some of these issues and they have introduced legislation to address
them. In doing so, I worked with the New Jersey Office of Legislative
Services (OLS). I was told that they believe they are constrained in
what they can do because of Federal statutes. Therefore, I have also
worked with Congressman Holt and Former Senator Toricelli on this in
2002. At the time, the opportunity to effect changes was fleeting and
passed before anything could be done. Therefore, I appreciate the
opportunity to provide these comments at this time to get the details
right.
As a result of looking at the web site of the Ways and Means
Committee, I have directed my comments against H.R. 3734 and P.L. 104-
193. My comments are nevertheless applicable to whatever appropriate
legislation is being considered that addresses the issues concerning
the process of wage garnishments to cover support obligations. In H.R.
3734, the corresponding legislation is found in Title III.
The details I speak of fall into the following categories:
1. Wage Garnishment Process Between Obligor's Employer and a State
Disbursement Agency:
When a wage garnishment is set up between an obligor's employer and
a state disbursement agency, one would expect that the process should
operate correctly. In fact, I count on it and appreciate being relieved
of the burden of having to remember to send a check to the state
disbursement agency and from dealing with my ex-wife if she doesn't
receive the check.
But it is not inconceivable that something might go awry between
the obligor's employer and the state disbursement agency. It happened
to me not once but twice (what are the odds). All I knew at the time
was that my paycheck was garnished for the correct amount and I was
counting on my employer and the state disbursement agency to make sure
that the funds got to the right place. I had no proof that this
actually happened. It turns out that both times the check from my
employer to the state disbursement agency was unduly delayed. In turn,
the state disbursement agency came after me.
Since Title III of H.R. 3734 describes a process in which a wage
garnishment can be set up between an obligor's employer and a state
disbursement agency to ensure payment of a child support obligation, I
am asking that the legislation contain wording that removes an obligor
from any responsibility of ensuring that the process of sending funds
is actually working and from being called on to pay twice when it is
not working. What can an obligor do to make the process work,
especially if they don't even know it's broken? Even if an obligor
wanted to, it would be too late to affect some of the penalties that a
state disbursement agency can invoke for late payments. Further, the
``stock'' answer of ``pay it twice and sort out the details later'' is
not feasible--for one thing, an obligor may not be in a very good
financial position to pay it twice.
Specifically, the wording should suspend the ability of a state
disbursement agency to invoke any and all penalties of an obligor
(e.g., those listed in Subtitle G of Title III of H.R. 3734) or even
suggesting there are arrearages while a valid wage garnishment is in
place and funds have been flowing from an obligor's employer to the
state disbursement agency. It should be the responsibility of the state
disbursement agency to deal with the obligor's employer to determine
the problem and fix it. It should be required to inform the obligor
that such a problem exists and to let him/her know that the state
disbursement agency is working with the obligor's employer to fix it
but that no further action is needed by the obligor. Of course, the
state disbursement agency should also inform the obligor when the
problem is resolved.
I have heard it said that an employer and employee/obligor may be
in ``cahoots'' to thwart a child support obligation--this being a
reason for not removing the obligation from an obligor even when a
valid wage garnishment is in place. I can't speak to that. I worked for
a very large corporation which would not do that and I wouldn't have
known how to begin to enter into such subterfuge even if I had wanted
to. However, that is penalizing many of us because of the few bad
apples. There is already language in Title III of H.R. 3734 (see
Section 313) that penalizes an employer for not providing information
about new employees to the State Directory of New Hires. I would ask
that those penalties be widened to cover any cases where an employer
purposely works to thwart the process of providing validly garnished
funds based on a court support order to the state disbursement agency.
Do not penalize the rest of us when the process breaks.
Since the flow of funds between an obligor's employer and a state
disbursement agency may very well be across state lines and/or involve
employees of the U.S. government, I feel this is an appropriate concern
to be addressed by Federal legislation.
2. Interactions Between a State Disbursement Agency and Credit Bureaus:
There are several areas under this heading that must be addressed.
In dealing with the NJ OLS, this was an area that it felt particularly
constrained to legislate because of the national nature of Credit
Bureaus.
(A) Reporting Arrearages to a Credit Bureau:
Reporting obligor's arrearages is one of the penalties that can be
invoked per Subtitle G of Title III of H.R. 3734 (see Section 367). I
have no problem with this but again the devil is in the details.
As already mentioned, all penalties for non-payment of a child
support order should be suspended if a valid garnishment is in place.
However, a state disbursement agency needs to put in place some
additional details to make this work in practice. For example, is a
warning issued to the obligor? Is the warning one-time or on a per non-
payment basis?
In the case of New Jersey, its state disbursement agency instituted
a policy that an obligor got one warning--period. In my case, the
warning, which I did not even recognize as such, came when the account
was first being set up and neither my employer nor I could send funds
directly to the state before the account was established. In the
interim (a period of about 2-3 months), I sent checks directly to my
ex-wife. My ex-wife did inform the state disbursement agency that she
had received the checks and there were no arrearages. However,
according to the state disbursement agency, the warning that it sent me
during this establishment period was my one and only ``lifetime''
warning. Therefore, when the process problems mentioned earlier
occurred, they immediately informed the credit bureaus that I was in
arrears of child support.
Therefore, I would ask that wording be added to Section 367 to
protect against this type of event. The wording could state that a
state disbursement agency must inform an obligor that it will report
arrearages to a credit bureau and provide due process for contesting
this. Further, such informing must occur on each instance of arrearage.
It would be satisfactory if arrearages occurring over several
consecutive payments were treated as one occurrence. In my case, the
two occurrences of a problem happened years apart, yet I had used up my
one ``lifetime'' warning even before the first occurrence!
(B) Other Interactions Between a State Disbursement Agency and a Credit
Bureau:
Section 352 of H.R. 3734 also provides the ability for the head of
a state disbursement agency (or his/her designate) to obtain a credit
report about the obligor from a credit bureau. Again, I have no
problems with this but the devil is in the details.
Let me mention that a state disbursement agency may also make an
enquiry of an obligor's account at a credit bureau. That is, they may
look at the account for various purposes. In my case, the state
disbursement agency looked at my account in an attempt to remove its
report of arrearages as noted above. This just compounded the problem.
I recall the head of the agency telling me he had good news and bad
news: the good news was that he had seen the erroneous report of
arrearages and was going to send a letter to the credit bureau to
remove that since there were no arrearages; the bad news was that in
looking at my credit account, the very action had created an entry that
a ``state disbursement agency was looking at the account.'' In
interacting with both the state disbursement agency and the credit
bureau, they both attempted to downplay this by saying the enquiry
would ``only'' remain on my account for three years, that it was for my
protection, and that I could put an explanation in the record. However,
the damage was done. There was now an entry on my credit report with a
warning that ``there are accounts listed that contain adverse
information which may be interpreted negatively by a credit grantor.''
Listed there was the state disbursement agency based on just looking at
my account in an attempt to ascertain and correct its problems as
already described.
Therefore, I would ask that any interactions, other than the
reporting of arrearages, between a state disbursement agency and a
credit bureau be prohibited from being added to an obligor's credit
report. At a minimum, they should not be visible to others who look at
the account. Further, the state disbursement agency must inform the
obligor ahead of time of each instance, including the reason, of any
interactions between it and a credit bureau to give the obligor an
opportunity to contest the need for such interaction.
3. Termination of Support Obligation:
At some point in time, an obligor's support obligation will be
terminated. In the case of child support, this occurs at emancipation
of the child. I am not going to talk about the events that result in
emancipation but just say that it does occur.
However, it is noted that Section 362 of H.R. 3734 does not require
a variation of pay cycles to meet a support obligation of a Federal
employee. States recognize this also. In doing so, an employer may
continue to operate its payroll system on its regular cycle and forward
funds to the state disbursement agency when the payroll system normally
runs. So, for example, a monthly paid obligor has a month worth of
obligations garnished when the payroll system runs even if the support
order is on a weekly basis. Usually, the support order stipulates that
the funds are due ahead of time (e.g., funds for the month of February
are due on February 1 and, therefore, the garnishment occurs when the
obligor is paid for January).
The problem here is that the child may be emancipated in February,
say February 3. By the time a state disbursement agency has ``turned
off'' the garnishment, the January funds for February have already been
sent to the obligee. Further, additional pay cycles may pass before the
garnishment is ``turned off.'' The latter issue (additional pay cycles
passing) may be addressable if the state disbursement agency agrees to
freeze the account; it may not be so addressable. In the mean time, an
obligor has paid support for an emancipated child. One may argue that
the obligor should not have a problem supporting a child even beyond
emancipation. That is true but it should be the choice of the obligor
to do so.
The issue to be addressed is the payment of funds for a child that
has been emancipated. If emancipation occurs, say, February 3, then 25
days of support have been paid based on the garnishment in place on
January 31 that are not owned. If there is another child for whom
support is being paid, then the 25 days of support paid for the
emancipated child should go as a credit for the unemancipated child and
the obligor should have a method to recover any excess funds directly
from the state disbursement agency. But even this is not to be taken
for granted since the state disbursement agency may say that it does
not ``pro-rate'' support. I feel this to be unreasonable.
What if the emancipated child was the last child? The state
disbursement agency has already sent a check to the obligee. In my
case, they tell me they are not a bank; once the funds are sent to my
ex-wife, they have no funds to reimburse me for any overpayment. They
even go further as to suggest that they do not pro-rate support anyway,
as mentioned. Even if my child was emancipated on February 3, they
consider that the funds were payable for the entire month. If the pay
cycle is on a weekly basis and the support order is also on a weekly
basis, this may not be so bad. But the longer the pay cycle is relative
to the support order, the more ``exposure'' an obligor has to
overpayment once a child is emancipated.
Therefore, the solution is simple. If overpayment has occurred as
described above and such overpayment can be credited to support of an
unemancipated child, then this should be done. Recovery of any excess
due to the former garnishment (based on the now emancipated child)
still being in place can and should be handled between the state
disbursement agency and the obligor but pro-rating of the support must
be required. If overpayment can not be credited against an
unemancipated child because there are no longer such children, then it
becomes the requirement of the obligee, who may no longer live in the
same state as the obligor, to make such a refund to the obligor. Any
and all penalties, (e.g., withholding of licenses, reporting to credit
bureaus, etc.) mentioned in Sections 367-370 of H.R. 3734 with respect
to an obligor should now be applicable to an obligee in this instance.
In a related scenario, there may be several state disbursement
agencies involved in a garnishment if a family has moved across state
boundaries. For example, an order is entered in NJ; after a time, the
custodial parent moves with the children to Pennsylvania while the non-
custodial parent moves to NY. For some amount of time, there may be a
garnishment in NJ based on the original order while NY sets up its own
garnishment. Hopefully, this will work out and I recognize there is
language in Section 322 of H.R. 3734 that deals with multiple state
disbursement agencies for the same obligor and child. However, this is
leaving it to chance and, as demonstrated, the devil is in the details.
Further, the obligor has multiple wage garnishments in place for the
same child and may not be able to afford such. I would not count on
multiple state disbursement agencies working cooperatively to quickly
resolve this. Therefore, the same crediting process and obligee refund
requirement as stated above should apply to this scenario as well.
Other language to require the applicable state disbursement agencies to
resolve the overpayment in an expedited process would be useful.
4. Time Frame For Responding to State Disbursement Agency Notices:
Although this may seem minor, the consequences are very
significant.
In various parts of H.R. 3734, there are time periods that apply
for various actions. For example, there is a 30-day period to contest a
triennial (or more frequent) Cost of Living Adjustment (Section 351).
There is also a period of ``at least 10 days'' for notice that a state
disbursement agency must inform an obligor of requesting a credit
report (Section 352). I am not aware of any reason for why one period
should be different than the other but do recognize the benefit of
providing guidance to the states by specifying some number.
The problem is with specifying a number that is too small. Imagine
coming home from a two-week vacation and opening mail saying you have
10 days to respond to this notice and it is dated the day after you
left for vacation. Therefore, I would suggest that all notices provide
a response period of at least 30 days. The chances of most people
taking vacation for such a lengthy time are quite small compared to the
chances of taking 10 day vacations (and even those are shrinking in
this work climate, which is another subject for another day for Human
Resources). But this almost occurred to me--I received a notice with a
10-day response period from my state disbursement agency about two days
before leaving on a 17-day vacation.
Statement of Yonce Shelton, Call to Renewal
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
Call to Renewal (CTR) is a national network of churches, faith-
based organizations, and individuals working to overcome poverty in
America. Through local, regional and national partnerships with groups
from across the theological and political spectrum, CTR convenes the
broadest table of Christians focused on anti-poverty efforts. CTR is
the only national faith-based organization addressing poverty-related
public policy whose coalition brings together Evangelicals, Catholics,
Mainline Protestants, Historic Black Churches, Peace Churches and Asian
and Hispanic Churches. We network churches and faith-based
organizations into a movement and provide a national public policy
voice.
We acknowledge that the causes of poverty are complex. They include
economic inequality, lack of opportunity, and institutional racism; as
well as irresponsible personal choices and the breakdown of families
and communities. The solutions to overcome poverty are equally complex.
They include employment at a living family income (an appropriate mix
of increased wages, low-income tax credits, healthcare, housing,
nutrition, educational opportunity, and child care), safe
neighborhoods, strengthening families, and renewing an ethic of
personal and community responsibility.
The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act has had an important impact in reducing the number
of people on welfare through requiring employment. A significant number
of former welfare recipients are now working. Yet far too many,
especially children, remain in poverty. As the debate regarding
reauthorization of TANF continues, there are several areas where we
urge Congress to focus.
Most importantly, we urge a conceptual shift to view TANF and
related programs through the eyes of poverty reduction rather than
simply welfare reduction. Too many of those who have moved to work
remain below the poverty line. We believe that people who are
responsibly trying to work should be able to support themselves and
their families. The objective for the next period should focus not only
on caseload reduction, but also on reducing the number of families
living in poverty and increasing the number of self-sufficient
families.
We strongly urge that an explicit goal of reducing poverty be made
part of the legislative purposes of TANF reauthorization. While there
is serious debate and difference about how best to reduce poverty, a
genuine bi-partisan commitment to that goal would significantly help to
reduce the partisanship and offer the hope of finding common ground
that puts the interests of those who are poor foremost in the
legislation. The reauthorization priorities should be framed with this
in mind.
Our specific recommendations toward that objective include:
1. Fund TANF at adequate levels with increases for inflation. The
1996 Act funded annual block grants to the states at a fixed $16.5
billion per year. It should be obvious that $16.5 billion in 2005 is
not what it was in 1996, and certainly not what it will be by 2010.
Although continuing flat funding is actually a significant cut in
funding, we recognize the current fiscal constraints of the federal
government. Therefore, we ask simply that funding for the TANF block
grant not be reduced. Further, we urge that this amount not be reduced
in the name of deficit reduction. The costs of deficit reduction should
not be borne by the poor, who are not to blame and can least afford it.
2. Increased work supports and outreach efforts. Many of those who
have moved from welfare to work have ended in the lowest paying jobs,
often at or near the minimum wage. Their ability to remain employed and
move out of poverty requires several important work supports.
a. Child Care. Access to safe and affordable child care is one
of the major problems facing low-income workers. To increase the work
requirements and hours at work per week without increasing the
availability and affordability of child care simply will not work. An
array of services and resources should be funded, ranging from improved
facilities to better training for child care workers to an increased
capacity for specialized needs. The ability for states to spend TANF
funds directly on child care should be maintained along with adequately
funding the Child Care and Development Block Grant. $1 billion in
additional funds, as approved by the House last year, is not sufficient
to meet needs. Even though the national deficit is growing and the
president has made its reduction a priority, failing to provide for
child care needs is not the right way to do this. The discussion about
funding levels should begin closer to the $6billion amount approved as
an amendment during last year's full Senate debate. Only 1 in 7
children eligible for child care currently receive the assistance they
deserve. Further, the number of children in poverty has risen over the
past year to 12.9 million. This should set child care funding apart
from the usual budgetary constraint arguments for reduction. Minimum
national standards for facilities and staff should also be established
to ensure the health and safety of children. This is in the best
interests of those women who are moving from welfare to work, but
perhaps even more importantly, in the best interests of their children.
b. Health insurance. While improvements have been made in past
years, efforts to increase the number of low-income families with
access to health insurance should be strengthened. Increased outreach
to enroll children in the Children's Health Insurance Program is
essential. Eligibility standards for Medicaid coverage should be eased,
and states should be encouraged to simplify enrollment procedures.
c. Transportation. Access to adequate transportation between
home, childcare, and work is often a major barrier to employment.
States should be encouraged to use flexibility in developing such
programs as discounted bus fares, loans for car ownership, automobile
restoration programs, and providing special bus service to places of
employment.
3. Work Hours. The current 30 hours per week work requirement
should be maintained. Proposals to increase the requirement to 40 hours
per week are not realistic. The states have stated that an increase in
work hours is a requirement they do not want and cannot handle.
Increasing such a requirement would probably force workers into
``workfare'' type jobs, which often require workers to take dead-end
jobs instead of pursuing education and training. This approach will not
help build the skills necessary to develop productive members of the
labor force and foster stable work patterns.
4. Time limits. While the five-year lifetime assistance limit may
have aided in moving people from welfare to work, the reauthorization
process should re-examine it and allow for greater flexibility by the
states.
a. Low-income workers. People who are working in compliance
with program rules while continuing to receive some amount of
assistance to supplement low earnings should not be subject to the time
limit.
b. Allow post-secondary education and training and care giving.
Efforts to improve an individual's employment skills through obtaining
education or vocational training should be permitted to count toward
meeting the work requirement. The ``work first'' requirement often
meant that persons had to choose between receiving assistance or
improving their skills and employability. Such initiative toward
employment should be rewarded rather than penalized. For people trying
to escape poverty, serious efforts to prepare for work or enhance
training and knowledge that can lead to greater self-sufficiency should
be recognized and supported rather than penalized. We encourage the
Committee to consider proposals such as Maine's ``Parents as Scholars''
program supported by Senator Snowe. This type of effort improves access
to formative education, thereby helping people escape poverty.
c. Waivers in areas of high unemployment. States should be
required to suspend the practice of limiting benefits when unemployment
reaches a certain threshold. People who have been successfully employed
and are laid off due to economic conditions should not be denied
assistance because of an artificial time limit.
d. Limit sanctions. Sanctions for non-compliance with program
rules should be more carefully monitored by the Department to ensure
their fairness. Sanctioning an entire family, for example, due to the
failure of one member to meet a requirement should not occur.
5. Restore TANF and other benefits to legal immigrants. Immigrants
legally in the United States following the 1996 law are ineligible for
most forms of assistance. New legislation should reinstate eligibility
for legal immigrants to major assistance programs, particularly TANF
benefits, food stamps and Medicaid. Many legal immigrants in the
country today work hard and pay taxes, and should be entitled to
assistance when in need.
6. Address barriers to unemployment for those remaining on
welfare. Many of those still on welfare rolls face barriers to
employment, including domestic violence, substance abuse, or mental
illness and disability. States should be required to develop and fund
programs that assist people in overcoming these barriers.
7. Programs to strengthen marriage. Our personal experience and
multiple studies indicate that children raised in single parent
households are more likely to be in poverty. The evidence increasingly
shows that one of the most effective ways out of poverty is a stable
marriage. We therefore encourage initiatives to develop programs
designed to reduce single parenthood, promote responsible fatherhood,
and strengthen marriage. pilot programs in various states should be
carefully examined to assess their success and the ability to replicate
them. We also support the elimination of provisions that discriminate
against married parents through stricter work requirements, exclusion
from some programs, or other means. It is true that healthy marriages
are good for economic stability, and it is also true that economic
stability is good for healthy marriages. We urge the Committee to find
ways to do both.
8. Continue and strengthen the charitable choice provision. Call
to Renewal has supported partnerships between faith-based organizations
and government in overcoming poverty. We believe that government at all
levels--local, state, and federal--has an important role in developing,
promoting and implementing public policies to reduce poverty. As part
of that role, government and faith-based organizations should develop
partnerships that empower or fund the successful programs of both
religious and secular nonprofit organizations in ways that do not
violate the First Amendment. We believe the ``charitable choice''
provision in the 1996 law should be maintained, with several changes.
a. Religious organizations seeking government funding should be
required to establish a separate tax-exempt non-profit organization. In
the years since the passage of the original charitable choice
legislation, Call to Renewal has advised religious organizations
considering applying for government funding that it would be prudent
for them to form a separate organization. We urge this provision be
added in the final version of the reauthorization legislation.
b. Protect the integrity of religious organizations and the
religious freedom of individuals receiving assistance. Debate in
Congress on the President's faith-based initiative led to suggested
changes in the 1996 provision that should be adopted here. Individuals
seeking assistance must have clear access to alternative religious or
non-religious programs. Programs freely chosen by individuals using
vouchers can include religious activities, while any religious
activities in directly funded programs must be separately funded and
voluntary. Social services and religious activities must be kept
separate, so that public funding is for public purposes.
In addition to TANF, we urge Congress to support working families
by applying the framework of a ``living family income'' to approach
social policy. Living family income is not just about minimum wage or
living wage--it's about income and the supplements families need to be
economically stable. Working families should not be poor--if people
play by the rules they should not lack economic stability. Political
leaders should recognize this and work toward common ground solutions
that honor work, family, security, fairness. Fostering a living family
income includes striving to:
Make work work, so that it provides a true pathway out of
poverty;
Make work pay, so that families can earn benefits and
build assets;Help families make good decisions through better financial
and consumer education; Make neighborhood and community markets work to
promote choice and competition;
Help families to help themselves through savings, assets
and home ownership; and
Protect families from fraudulent stripping of their
savings, assets, homes, reputation and dignity.
Reducing poverty, rewarding work, and promoting individual
responsibility for all our people are biblically rooted and morally
compelling goals. We urge the Committee to approach the issue of TANF
reauthorization with that clarity of purpose. We look forward to a
continuing dialogue with you, and stand ready to assist in whatever
ways we can.
Statement of Jenifer Zeigler, Cato Institute
My name is Jenifer Zeigler and I am a welfare policy analyst at the
Cato Institute. I want to thank the committee for allowing me to submit
testimony on welfare reform reauthorization proposals. In this
statement I will summarize my findings outlined in greater detail in
Cato Policy Analysis no. 529, ``Implementing Welfare Reform: A State
Report Card,'' (available at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa529.pdf)
and address current reauthorization proposals.
In summary, Congress should:
look to the states and evaluate how welfare reform has
worked and how it can improve;
reauthorize the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act;
strengthen welfare reform's work requirements;
avoid federal funding of private charities;
avoid federal marriage programs; and
ultimately, replace welfare with private charity.
In the early 1990s, welfare caseloads were at an historic high and
out-of-wedlock births were skyrocketing. States decided to take action
and applied for waivers from the federal welfare program, seeking
flexibility to serve their neediest citizens in a different way. Based
on success at the state level, Congress recognized it was time to
overhaul welfare on the federal level. Looking to the states for
examples of successful reform, in 1996 the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) was signed into law, and
the nation waited to see if welfare reform would truly ``end welfare as
we know it.'' Block grant funding and administrative devolution gave
the states a chance to move beyond pilot programs and prove that they
could transition people off welfare more efficiently and effectively
than the federal government. As a result, caseloads have dropped by
more than half.
Since 2002, Congress has been debating the reauthorization of
PRWORA, and there are a variety of perspectives on the direction
welfare reform should now take. Once again, the federal government
needs to look to the states to see what has worked, and what has not.
``Implementing Welfare Reform: A State Report Card'' emphasizes the
positive policy choices made by states regarding welfare reform
implementation--choices that encourage personal responsibility and
self-sufficiency.
Strong structural reforms in a state's welfare system--including
time limits, sanctions, and narrow definitions of work activity--lay
the foundation for successful reorganization. Pilot programs, waivers,
and the flexible guidelines of the block grant system allow states to
experiment with programs and make policy decisions that best serve
their citizens. It is important for Congress to review and compare the
structural reforms that states have implemented and the quantitative
results those programs have produced.
Looking at Where WE Have Been
Welfare reform has allowed states the flexibility to spend money
and implement programs that will help recipients escape welfare's
``cycle of dependence.'' The idea behind welfare reform was to provide
recipients with job experience for a better transition into the job
market, rather than to give them cash handouts for doing nothing. With
job skills and an incentive to hurry off the rolls (time limits),
families have been leaving welfare in record numbers.
The report card grades each state on program and performance
measures. It is just as important to evaluate the programs a state has
instituted (structural reforms) as it is the results of those reforms
(quantitative results). It is necessary that states reduce caseloads
and poverty rates, but if they are not establishing sound welfare
policies that will sustain self-sufficiency, many recipients will never
completely escape the system.
The states with the highest grade ranked in the top third of the
states in both structural reforms and quantitative measures. Those
states recognized that it is important to reduce rolls and rates in the
short term (high quantitative results score) as well as prepare for the
long term by implementing strong work policies, time limits, sanctions,
and family caps (high structural reforms score).
It is not surprising to see Wisconsin receive an ``A'' (along with
Idaho, Ohio, and Wyoming), since much of PRWORA was modeled on the
Wisconsin Works (W2) system, one of the first innovations in state
welfare reform in the 1990s. Seven states earn a ``B,'' there are 20
``C'' states, and 11 ``D'' grades. Nine states receive failing grades
for their implementation of welfare reform. The jurisdictions receiving
``F''s are the District of Columbia, Maine, Missouri, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, and Vermont (which
received the lowest of the failing grades, including the lowest grade
on implementation of structural reforms required for a successful state
welfare program).
Structural Reform
Family Caps
PRWORA authorized states to impose a family cap, which would deny
increased TANF benefits to women on welfare who have additional
children. Twenty-three states have established such caps.\1\ Family
caps show recipients that welfare is a temporary safety net, not a
subsidy for a life of dependency. If a family is not making it on its
own, creating another mouth to feed is not the path to self-
sufficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, TANF Fifth Annual
Report to Congress, February 2003, sec. II, ``Trends in Caseloads and
Expenditures,'' p. II-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because a family cap is an elective policy, states can decide
whether or how best to implement it. Family cap policies vary from
states that do not give any cash increase for an additional child, to
states that do not halt incremental cash adjustments, but reduce the
level, to states that technically have a family cap policy, but rather
than reduce the incremented benefit, issue payment in the form of a
voucher or to a third party payee.
Teens at Home
PRWORA requires unmarried mothers under the age of 18 to remain in
school and live with an adult. That was a priority in welfare reform
since, by the early 1990s, half of unwed teen mothers would go on
welfare within one year of the birth of their first child and an
additional 25 percent are on welfare within five years.\2\ Nearly 55
percent of welfare expenditures are attributable to families that begin
with a teen birth.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ G. Adams and R. C. Williams, Sources of Support for Adolescent
Mothers (Washington: Congressional Budget Office, 1990), pp. 49-51.
\3\ Richard Wertheimer and Kristin Moore, ``Childbearing by Teens:
Links to Welfare Reform,'' Urban Institute, New Federalism Issues and
Options for the States, Series A, no. A-24, August 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
High school dropouts are roughly three times more likely to end up
in poverty than are those who obtain at least a high school
education.\4\ If dropouts do find jobs, their wages are likely to be
low. Wages for high school dropouts have declined (in inflation-
adjusted terms) by 23 percent during the past 30 years.\5\ And the
economic impact is intergenerational. Children whose parents have not
completed high school are far more likely to live in poverty than
children whose parents are more educated. Simply put, more education
equals less poverty.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Census Bureau, unpublished tabulations from the Survey of
Income and Program Participation, 2000, http://www.census.gov/hhes/
poverty/povdynam/pov93t5.html.
\5\ Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein, and John Schmitt, The State
of WorkingAmerica, 2000-2001 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
2001), p. 153.
\6\ Uri Bronfenbrenner et al., The State of Americans (New York:
Free Press, 1996), pp. 176-77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TANF allows high school attendance to fulfill the work requirement
for minor teen mothers, who are supposed to remain in a parent's home
while finishing school. All states are required to implement this
policy, but the specific guidelines are at the discretion of the each
state. Unfortunately, many states have created broad definitions and
extensive exceptions that make the federal law ineffective. Examples
include 17 states that exempt a teen who has lived away from her family
for a year or is ``successfully living on her own.'' \7\ Just how
``successful'' is a teenager living on her own if she has an out-of-
wedlock pregnancy and needs welfare assistance?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Sources: State Policy Documentation Project, ``Minor Living
Arrangement: Eligibility and Exemptions,'' February 1999, www.spdp.org/
mla/laexempt.htm; and 07 Alaska Administrative Code 45.227 ``Assistance
to a Minor Parent,'' 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work Policy
Getting a job as a solution to poverty may seem like common sense.
Granted, not every job pays a wage that will catapult a family into the
middle class. However, every job provides job experience, and that
leads to a better job. Maybe today's minimum-wage, service industry
employee is not on a track for management. But he is showing that he is
a reliable worker who can learn and perform duties, something a future
employer will value.
PRWORA's addition of work requirements to TANF benefits was one of
the most substantial changes to the welfare system. Work experience is
the most effective way to move recipients off of welfare and into the
job market, and at a lower cost than education or job-training
programs.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, ``HHS Releases
Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies,'' November 7, 2001. The press
release summarizes 26 separate studies. A complete list of those
studies can be found at aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/NEWWS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By 2002, half of each state's eligible caseload had to be engaged
in ``work-related'' activities at least 30 hours per week. The
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) divides jobs that qualify
for work participation credit into 14 categories for reporting
purposes. Of those allowable work activity categories under TANF, only
half are activities in which the recipient is actually working:
subsidized and unsubsidized employment (public and private), community
service, on-the-job training, and work experience. Unfortunately,
states permit too much participation under the remaining activities:
job search, job skills training, adult basic education/English as a
Second Language (ESL) classes, education directly related to
employment, and vocational training. These should not be considered
actual work activities because they are educational and do not provide
actual work experience.
Additionally, caseload-reduction credits essentially released
states from their participation rate obligations. Without credits, only
three states would have met their single-parent participation
requirements. Through credits, 19 states were able to reduce their work
requirement to zero. Absent waivers, exemptions, and credits, the
national participation rate for recipients in actual work activities is
less than 30 percent.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ U.S. Department of Heath and Human Services, ``Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families Program Information Memorandum,'' TANF-
ACF-IM-2004-03, December 27, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States have made it very hard on themselves by not striving to meet
the work requirement guidelines, regardless of credits. With weakened
economies and tighter budgets, states must scramble to figure out how
to create jobs for welfare recipients to meet work requirements, and
how to fund the administrative oversight such regulations require.
Diversion
Since PRWORA eliminated the welfare entitlement, states have been
free to put conditions on the receipt of benefits. Thirty-four states
and the District of Columbia have used this authority to establish
diversion programs that prevent potential welfare recipients,
particularly those considered able to work or who have another
potential source of income, from ever entering the system.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Kathleen A. Maloy et al., ``A Description and Assessment of
State Approaches to Diversion Programs and Activities under Welfare
Reform,'' GeorgeWashingtonUniversityCenter for Health Policy Research,
August 1998, Table I-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally, diversion programs fall into one of three categories.
Most common are diversion programs that provide ``lump sum payments''
in lieu of welfare benefits.\11\ Those programs assist families facing
an immediate financial crisis or short-term need. The family is given a
single cash payment in the hope that the immediate problem can be taken
care of without the need to go on welfare. In fact, a family is usually
precluded from going on welfare for a period of time, after accepting a
diversion payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Although more states have authorized lump sum payments than
any other type of diversion program, the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services reports that those programs are rarely used in practice.
Kathleen Maloy et al., ``Diversion as a Work-Oriented Welfare Reform
Strategy and Its Effect on Access to Medicaid: An Examination of the
Experience of Five Local Communities,'' U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation, March 1999, pp. 8-9. Utah, Virginia, and Montana appear to
have the most extensive experience with the concept.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most states do not restrict how lump sum payments may be used; they
have been used to pay off back debts, as well as for childcare, car
repairs, medical bills, rent, clothing, and utility bills. Recipients
may also use lump sum payments toward work-related expenses, such as
purchasing tools, uniforms, and business licenses. A few states
restrict the use of lump sum payments to job-related needs, although
that definition can be interpreted broadly. For example, even moving
expenses for a new job may qualify.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, ``A Description and
Assessment of State Approaches to Diversion Programs and Activities,''
August 1998, chap. 2, http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/isp/diverzn/chpttwo.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another common diversion approach is a ``mandatory applicant job
search,'' used by 27 states. Under this approach, welfare applicants
are required to seek employment before they become eligible for
benefits. In most cases, the state will assist with the job search by
providing job contacts and leads, access to a ``resource room'' where
applicants can prepare resumes and conduct job searches, or classes in
job search skills. The state may also provide childcare and
transportation assistance.
Finally, eight states have programs designed to encourage welfare
applicants to use ``alternative resources'' before receiving TANF
benefits. Those programs generally do not have specific guidelines but
amount to caseworkers encouraging would-be applicants to seek help from
family, private charity, or other government programs.\13\ Even in
states with alternative resource referral programs, this approach is
the least used, possibly because it is poorly understood by potential
recipients and requires extensive caseworker involvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Ibid., chap. 3, http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/isp/diverzn/
chptthree.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Utah and Virginia, the states that have the most extensive
diversion-tracking information, between 81 and 85 percent of those
initially diverted do not subsequently reapply for TANF.\14\ HHS should
consider a method of awarding states credit for participating in
diversion programs. If states are being rewarded for moving recipients
off the roles, then they should similarly be encouraged to keep people
from ever entering the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, ``A Description and
Assessment of State Approaches to Diversion Programs and Activities,''
August 1998, chap. 2, http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/isp/diverzn/chpttwo.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time Limits
Before welfare reform, pride and self-determination were the main
forces driving recipients off welfare. Unfortunately, many were
comfortable with the lifestyle that welfare benefits provided and saw
no need to work their way out of the system. They had been told welfare
benefits were an entitlement, and with no end in sight, some dependents
made welfare a way of life.
In an effort to deter such ``career recipients,'' PRWORA set limits
to how long someone can receive welfare. The federal TANF program
imposes a lifetime limit of 60 months (5 years). States can reduce that
period or continue to support recipients after that time with their
Maintenance of Effort (MOE) money or other state funds. Because
caseloads include on-again-off-again recipients, many are just now
reaching the overall five-year moratorium on aid. As recipients begin
to hit the federal time limit, states are struggling with the decision
to kick families off the rolls or continue benefits out of scarce state
funds. Eighteen states have been spared the dilemma as they were
granted waivers before PRWORA that allow for the exclusion of all or
part of their caseloads from time limits. Many states have implemented
categorical exemptions for various recipients, choosing to continue
funding with their own money.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Forty-six states have put in place exemptions for parents or
caretakers of children with disabilities and others caring for a
disabled family member. Forty-two states exempt women in cases of
domestic abuse, and 26 states exempt elderly recipients. Other states
grant exemptions for individuals making a ``good-faith'' effort to find
work (23 states), parents with young children (22 states), recipients
engaged in ``work activities'' (22 states), recipients enrolled in
educational or training programs (21 states), and families in areas of
high unemployment (19 states). General Accounting Office, ``Welfare
Reform: With TANF Flexibility States Vary in How They Implement Work
Requirements and Time Limits,'' pp. 16-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanctions
Obviously, it is not enough for states to just promulgate new
welfare policies--those policies must be enforced. If welfare
recipients fail to meet work requirements or violate other areas of a
state's welfare policy, penalties must be imposed. Modest sanctions
tend to deduct only the adult portion of the TANF benefit, sparing any
children in the household and thereby only minimally reducing the
benefit. States with the most stringent sanctions withhold the entire
TANF benefit upon the first violation. Then there are sanction policies
that fall along the spectrum, allowing multiple violations as benefits
are gradually reduced or withheld.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ General Accounting Office, ``Welfare Reform: State Sanction
Policies and Number of Families Affected,'' March 2000, pp. 44-47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael New, postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard-MIT data center,
evaluated the effectiveness of sanctions in a Cato Institute Policy
Analysis entitled ``Welfare Reform That Works.'' New found that a
state's sanction policy could affect caseload decline by as much as 20
percent, through both the indirect effect of encouraging recipients off
the rolls and the direct effect of ending their eligibility.\17\ Not
only is there a relationship between state sanction policy and caseload
decline, New found, but that relationship is constant over several
years.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Michael New, ``Welfare Reform That Works: Explaining the
Welfare Caseload Decline, 1996-2000,'' Cato Institute Policy Analysis
no. 435, May 7, 2002, p. 8.
\18\ Ibid., p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanctions are not successful because they throw recipients off
welfare; rather they serve as a threat of actual consequences for
failing to meet requirements or reaching time limits. Only about six
percent of those leaving welfare have done so due to sanction
enforcement.\19\ However, there is a wide variation among states as to
the percentage of their caseloads affected by sanctions. For example,
in an average month in 1998, almost 30 percent of case closures in
North Carolina were due to sanctions, while less than 1 percent of
closures in California, Oklahoma, and Nebraska were related to
sanctions.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ An additional 16 percent have left as a result of ``state
policies,'' which could include time limits or other administrative
regulations. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
``Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients, FY
1998,'' http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/characteristics/fy98/
sum.htm.
\20\ General Accounting Office, ``Welfare Reform: State Sanction
Policies and Number of Families Affected,'' pp. 52-53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantitative Results
Caseload Reductions
The greatest decline in welfare rolls occurred in the first two
years following the enactment of welfare reform. Caseloads began to
level out in most states by 1998, and some states that experienced the
most significant initial declines began to see caseloads inch back up.
New Mexico, for example, reduced its rolls by almost half in the first
two years following reform, and then had a nearly 25 percent increase
in 1999. Delaware, Tennessee, and Wisconsin also saw their caseloads
increase after initial declines.\21\ As the economy began to slow in
2001 and 2002, the era of declining caseloads came to a close. In 2002,
26 states experienced higher caseloads than the year before, although
all state caseloads remained significantly below prereform levels.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, TANF Fifth
Annual Report to Congress, sec. II, ``Trends in Caseloads and
Expenditures,'' Table 2:2:c, p. II-34.
\22\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, ``Change in TANF
Caseloads''; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, ``TANF:
Average Monthly Number of Recipients--Fiscal Year 2001,'' February
2002, http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats/recipientsL.htm; and U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, ``TANF Total Number of
Families and Recipients January-March 2002,'' November 2002, http://
www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats/jan-mar2002_rev.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poverty Rate and Child Poverty Rate
Poverty rates mirrored the success of caseload reductions as
national poverty rates declined every year after reform until 2001.
Even though 2002's slow economy caused a minor uptick in poverty rates,
they continue to remain well below prereform rates.\23\ Most
significant, poverty rates declined for women, children, and
minorities, groups that were thought to be most at risk. Many critics
of welfare reform issued dire predictions, forecasting at the time
PRWORA was passed that more than a million children would be thrown
into poverty.\24\ Instead, child poverty rates declined from 20.5
percent in 1996 to 16.2 percent in 2000, the lowest level in more than
20 years.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ U.S. Census Bureau, ``Poverty in the United States: 2002,''
September 2003, p. 1-3, http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-
222.pdf.
\24\ See, for example, Sheila Zedlewski, ``Potential Effects of
Congressional Welfare Reform Legislation on Family Incomes,'' Urban
Institute, 1996, http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=406622.
\25\ U.S. Census Bureau, ``Poverty Status of People by Age, Race,
and Hispanic Origin: 1959-2000,'' www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/
hstpov3.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teen Birth Rate
For many women, having a child out of wedlock leads to a lifetime
of poverty. Once on welfare, single mothers often find it very
difficult to escape. Although the average recipient remains on welfare
for less than two years,\26\ by the early 1990s almost 40 percent of
all never-married mothers on welfare remained on the rolls for 10 years
or longer.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Indicators of
Welfare Dependence: Annual Report to Congress 2004, June 2004. p. II-
31.
\27\ Barbara DaFoe Whitehead, ``Dan Quayle Was Right,'' Atlantic
Monthly, April 1993, pp. 47-84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teen mothers now account for roughly 29 percent of all out-of-
wedlock births. That figure, however, may understate the severity of
the problem. Women who give birth out of wedlock as teens frequently go
on to have additional children out of wedlock. More than a third of all
out-of-wedlock births to mothers aged twenty and over are to women who
had their first child as unwed teenager.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Elizabeth Terry-Humen et al., ``Births Outside of Marriage:
Perceptions vs. Reality,'' Child Trends Research Brief, Washington,
April 2001, p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teenage birth rates peaked nationally at 61.8 in 1991 and have
fallen by 27 percent in the past decade.\29\ It is essential that
states continue to reduce teenage pregnancy if there is to be any hope
of ending welfare dependence. If states can dissuade young women from
giving birth out of wedlock in their teenage years, more women will
complete school and have a better chance for a self-sufficient future.
Reduction in births to teenagers is an important measure because it
shows whether states are laying the groundwork to break the cycle of
welfare dependence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ ``Revised Birth and Fertility Rates for the 1990s and New
Rates for Hispanic Populations, 2000 and 2001: United States,''
National Vital Statistics Reports 51, no. 12 (August 4, 2003): 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking at Where We Are Going
The greatest result welfare reform could produce would be the
elimination of the welfare system. Colonial America had only a modest
government safety net. Churches, charities, and the community--known as
``civil society''--took the lead in providing assistance to those in
need. These entities had the freedom to distinguish between the
``deserving'' and ``undeserving'' poor. The deserving poor included
those who, although normally self-sufficient, had experienced temporary
setbacks due to sickness, accident, or loss of employment during a
recession. The deserving poor also included those incapable of self-
sufficiency, such as the elderly and orphans. The undeserving poor were
those who could be self-sufficient but elected not to work, or who made
poor choices that were an obstacle to employment.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Marvin Olasky, The Tragedy of American Compassion (Washington:
Regnery, 1992), pp. 6-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early U.S. welfare law was modeled after English Poor Law. That law
established four basic principles for government charity: (1) care for
the poor was a public responsibility; (2) care for the poor was a local
matter; (3) public relief was denied to individuals who could be cared
for by their families; and (4) children of the poor could be
apprenticed to farmers and artisans who would care for them in exchange
for work.\31\ As with civil society's assistance, the themes were
personal responsibility and self-sufficiency. If you were able-bodied,
you should be working. If you could not work, then assistance was best
delivered on the local level to ensure effectiveness and
accountability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Michael B. Katz, In the Shadow of the Poor House: A Social
History of Welfare in America (New York: Basic Books, 1986), pp. 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the United States did not maintain its modest safety
net. Politicians learned that the promise of social programs wins
elections, and the economic repercussions of such programs are for the
next president to worry about. As each president attempted to shower
more ``compassion'' on those in need, the number of needy continued to
rise. For many, the satisfaction of earning a salary was vanquished by
the temptation to draw a check for doing nothing.
Welfare reform is a step in the right direction, attempting to
reverse the growth of a federal welfare state that had been expanding
for decades. PRWORA removed the entitlement to cash assistance and now
sends the message that welfare is meant to be temporary, not a way of
life. As welfare administration continues to devolve from the federal
government to the states, and eventually to more local levels,
communities will effectively assume responsibility for the welfare
system. Those localities, held accountable by local residents and
voters, will begin to find innovative ways to meet the needs of the
poor, using charitable organizations and encouraging civil-society
solutions rather than relying on government.
Corrupting Charity
Just because something is a good idea does not mean it should be a
government program. In the case of faith-based organizations,
government involvement can easily kill the very entity it is trying to
nurture. During the past decade, the federal government has recognized
the successful results that come from social services delivered by
civil society, including religious organizations. It is the charity's
autonomy and flexibility that allows for its success, yet these
characteristics are threatened by the red tape and liability that come
with government funding.
Many faith-based organizations lack the manpower, financial
resources, and technical knowledge to deal with mountains of paperwork,
much less sorting out all of the new rules and regulations.\32\
Religious entities succeed because of their focus on the individuals
they are serving; their strength lies in their care for others, not
their careful reading of the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The average church in the United States has a congregation of
only 75 members. Less than 1 percent of churches have congregations of
more than 900, and less than 10 percent have congregations exceeding
250 people. The average annual church budget is only $55,000. Mark
Chaves, ``Religious Congregations and Welfare Reform,'' Social Science
and Modern Society 38 (January-February 2001): 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faith-based initiative money is certainly a temptation for those
serving the needy. If they are serving many now, how many more could
they serve with more funding? Unfortunately, federal funding is not
reliable, and faith-based organizations are susceptible to mission
creep--following the subsidies and rewriting their mission to fit
whatever grant is popular that year.\33\ Essentially, through funding,
the government can kill a successful charity, forcing it to change from
whatever service it was successfully offering or to shut down due to
lack of funding. Faith-based organizations are crucial members of civil
society that need to replace the federal welfare system, not be
dependent on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Stanley Carlson-Thies, ``Faith-Based Institutions Cooperating
with Public Welfare: The Promise of the Charitable Choice Provision,''
in Welfare Reform and Faith-Based Organizations, ed. D. Davis and B
Hankins (Houston, TX: Baylor University, 1999), p. 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Marriage Programs
Another area where Congress should resist the urge to ``do good''
is the marriage initiative. We all agree that marriage is a good idea.
Social science shows that marriage is good for society. But as I
previously mentioned, not every good idea should be federally funded.
Often what is good for society needs to be promoted privately, not
forced onto society by the government.
Additionally, promoting marriage as a solution to poverty is an
insult to those who are struggling to escape poverty. Who, exactly, are
these women supposed to marry? In areas of high poverty (and
accompanying crime and unemployment), there are relatively few
marriageable men.\34\ Studies show that the fathers of children born
out of wedlock are not men who will lift single mothers out of
poverty--more than a third lacked a high school diploma, 28 percent
were unemployed, and another 20 percent had incomes of less than $6,000
per year. In addition, roughly 38 percent had criminal records.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Kathryn Edin, ``Few Good Men: Why Poor Mothers Don't Marry or
Remarry,'' American Prospect, June 2, 2000.
\35\ Sara McLanahan et al., ``The Fragile Families and Child Well-
Being National Baseline Report,'' Princeton University, 2001; and Irwin
Garfinkle et al., Fathers under Fire: The Revolution in Child-Support
Payments (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Congress wants to encourage marriage, it should start by
removing the disincentives to marriage. The current welfare system, as
well as our tax code, erect barriers to marriage by reducing benefits
and/or increasing tax liability if a couple weds. Before the government
starts spending new money on incentives, it should fix current programs
to reflect its pro-marriage agenda. Additionally, research shows that
financial difficulty is one of the leading causes of divorce. Congress
should focus its resources on encouraging a dynamic economy, through
lower taxes and less regulation of business. Job security, higher
wages, and a lighter tax burden would go a long way toward securing
marital stability.
Conclusion
Congress needs once again to look to the states and evaluate what
has worked under welfare reform. We need to keep moving in the
direction of devolution and innovation, placing more control in the
hands of local government and encouraging civil society to play a
bigger role in helping the neediest members of the community. Congress
can help the states with their own dependency problem by weaning states
off federal funding. Without the strings that come with federal
dollars, states would have even greater flexibility to be innovative
and efficient. Partnering with local nonprofits and community
organizations, states could encourage a shift in the safety net back to
civil society, where it belongs.
Center for Community Change
Washington, DC 20007
February 24, 2005
Subcommittee on Human Resources of the
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Herger and members of the Subcommittee:
We, the undersigned organizations and individuals, write to submit
the following statement for the record of the hearing on
reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)
program, held February 10, 2005. We urge the Subcommittee on Human
Resources to focus on the plight of the roughly 36 million Americans
living in poverty as it considers proposals to reauthorize welfare
reform.
Reducing poverty should be the standard by which we measure the
success of the welfare reforms of the mid-1990s. Unfortunately, by this
measure, we still have considerable work to do. The number of poor
Americans has climbed steadily in recent years, and we are now
essentially back where we started in 1996, when 36.5 million people
were poor.
We should also focus on the economic well-being of our children
when evaluating the success of TANF. Sadly, the number of children in
poverty increased to nearly 13 million in 2003, and the number of
children in extreme poverty (in families with incomes of one-half of
the poverty level or lower) grew at almost twice the rate of increase
for child poverty overall from 2002 to 2003 (11.5 percent compared to
6.0 percent). Rising poverty, particularly the growth in extreme child
poverty, is evidence of the inherent failure of the TANF program to
help protect low-income families from the hardships of the last
recession, and represents a collapse of the social safety net in
general.
The primary conceit of welfare reform was that a job, any job,
would lift workers and their families out of poverty. The economic
downturn in recent years has revealed the fundamental shortsightedness
of this theory. The employment boom of the late 1990s is officially
over. Our nation has come out of the recession of 2001 with a jobless
recovery that has left 12 million people unemployed or underemployed.
Even for those people fortunate enough to have work, a job does not
guarantee the most basic standard of living for workers and their
families: almost three out of four poor children lived in families with
full-time year-round workers in 2003.
In the debate over TANF reauthorization, many policymakers have
avoided looking at what is really happening to families struggling to
make ends meet instead focusing on reports of declining TANF caseloads.
But caseload decline should not be our measure of success.
To determine whether we're meeting our goals and develop a
meaningful reauthorization response, lawmakers must do some additional
accounting of program results.
Why is the TANF caseload declining while poverty is rising? Why are
so many working families still living below the poverty line? With
child poverty on the rise, does it really make sense to cut funding for
proven programs like quality child care, nutrition assistance, health
insurance, and other critical work supports?
These questions and others will not be answered by partisan finger
pointing. Nor will the answers be found in technical debates about work
hours and participation rates. Instead, we need to use the opportunity
provided by TANF reauthorization to examine the entire range of work
and family supports needed by all who call this nation home.
Right now, we see one in ten families falling into poverty because
our safety net is inadequate and unraveling. America must live up to
its promise and provide a comprehensive net of diverse services so that
hard-working, tax-paying families can bounce back when they suffer a
temporary financial set-back.
Sincerely,
Sean Thomas-Breitfeld
[Other signatories:]
American Friends Service; Committee Americans for Democratic
Action; Legal Momentum; National Association of Social Workers;
National Partnership for Women & Families; National Welfare Engine;
NETWORK, a National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; 9to5, National
Association of Working Women; Stop Family Violence; Welfare Law Center;
Wider Opportunities for Women; YWCA USA; American Federation of
Government Employees Local 1151, NY; Canal Human and Economic
Development Association; Center for Civil Justice, MI; Colorado Women's
Agenda; Connecticut Nonprofit Human Services Cabinet; Food Bank Council
of Michigan; Legal Assistance Resource Center of Connecticut; Missouri
Association for Social Welfare; Office of Kentucky Legal Services
Programs; Oregon Food Bank; Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada;
Protecting Arizona's Family Coalition; Protestants for the Common Good,
IL; Rhode Island Parents for Progress; Tennessee Health Care Campaign;
The Advocacy for the Poor, Inc., NC; The Partnership for the Homeless,
NY; West Midwest Justice Committee, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas,
MI; West Virginia Chapter of the National Association of Social
Workers; YMCA Neighborhood Place, Puna, HI; YWCA, McKeesport, PA; Wendy
Alfsen, CA; Ruth Almen, MI; Natalie Ambrose, CA; Neil Amos, CA; Lee
Anderson, WA; Maggie Bagon, OR; Zachariah Baker, NY; Roxann Barnard,
OK; Susan Barrow, NY; Sara Barwinski, MO; Teresa Bathgate, MD; Kristine
Beirne, NJ; Eileen Bell, WV; Mary Bennett, IL; Liana Berger, NY; Nancy
Berlin, CA; Tanya Blair, OK; Joseph Blaszak, MI; Jeff Boldt, WI;
Cassidy Boulan, MI; John Bouman, IL; Robert Bowen, NY; Lila Braine, NY;
Nancy Brandt, IL; Ruth Brandwein, NY; Deana Brickles, IA; Ginny Britt,
NC; Kristin Brown, NY; Johnnie Brown, MO; Shirley Bryant, MD; Nancy
Burton, TX; Debra Burton-Ibarra, TX; Melanie Bush, TX; Nadine Byrd, OK;
Stuart Campbell, TX; Janice Carson, OH; Merrrill A. Carter, CO; Cat
Chen, CA; Bonnie Clark, OK; Terry Cluse-Tolar, OH; Barbara Coates, CA;
Michel Coconis, OH; Linda Cohen, MA; John Colgan, IL; Sister Faith
Colligan, NY; Jean Colman, WA; John Cook, MD; Mimma Cook, WA; Deborah
Cooper, CA; Holly Copeland-Lasley, IL; Laura Corbett, CA; Julia Covert,
OR; Sarah Craft, DC; Bruce Davidson, NJ; Alysia Davis, GA; Adiel
DePano, CA; Ron Deutsch, NY; Karen Donahue, MI; Evelyn Dortch, WV;
Jessica Dreistadt, PA; Linda Drye, VA; Ora Dugar, DC; Katherine Dutton;
Maria Echavarria, CA; Dumar Echols, NY; Stanley Eder, CA; Marilu Eder,
CA; Roseanna Ellis, OK; Scarlett Emerson; Maurice Emsellem, CA; Robert
Evans, MI; Daniel Ezenyilimba, NY; Patricia Fero, WI; John Flick, CA;
Antonio Flores, CA; Katherine Franger, CA; Henry Freedman, NY; Barbara
Fuller, CA; Cassandra Garrison, OR; Frances Geteles, NY; Jan Gilbert,
NV; Pat Gowens, WI; Ed Graham, CA; Rachel Gragg, DC; Jennifer Grayson,
DC; Lana Greene, WA; Lynn Greenwood, DC; Sarah Gripper, IL; Sarah
Grisham, NM; Mark Hallinan, NY; Robin Hanke, CT; Dixie Hanson, CA; Jim
Harlin, NM; Emma Hartwell and family, WA; Cora Hayes, VA; Roy Hayter,
CA; Janet Hayter, CA; Katy Heins, OH; Eve Hershcopf, CA; Virginia
Hevern, MN; Mike Hodge, TN; Noelle Holcomb; Erika Horino, DC; Rebecca
Hoven, DC; Denise Howington, VA; Lacinda, Hummel, IL; Terry Hunn, MO;
Eva Imhoff, OK; Elizabeth Ironhawk, OK; Zarina Jackson, OR; Rochelle
Jackson, PA; James James, CA; Kathryn Jeffrey, WA; Brock Johnson, AR;
Cindy Johnston, MO; Rose Karasti, IL; Kelci Karl, WA; Crystal Karr, MO;
Patti Ann Kasper, MN; Sheila Katz, CA; Jan Kay, IL; John Kefalas, CO;
Terry Kiely, NJ; Rea Kleeman, MO; Frank X. Kleshinski, PA; Jeanne
Koster, SD; Billye Kouns, TX; Frank La Pietra, MO; Walter Langley, OK;
Terese Lawinski, NY; Carmah Lawler, CO; Robert Levine, NY; Barbara
Liles, CA; Donna Lindsey, CA; Sheila Long, OK; Mayzabeth Lopez, NY;
Camella Martian, CA; Amanda McCall, OK; Nina McCoy; Wayne McCroskey,
OR; Jane McNichol, CT; Natalia Mejia, CA; Pemala Mejia, CA; Linda
Meric, CO; Heidi Millen, NY; J. Robert Miller, TX; Mary-Margaret
Miller, NY; Marti Miracle, OH; Dianna Moore, MO; Tirso Moreno, FL;
Maria Muentes, NY; Suzette Murrell, DC; Meara Nigro, NJ; Shannon North;
Carlotta Oberzut, IL; Patti O'Callaghan, IN; Sarah Osmer, DC; Alyssa
Pakulski, MI; Rev. Carolyn R. Palmer, OR; Lecia Papadopoulos, CO;
Bettina Pearl, PA; Lillah Pedi, CA; Jeffrey Perkins, MO; Bich Ha Pham,
NY; William Pittz, WA; Brian Polejes, CA; Wendy Pollack, IL; Beth
Poteet, WA; Sean Power, WA; Riley Price, OR; Amanda Pyron, MD; Myra
Radinsky, MO; Stephen Radinsky, MO; Judi Rath; Sunni Reed, CA; Anita
Rees, CA; Betsy Rice, MI; Roberta Richardson, FL; Mark Rochon, CA;
Judith Rodriguez, NC; Rachel Rogness, MN; Mary Lou Rosales, AZ; Amy
Samelson, CA; Terri Sammarco, FL; Tyletha Samuels, NY; Sierra Sanchez,
CA; Ann Sand; Lois Schoenhorn, CT; Macie Schriner, MI; Nadine Schrodt,
MO; Deborah Schwartz, MA; Robert Schwartz, NY; Lillian Scott, TN;
Shirley Seibert, DE; Laurie Sheridan, MA; Jill Shinn, MO; Jill A.
Shuey, NY; Melissa Silver; Brenan Smith, IL; Renee Sneitzer, IA; Peter
Snoad, MA; Lois Snyder, IL; Derrick Span, DC; Rose Spears, OR; Susan
Spector, CA; Marguerite Spencer, MO; Judith Stadtman, NH; Schaunel
Steinnagel, PA; Sharifa Stewart; Susan Stouffer, CA; Kristine Stroad
Moore, WA; Nancy Strohl, CA; C.S. Sullivan; Kaleema Annie Sumareh, MI;
Riki Summers, WV; Edie Swihart; Mary Switzer, NJ; Marilyn Thomas, MO;
Vincent G Thomas, IL; George Thompson, OH; Bill Tibbitts, UT; Robbie
Tibbs-Visnicky, TN; Allan Timke, IL; Jane Tondettar, NJ; Richard
Troxell, TX; Royce Truex, CA; Dan Vachon, NH; Jane VanSant, MO; Kim
McCoy Wade, CA; Kevin Walsh, NY; Michelle Webb, NJ; Leslie Weinberg,
CT; Irene Weiser, NY; Janet Williams, CA; Leslie Wolfe, DC; Theresa
Wood, WI; Robert Wordlaw, IL; Cynthia Young, MO; Jeanette Young;
Phyllis Zoon, NJ
Statement of Heather Boushey, Center for Economic and Policy Research
Chairman Herger, thank you for calling a February 10, 2005, hearing
of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources on the
important and timely subject of reauthorization for the welfare reform
law. Your leadership in promoting dialogue on this crucial policy topic
is appreciated.
As a labor market economist with the Center for Economic and Policy
Research and formerly with the Economic Policy Institute, I have
extensively researched how the labor market combines with government
policies to affect low-income working women, precisely that segment of
the population most impacted by welfare reform. Most recently, my work
has focused on the central role that public work supports, especially
child care subsidies and Medicaid, play in the lives of women seeking
to retain jobs and become self-sufficient.
This research has real implications for how we as a nation think
about work supports, which continue to be an essential component of
welfare reform. Wages have not risen for low-income workers over the
last several years even as health costs are rising rapidly, making it
harder for families to become self-sufficient. If work supports quit
too early on these families, many of which are headed by single
mothers, the research tells us that they are far more likely to fall
out of the workforce and, quite possibly, return to welfare programs.
I will touch on two issues during my testimony. First, the lack of
sustained job creation has lowered the economic well-being of low-
income families in the labor market. Although the low-wage labor market
was robust when welfare reform passed in the mid-1990s, this is no
longer the case and it is increasingly difficult for low-wage workers
to support their families. Critically, it has become more difficult for
them to access employer-provided health insurance for their children.
Second, the lack of sustained work supports--health insurance and
child care--limits the chances that mothers will be able to stay
employed. If welfare is meant to be structured in a way that allows
mothers to transition to work, then sufficient subsidies for child care
is an essential part of the program. Otherwise, many mothers will find
it impossible to balance their work and family responsibilities and
will fall out of the workforce.
A factual issue must also be addressed. The latest numbers show
that there were 1.3 million more people in poverty in 2003 and the
poverty rate, which rose by 0.4 percentage points in 2003, now stands
at 12.5 percent--increasing for the third year in a row. If the welfare
roles are shrinking, it is not because low-income families are doing
better economically. Rather, it appears that many are losing welfare
without the promise of better outcomes in the private sector.
Recession
The recession of the early 2000s has been hard on working families,
and especially low-income and welfare families. Since the mid-1990s
when welfare reform was enacted, former welfare recipients found jobs
in a small number of industries, many of which saw higher job gains and
stronger wage growth than the economy overall in the late 1990s.
However, during the economic recession of 2001 and the recent recovery,
these same industries have not performed as well. Over the recovery, of
the eight private-sector industries with a high proportion of former
welfare recipients, three have seen greater job losses than the private
sector overall. Wage growth has been slower than the average for the
private sector overall for workers in retail trade, food services and
drinking places, temporary help, nursing and residential care, and
child day care services.
With jobs scare and wage growth slow to negative in the industries
that former welfare recipients found employment in, increasing work
hour requirements above the existing 30 hours would not create jobs,
but make life harder for those already struggling to find a job.
Mandating more work hours from the people hardest hit from the
recession would not help to increase employment; rather, what welfare
reform needs is robust job growth.
Work Supports
Mothers on welfare and other low-income mothers are often eligible
for Medicaid and child care subsidies, but as they move up the job
ladder, they lose eligibility. Losing Medicaid subsidies has a
significant effect on employment: Mothers who move from Medicaid to no
employer-provided health insurance are nine times more likely to drop
out of the labor market than are mothers who leave Medicaid and gain
employer-provided health insurance.
Few mothers have made the transition from Medicaid to employer-
provided health insurance. Between the beginning of 1997 and the end of
1998, 41.5 percent of those on Medicaid left the program but less than
one third of those who left (27.7 percent) gained employer-provided
health insurance. Similarly, between the beginning of 2002 and the end
of 2003, 37.2 percent of those on Medicaid left the program, but fewer
than a quarter (23.4 percent) of those who left gained employer-
provided health insurance.
The problem is not necessarily that Medicaid leavers lacked
employment, but that they did not find jobs that offered employer-
provided health insurance. Among mothers who left Medicaid in the late
1990s, the share moving from a job without employer-provided health
insurance to one with insurance was just under one third (28.7
percent). This rate fell by 14.0 percentage points, down to 14.7
percent, by the early 2000s. This significant decline in the rate of
finding a new job with insurance was unique to mothers who had been on
Medicaid and left. There was not a comparable decline in the share of
mothers overall who moved from a job without employer-provided health
insurance to one offering insurance. In the late 1990s, one-in-five
(18.3 percent) of all mothers made this transition. In the early 2000s,
this share fell only slightly (by 1.6 percentage points) to 16.7
percent.
Access to safe and affordable child care is also critical for
working mothers. Mothers who have stable child care are more likely to
stay employed and are able to focus on their jobs, knowing that their
children are well-cared for while they are at work. Thus, child care is
an important part of the TANF program.
Most mothers of young children work outside the home and
most use child care. In 2002, over half of mothers of children under
the age of six were employed--over three-quarters working more than 30
hours per week--and nearly all--over 90 percent--reported using some
kind of child care.
Child care, especially formal day care, which often
provides more educational activities than other kinds of care, is
expensive. Mothers in lower-income households spend a much higher share
of their total income on child care than do higher-income households.
In 2002, mothers at the bottom 40th percentile or below who paid for
formal daycare spend an average of 16 percent of their total income on
child care, compared to only 6 percent among mothers in the highest
quintile.
Many families rely on informal child care arrangements.
Among working mothers who use child care, about one-third rely on
relatives and another one-third use a formal day care setting. However,
working mothers who use formal day care tend to be wealthier and better
educated than other mothers, indicating that those who rely on informal
care may be doing so not out of choice, but of necessity. Mothers in
lower-income households use parental care more and are less likely to
use formal day care centers.
Child care assistance is critical for families struggling
with the high cost of child care. Between 1997 and 2002, more working
mothers received assistance with child care payments, including
government assistance. Working mothers in the bottom 40th percentile of
households received more government child care assistance in 2002,
compared to 1997. Even so, research has found that many children
eligible for child care subsidies do not receive them. Only about 15
percent of children eligible for federal child care assistance actually
receive any funds.
Child care is an issue that all working mother struggle
with, however, for lower income mothers, the problems are even worse.
H.R. 4 from the 108th Congress, as passed by the House of
Representatives, would have added only an additional $2 billion to the
currently allocated $4.8 billion for child care subsidies. This might
sound like a great deal of money, but it represents less than 0.005
percent of the total budget. It means that in 2002, the average subsidy
for each child under age 15 living in poverty was a little over $700
for the year. Including additional resources for child care in the TANF
reauthorization bill would be an investment that would pay off by
enabling low-income working mothers to stay off welfare and those
currently receiving TANF to move toward self-sufficiency.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony, Mr.
Chairman. I hope that you will be informed about the importance of work
supports as you work with your colleagues on TANF reauthorization. I
would be happy to provide more information to any Members working on
this issue.
Statement of Joseph T. Jones, Jr., Center for Fathers, Families and
Workforce Development, Baltimore, Maryland
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide comment for the
record. My name is Joe Jones. I am President and CEO for the Center for
Fathers, Families and Workforce Development (CFWD) a community based
nonprofit organization established in 1999 that provides workforce
development, responsible fatherhood and family services to the
residents of Baltimore City.
Twelve years ago when I began my work with low-income fathers in
Baltimore City there were few resources to support responsible
fatherhood. My fledgling staff and I worked tirelessly, threading
together services to meet the diverse and challenging needs of the low-
income father population. Together, with the men we engaged, the
program became a success. With the achievements of the fathers as a
soapbox we told any and everyone about the importance of involving
fathers in the lives of their children and families. Men's Services
like their counterparts in other low-income communities helped fathers
become models for their children, breadwinners, and responsible
citizens. By doing this we increased attention not just for our
programs but also for low-income fathers and families across the
nation.
Men's Services operated as a part of the Baltimore City Healthy
Start maternal and child health program. I created Men's Services
because too many children in my community lived under circumstances
that would predispose them to poverty and broken families. Our work
with low-income fathers was somewhat on the periphery not necessarily
receiving the level of resources needed to help fathers contribute to
the development of their unborn and infant children. While there was a
firm belief that our work helped fathers and improved child outcomes
this belief did not result in increased resources.
However, in 1996 with the enactment of Welfare Reform much of that
changed. The sweeping changes brought to the Aid to Families with
Dependent Children's Program allowed low-income fathers to be engaged
by the social welfare system. With that engagement came funding from
both private and public resources. Foundations across the country
partnered with government and community organizations to create
responsible fatherhood programs. Practitioners on all levels formed
associations to share best practices and advocate on behalf of low-
income fathers and their families. During this time a fledgling field
gained momentum and stability. With few resources the field of
responsible fatherhood took on complex issues such as domestic violence
and child support.
After welfare reform there were a number of legislative proposals
that would have provided public funding for responsible fatherhood
programs, while none were realized the support from both sides of the
aisle reflected our nation's general concern with fatherless
households. However, concern has not meant increased resources and most
foundations have disinvested from this work, the most notable exception
is the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Harry and Jeanette Weinberg
Foundation and other small community and family foundations.
Almost immediately after the enactment of Welfare Reform, the
reauthorization conversation began and with it the focus on marriage.
Although responsible fatherhood still figured prominently it shared the
stage with marriage. Many on opposites of the ideological spectrum
offered the two as competing interests; however, I hold firmly that the
two are natural compliments. Study after study has shown that when both
parents are actively involved in a child's life children fare much,
much better. And we all know that those outcomes are the best when the
parents are married.
But is it just marriage that helps children? Or is it the benefits
children get when parents are married and work together on their
behalf. I believe its marriage and being active in a child's life.
Active means changing diapers, reading bedtime stories, helping with
homework, providing financially and supporting emotionally. In short,
being responsible. So, in order for parents, no matter the income,
cultural background or social standing to have a prosperous healthy
marriage the man must be a responsible father. Men who understand and
are able to fulfill their roles as fathers will also be able to be good
partners. My experience has been that many of the men we serve have a
strong desire to be good fathers and good partners. But, simply, don't
know how. Many have never had their own fathers in lives and have been
raised in homes without a fathering example.
Prior to welfare reform men were ignored by social policy and the
consequences are evident in the number of children who live in poverty,
increased incarceration rates, and uncollected child support. So in the
next evolution of Welfare Reform we must take the opportunity to
``marry'' responsible fatherhood and marriage. Bringing the two
together is in the best interest of low-income families, children and
communities. It is my firm belief that the field of responsible
fatherhood can contribute to the creation of healthy marriages;
however, it requires resources, resources that are currently
unavailable.
Currently, there is legislation in both the House of
Representatives and the Senate that would reauthorize the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Each
contains authorized funding for responsible fatherhood. This is not
enough. We must ensure that low-income fathers have the opportunity to
support their families and become viable potential marriage partners
and co-parents, I urge you to appropriate funding for responsible
fatherhood.
Providing a funding stream for responsible fatherhood will provide
low-income children with access to a breadwinner, nurturer and
provider. Moreover, it will create the opportunity for men to not only
accept the obligations of fatherhood but also the commitment of
marriage, this in the long term will benefit low-income children and
families.
Statement of Vicki Anne Turetsky, Mark H. Greenberg, Nisha Patel, and
Hedieh Rahmanou, Center for Law and Social Policy
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony. The
Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) is a nonprofit organization
engaged in research, analysis, technical assistance, and advocacy on a
range of issues affecting low-income families. Since 1996, we have
closely followed implementation of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act. This submission will discuss work-
related provisions in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
reauthorization, with particular attention to H.R. 240, the Personal
Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2005.
The Context for Reauthorization
H.R. 240, is very similar to bills previously approved by the House
in 2002 and 2003. However, in the three years since the Subcommittee
first acted in 2002, there have been significant developments affecting
the context for reauthorization.
Starting in the mid-1990s, there was a historically unprecedented
increase in employment among single parents. The growth began before
enactment of the 1996 welfare law, but continued after that time. The
employment rate for single mothers grew from 57.3 percent in 1993 to
63.5 percent in 1996, and then rose to 73 percent by 2001.\1\ Many
factors likely contributed to this employment growth, including the
strong economy, state and federal welfare reforms, the large expansion
of the Earned Income Tax Credit in 1993, increased child care spending,
increases in the minimum wage in 1996 and 1997, broadening of access to
health care outside of welfare, and a stronger child support
enforcement system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Burke, V. et al. (December 2004). Children in Poverty:
Profiles, Trends, and Issues. Table A-3. Washington, DC: Congressional
Research Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During this period, both the TANF assistance caseload and the
nation's child poverty rate fell. Welfare caseloads fell from 5 million
in 1994 to 4.4 million by the time the 1996 law was enacted, and then
to 2 million by 2001. Child poverty fell from 22.7 percent in 1993 to
16.2 percent in 2000. Welfare participation fell much more than did
child poverty, with the share of poor children receiving assistance
falling from 62 percent in 1994 to 35 percent in 2001.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2004).
Indicators of Welfare Dependence: Annual Report to Congress, Table TANF
2. Washington, DC: Author. Available at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/
indicators04/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous studies found that most families leaving welfare (in the
range of 50 to 60 percent) were working, but typically in low-wage jobs
without access to benefits, such as employer-sponsored health insurance
and paid vacation/sick leave.\3\ The families still receiving
assistance were a heterogeneous group, but generally had more serious
barriers to employment (e.g., health and mental health issues, domestic
violence, substance abuse, limited English proficiency, severe basic
skills deficits) than those who had left assistance. And, some of the
families that left welfare without finding employment were among those
with the most severe barriers to employment, with weaker work
histories, less education, and higher rates of disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Richer, E. et al. (November 2001). Frequently Asked Questions
about Working Welfare Leavers. Washington, DC: Center for Law and
Social Policy. Available at: http://www.clasp.org/publications/
faq_about_working_welfare.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During this early period, declining welfare caseloads freed up
resources for states. States were able to use TANF funds to broaden
services for working families outside the traditional welfare system.
In the first years after enactment of the law, the single biggest
redirection of TANF funds was to increase child care for working
families. In 2000, states committed $4 billion of TANF funds to child
care.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Administration for Children and Families. (2001). Fiscal Year
2000 TANF Financial Data. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services. Available at: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofs/
data/tanf-2000.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, there was much that was positive in the early TANF
experience, but there were also areas of clear concern. There had been
a dramatic growth in employment and decline in child poverty, but many
of the families who had left welfare for work were still poor, and many
of the families with the most significant barriers had left welfare
without finding work.
During the last three years, several key indicators have become
less positive. The economy entered into a recession, after which
initial job growth was slow. States entered into a period of large
budget deficits, placing strains on TANF funds and other state
resources, and forcing cutbacks in child care and other services. The
pressures resulting from the economy and state budget crises are
apparent in indicators of employment, child poverty, and welfare
caseloads.
Since 2001, employment has declined among single and married
mothers. Employment among single mothers fell from 73 percent in 2001
to 69.7 percent in 2004. Employment among married mothers showed a
similar decline (from 68 percent to 65.3 percent) during the same
period. Single mothers are still more likely to be employed than
married mothers and much more likely to be employed than before the
1996 law.\5\ Since the recession, the industries most likely to employ
welfare recipients and large proportions of single mothers have either
lost jobs or are experiencing slower job-growth.\6\ Thus, there is
little reason to attribute the downturn-related decline in employment
to state TANF performance. The decline in employment during this period
has meant that a smaller share of families leaving welfare is employed:
The Urban Institute has reported that employment among welfare leavers
fell from 50 percent in 1999 to 42 percent in 2002.\7\ Similarly, the
share of families engaged in employment for enough hours to meet the
work rates dropped from 22.3 percent in 2001 to 18.0 percent in 2003
(while the share of families participating in other activities remained
relatively unchanged).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Burke, V. et al. (December 2004). Children in Poverty:
Profiles, Trends, and Issues. Table A-3. Washington, DC: Congressional
Research Service.
\6\ Boushey, H., and Rosnick, D. (April 2004). For Welfare Reform
to Work, Jobs Must be Available. Washington, DC: Center for Economic
and Policy Research. Available at: http://www.cepr.net/labor_markets/
welfarejobshit-2004april01.htm
\7\ Loprest, P. (August 2003). Fewer Welfare Leavers Employed in
Weak Economy, Snapshots of America's Families III, No. 5. Washington,
DC: The Urban Institute. Available at: http://www.urban.org/
url.cfm?ID=310837
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The decline in employment has not resulted in increased welfare
caseloads. Instead, the nation's welfare caseload has declined, while
child poverty has risen. Between 2001 and the 2003, the number of
families receiving assistance (including those in separate state
programs) rose in 31 states, but the national caseload fell by 0.5
percent.\8\ This caseload decline occurred despite the fact that child
poverty increased from 16.2 percent in 2000 to 17.6 percent in 2003.\9\
The fact that employment has fallen and child poverty has increased
while TANF caseloads have remained flat or declining raises significant
concerns that the program has not been sufficiently responsive to
increased needs. The share of poor children receiving TANF assistance
has continued to fall, dropping to 33 percent in 2002.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Falk, G. (March 2004). Caseload Trends. Washington, DC:
Congressional Research Service.
\9\ U.S. Census Bureau. (August 2004). Income, Poverty, and Health
Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003 (P60-226). Table 3.
Washington, DC: Author. Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/
2004pubs/p60-226.pdf
\10\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2004).
Indicators of Welfare Dependence: Annual Report to Congress, Table TANF
2. Washington, DC: Author. Available at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/
indicators04/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The share of families without welfare or work has grown. Research
from the Urban Institute indicates that the share of all families that
have left welfare, but are not employed, do not have an employed
partner, and are not receiving income from Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) rose between 1999 and 2002, from 10 percent to 14 percent.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Loprest, P. (August 2003). Disconnected Welfare Leavers Face
Serious Risk. Snapshots of America's Families III, No. 7. Washington,
DC: The Urban Institute. Available at: http://www.urban.org/
url.cfm?ID=310839
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the last three years, state spending levels have exceeded
annual block grants, and state reserves have fallen sharply. As long as
welfare caseloads were falling rapidly, TANF was, in effect, a source
for ``new'' funds each year. Once caseload decline slowed or stopped,
states have increasingly faced the pressures resulting from a block
grant set at mid-1990s funding levels and not adjusted for inflation.
In each of the last three years, states' use of TANF funds has exceeded
their basic block grants, and states have increasingly resorted to
drawing down carryover (reserve) funds to pay for current services. In
Fiscal Year 2003, states used $1.8 billion more than they received.
Between the end of 2002 and the end of 2003, the amount of carryover
TANF funds dropped by one-third, to $3.9 billion. This represented the
lowest level for carry-over funds since 1997, the first year of TANF
implementation.\12\ Some states now have no carryover funds, andfor
most states, the amount of carry-over funds represents less than one-
quarter of the state's annual block grant funding level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Greenberg, M. and Rahmanou, H. (February 2005). TANF Spending
in 2003. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy. Available
at: http://www.clasp.org/publications/fy2003_tanf_spending.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of families receiving child assistance has fallen. The
Administration estimates that the number of children receiving subsidy
assistance was 2.5 million in 2003, and will fall to 2.3 million 2005.
Federal child care funding has been flat since 2002, and the use of
TANF for child care peaked in 2000, and has now stayed at or near $3.5
billion for the last three years.\13\ Child care curtailments have
particularly hurt working families not receiving welfare: In April
2003, the GAO reported that, since January 2001, nearly half the states
(23) had made policy changes that reduce the availability of child care
subsidies for low-income working families, and 11 states were proposing
policy changes to decrease child care funding.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Matthews, H. & Ewen, D. (2005). President's Budget Projects
300,000 Low-Income Children to Lose Child Care By 2010. Washington, DC:
Center for Law and Social Policy. Available at: http://www.clasp.org/
publications/cc_2006_budget.pdf
\14\ U.S. General Accounting Office. (2003). Child Care: Recent
State Policy Changes Affecting the Availability of Assistance for Low-
Income Families. Washington, DC: Author. Available at: http://
www.gao.gov/new.items/d03588.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implications for Reauthorization
As the above discussion outlines, there has been dramatic growth in
single parent employment since 1996, but much of the employment has
been in low wage jobs without employer provided benefits. Many families
still receiving assistance have serious employment barriers, and a
group of families with serious barriers is now not in work and not
receiving welfare. A well-functioning TANF program would assist needy
families while connecting those who are able to work with sustainable
employment: however, there are clear indications that the current
program makes it difficult for needy families to receive assistance,
and serves a steadily declining share of poor children. The expansion
of supports for working families outside welfare has been a critical
contributor to the employment growth, but those supports are
increasingly at risk because TANF and child care funding have remained
flat. The sharp decline in reserve funds underscores that at current
funding levels, states will find it difficult or impossible to sustain
current service levels over the coming years.
In this context, CLASP has urged that the work-related provisions
of reauthorization focus on efforts to improve job quality, encourage a
stronger focus on employment retention and advancement, expand child
care and other supports for working families outside welfare, and
ensure that states have incentives to work with, rather than terminate
assistance to, families with the most serious employment barriers.
Much of the reauthorization debate has centered around the
mechanics of the participation rate calculation for families receiving
TANF assistance. Based on the experience since 1996, there is little
reason to believe that this should have been the central issue in
reauthorization: a large share of TANF resources is now used for
families outside the traditional welfare system, and participation
rates measure engagement in activities among families receiving
assistance, not the effectiveness of programs in promoting employment.
In the following paragraphs, we address key work-related provisions
of H.R. 240, and recommend modifications. We share the belief that
promoting and supporting work should be central to state welfare reform
efforts, but believe that several provisions of H.R. 240 will make it
harder for states to run effective programs to connect families with
jobs, and will encourage states to terminate assistance to families
rather than working with them to help them find sustainable employment.
On a number of key provisions, the approach taken by the Senate
Finance Committee in 2003, and the child care amendment adopted on the
Senate floor in 2004, represent more reasonable, balanced approaches.
While we continue to urge improvements in the Senate bill, we think the
Senate provisions reflect efforts to be responsive to the principal
goals of the Administration's proposal, while still allowing states
significant flexibility in designing effective work programs.
We also urge the Subcommittee to give serious consideration to the
provisions of H.R. 751, the Work, Family and Opportuity Act, introduced
by Rep. McDermott.
Reauthorization should encourage states to focus on employment and
job quality, and should not reward caseload reduction in itself. H.R.
240's caseload reduction credit creates incentives to terminate
assistance rather than help families find jobs. We recommend replacing
it with an employment-based credit.
The ultimate goal of the work provisions of any TANF bill should be
to improve employment outcomes. While participation rates measure the
share of families involved in activities while receiving assistance,
they do not capture the outcome of greatest concern: the number of
families getting jobs and earning enough that they no longer need
assistance.
CLASP has urged that states be given the option to be held
accountable for employment outcomes in lieu of participation rates, so
that they can be measured based on outcomes, not process. Last year, a
bipartisan group of Senators (Alexander, Voinovich, Carper, and Nelson
(of Nebraska)) proposed an amendment to allow up to ten states to be
accountable for outcomes relating to employment; success in activities
designed to improve employment and related outcomes; job retention;
entry earnings and earnings gains; and child well-being. H.R. 751 would
allow states to be accountable for improvements in job entries and jobs
with higher earnings. We recommend that the Subcommittee consider
approaches such as these.
In the participation rate structure, it is important that a state
not be disadvantaged when a family gets a job and leaves welfare. This
can happen under current rules, because as long as the parent is
receiving assistance and participating in an activity, the family
counts toward the rates, but if the parent gets a job and leaves
assistance, the family stops counting.
Under current law, rates are adjusted downward by a caseload
reduction credit, in which the state's required rate is reduced by the
number of percentage points reflecting the percentage decline in the
state's caseload since 1995 for reasons other than changes in
eligibility rules. The current structure has been criticized for
lowering effective participation rates to zero for many states. The
other problem, however, is that it rewards a states if its caseload
falls, whether or not families are working, and even if the decline
occurred simply because the state has made it harder to receive
assistance.
H.R. 240 would not address this underlying problem, but would
provide for continuing modification of the ``base year'' for the
caseload reduction credit, so that states only get ``credit'' for
recent caseload declines. Thus, there would be a strong incentive to
cut caseloads, whether or not families entered or sustained employment.
Moreover, under the Subcommittee's ``superachiever'' credit, a group of
states are arbitrarily rewarded for having had large caseload declines
between 1995 and 2001, without regard to employment or other outcomes.
In 2002, the Administration recommended eliminating the caseload
reduction credit, and providing instead that families leaving
assistance due to employment could count as participants for 90 days.
The 2003 Senate Finance bill used an ``employment credit'' instead of a
caseload reduction credit, providing adjustments based on the numbers
of families leaving assistance due to employment, the number leaving
with higher earnings, the number of families working after receiving
diversion assistance, and the number of families receiving TANF-funded
child care and transportation benefits. H.R. 751 also provides for an
employment credit.
A credit or adjustor for employment would communicate the
importance of focusing on whether families leaving assistance are
working, and communicate to states that the goal is the promotion of
employment, not simply cutting caseloads.
Raising the number of hours needed to count as a participant to 40
will make it harder for states to run effective programs to connect
families with employment. It would be better to maintain current law
hourly requirements.
Under current law, single parents with children under age 6 can
count toward TANF participation rates through 20 hours a week of
countable activities; all other families must meet a 30 hour
requirement. H.R. 240 would raise the requirement to 40 hours for all
families. The 2003 Senate Finance bill would raise the requirements to
24 hours for single parents with children under six, 34 for other
single-parent families, and 39 hours for two-parent families. H.R. 751
would maintain the hourly requirements of current law.
In our view, it is unfortunate that much time over the last three
years has been devoted to arguments about the ``right'' number of hours
to require for participation, because there is no evidence that
increasing hours of participation beyond current law requirements would
lead to more effective programs. The welfare-to-work research
consistently finds that the most effective programs provide a mixed
menu of activities, combining job search, training, and other work-
related activities, but these programs do not typically combine
multiple activities for the same individual at the same time.\15\ None
of the highest-impact programs routinely imposed 40-hour requirements.
Nothing in the research suggests that restructuring programs to make
them require 40 hours instead of 30 hours would make them more
effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Martinson, K., & Strawn, J. ( May 2002). Built to Last: Why
Skills Matter for Long-Run Success in Welfare Reform. Washington, DC:
Center for Law and Social Policy and the National Council of State
Directors of Adult Education. Available at: http://www.clasp.org/
publications/BTL_report.pdf; Michalopoulos, C., Schwartz, C., with
Adams-Ciardullo, D. (August 2000). National Evaluation of Welfare-to-
Work Strategies, What Works Best for Whom: Impacts of 20 Welfare-to-
Work Programs by Subgroup. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation. Available at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/NEWWS/synthesis-
es00/index.htm; Strawn, J., Greenberg, M., & Savner, S. (February
2001). Improving Employment Outcomes Under TANF. Washington, DC: Center
for Law and Social Policy. Available at: http://www.clasp.org/
publications/improving_employment_outcomes_under_tanf.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, raising the hourly requirement to 40 runs the risk of
resulting in less effective programs, for three reasons. First, it
creates the danger that program administrators will need to shift their
focus from efforts to promote employment to efforts to ``manage'' 40
hours of participation. Second, the need to generate activities, even
low-cost ones, and pay attendant child care costs, will force a
misallocation of scarce resources at a time when states are struggling
to sustain current services. Third, many observers have recognized the
need to do more to engage families with the most serious employment
barriers. These families are likely to have the greatest difficulties
in meeting 40-hour requirements. If any individual who has difficulty
consistently participating at a 40-hour level will become a ``drag'' on
the state's ability to meet participation rates, there will be an
increased risk that such families are sanctioned and terminated from
assistance rather than provided needed assistance to move toward
employment.
While the Senate's approach to hours is more moderate, the best
resolution here would be to maintain current law. Every state would be
free to increase hourly requirements if it wished to do so. But, there
is no reason to compel all states to adopt an approach that has no
basis in research, and that is contrary to the best judgment of many
program administrators.
The list of countable activities should give states flexibility to
make their own judgments about effective ways to promote employment.
States should be free to use education and training and barrier removal
activities, and not be complelled to use unpaid work experience.
H.R. 240 sharply limits the activities that can count toward the
first 24 hours of participation each week. After a three to four month
period, the only activities that could count for adults would be
unsubsidized or subsidized work, or unpaid work experience or community
service. Thus, the bill would make it impossible to count being in
full-time education or training for more than four months, and would
impose similar restrictions on participation in barrier removal and
rehabilitative services. Given the costs of subsidized employment, the
bill would, in effect, create strong pressure on states to use unpaid
work experience or community service for those individuals unable to
get unsubsidized jobs within four months.
The H.R. 240 approach is not consistent with relevant research
findings. There is encouraging non-experimental evidence from
transitional jobs programs that provide highly structured, paid
subsidized employment experiences for individuals with multiple
employment barriers,\16\ and other research suggests favorable impacts
for on-the-job training programs.\17\ However, the available research
has not suggested strong effects on employment and earnings for unpaid
work experience programs. There is only limited recent research on the
employment impacts of unpaid work experience; however, in a review of
research conducted in the 1980s, the Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation (MDRC) concluded, ``there is little evidence that unpaid
work experience leads to consistent employment or earnings effects.''
\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Kirby, G. et al. (April 2002). Transitional Jobs: Stepping
Stones to Unsubsidized Employment. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy
Research.
\17\ Orr, L. et al. (1996). Does Training for the Disadvantaged
Work? Evidence from the National JTPA Study Washington, DC: Urban
Institute Press; Plimpton, L. and Nightingale, D. S. Welfare Employment
Programs: Impacts and Cost-Effectiveness of Employment and Training
Activities, unpublished paper; U.S. Department of Labor. (January
1995). What's Working (and what's not). Washington, DC.
\18\ Thomas, B., Butler, D., and Long, D. (September 1993). Unpaid
Work Experience for Welfare Recipients: Findings and Lessons from MDRC
Research.. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the welfare-to-work research, the clearest guidance is that
states should avoid the extremes of focusing exclusively on job search
or on adult basic education unconnected to employment. Instead, the
most effective welfare-to-work programs use a ``mixed strategy''--
focusing on employment; including job search, education, job skills
training among program activities; and structuring activities on an
individualized basis.\19\ There is clear evidence that a strong skills
training component can lead to improved employment outcomes, and that
postsecondary education is increasingly crucial in efforts to improve
earnings.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See, for example, Gueron, J. & Hamilton, G. (April 2002). The
Role of Education and Training in Welfare Reform. Policy Brief No. 20.
Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Available at: http://
www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/wrb/publications/pb/pb20.htm; Martinson,
K., & Strawn, J. (April 2003). Built to Last: Why Skills Matter for
Long-Run Success in Welfare Reform. Washington, DC: Center for Law and
Social Policy. Available at: http://www.clasp.org/publications/
BTL_report.pdf; Mathur, A. et al. (May 2004). From Jobs to Careers: How
California Community College Credentials Pay Off for Welfare
Participants. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.
Available at: http://www.clasp.org/publications/Jobs_Careers.pdf
\20\ From Jobs to Careers: How California Community College
Credentials Pay Off for Welfare Participants. Washington, DC: Center
for Law and Social Policy; see also, Duke, A. ``Provide Post-Secondary
Education and Training to Low-Income Parents.'' in McNichol, L. &
Springer, J. (December 2004). State Policies to Assist Working Poor
Families. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Available at: http://www.cbpp.org/12-10-04sfp.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The approach taken in the 2003 Senate Finance bill was more
balanced than that in H.R. 240, though still restrictive in certain
ways. The 2003 Finance bill maintained the current law 12-month
restriction on counting vocational educational training toward core
participation hours, while creating a new option for states to count
participants in postsecondary education under certain circumstances.
The Finance bill also allowed participation in certain rehabilitative
services to count for up to six months, which while less restrictive
than H.R. 240, still prevents individualized determinations of when
additional time is needed.
H.R. 751 would also broaden the countability of a set of
activities, allowing for increased participation in education and
training, and counting up to 18 months in rehabilitative services, if
the last 12 months are combined with work.
Our principal recommendation here is that federal law should not
seek to narrowly restrict which activities can and cannot count toward
participation rates. In the TANF fiscal structure, a state has no
incentive to place individuals in activities unless the state believes
the activities are likely to be effective, and state perspectives on
effective activities will continue to evolve over time based on
research and experience. Thus, we hope that the final bill does not
compel states to use unpaid work experience, does not restrict the
ability of states to use education and training, and allows for
individualized determinations about participation in rehabilitative and
barrier removal activities.
Reauthorization should provide states with enough child care
funding to sustain current service levels, meet new work requirements,
and make progress in addressing access and quality in the next five
years. The current House bill would accomplish none of these goals. We
recommend increasing child care funding.
In the initial years after enactment of the 1996 welfare law,
states made dramatic progress in expanding child care assistance for
low-income families, for two principal reasons: First, the 1996 law
provided for steadily increasing amounts of dedicated child care
funding through 2002. Second, when TANF caseloads declined, states were
able to redirect TANF funding to child care. In 2000, states redirected
$4 billion in TANF funds to child care, an amount larger than the
entire child care block grant. However, child care funding through TANF
has fallen to about $3.5 billion in each of the last three years, and
it is doubtful that states will be able to sustain this funding level,
in light of the fact that states are currently spending TANF funds at a
level above their block grants and drawing down reserve funds to pay
for current service levels.
It has been suggested that reauthorization could ``unlock'' as much
as $2 billion in unobligated prior-year TANF funds, which can currently
only be used for ``assistance,'' but which could be used for any
allowable TANF purpose under the pending bill. We support the proposal
to broaden allowable uses of reserve funds, but enacting this proposal
will not free up significant new resources for child care, for two
reasons:
First, the vast majority of states can already effectively use
their unobligated funds for child care by rearranging how current and
carryover funds are spent (i.e., spend prior year funds for assistance
to free up current year funds to spend for child care. Based on 2003
spending data, forty-seven states could already, in effect, spend every
penny of their unobligated funds on child care this year, but if they
did so, they would have no reserve funds for the future. The remaining
four states could, in effect, spend all of their carryover funds for
child care within two or three years, if they wished to exhaust their
reserve funds.
Second, as noted above, for the last three years, states have spent
more for TANF-funded benefits and services than they have received in
their annual block grants, and have drawn down prior year funds to help
pay for current service levels. This strategy cannot be sustained
indefinitely; reserves for most states are likely to be depleted within
a few years unless states make significant cuts in current levels of
services. Thus, most states cannot simply use reserve funds to expand
child care services without creating deeper deficits for future years.
When child care funding was expanding, it resulted in dramatic
improvements in the availability of child care assistance for low-
income families. The number of children receiving child care assistance
grew from about 1 million in 1996 to an estimated 2.5 million in 2003.
For many states, a key part of the strategy to promote work and reduce
the numbers of families receiving TANF assistance was expansion of
child care outside welfare. In recent years, as child care funding has
been flat or declining, it has become increasingly difficult or
impossible to provide continued access for working families that are
not receiving or leaving TANF assistance. The Administration now
estimates that the number of children receiving child care will fall to
2.3 million in 2005, and will further fall to 2 million by 2009.
The Administration has proposed no increase in mandatory child care
funding for the next five years; H.R. 240 provides for $1 billion; last
year, the Senate voted, 78-20, to provide for $7 billion in child care
funding over five years. H.R. 751 would increase mandatory funding by
$11 billion over five years. How do these amounts compare to need?
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) staff has preliminarily estimated
that $4.8 billion in total funding (federal and state) would be needed
to sustain 2005 service levels over the next five years. CBO has also
estimated that the combined work and child care costs of meeting the
House work requirements through increased participation would be $8.3
billion. After allowing for overlap, the resulting preliminary estimate
is that the additional cost of sustaining current service levels and
paying for the work and child care costs would be $12.5 billion. Even
this figure would not provide for access to child care for additional
working families outside welfare or for expanding quality investments.
We understand the difficulties in urging additional child care
funding at a time when there is a need to address the federal deficit.
However, child care funding is an essential support for work and a
crucial way of addressing the well-being and developmental needs of
children in working families. Providing for increased funding will be
crucial to sustain progress in the coming years.
Reauthorization should ensure that states have incentives to work
with families with serious employment barriers, rather than incentives
to cut off assistance to these families. Accordingly, the Bill should
build safegaurds into the sanction process, and not mandate full-family
sanctions.
Under federal law, states must reduce or terminate assistance when
a family does not comply with program rules without good cause. There
are essentially no safeguards in current federal law beyond a provision
saying that states may not terminate assistance to a single parent of a
child under six who fails to participate due to lack of needed child
care. While sanctions have not been the principal reason for caseload
decline, it is also clear that they are used very extensively in some
states. Research confirms that families with the most barriers to
employment and the most difficulty succeeding in the labor market are
the most likely to be sanctioned. Moreover, families who leave the
caseload due to sanctions are less likely to be employed and more
likely to return to welfare than families who leave for other
reasons.\21\ Testimony submitted to this Committee by Dr. Deborah Frank
of the C-SNAP project describes the harm that can occur to children in
sanctioned families.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See: Pavetti, L. et al. (April 2004). The Use of TANF Work-
Oriented Sanctions in Illinois, New Jersey, and South Carolina.
Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research. Available at: http://
aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/TANF-Sanctions04/; Wu, C. et al. (June 2004) How Do
Welfare Sanctions Work? Institute for Research on Poverty. Discussion
Paper No. 1282-04. Madison, WI: Institute of Research on Poverty.
Available at: Available at: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/irp/pubs/
dp128204.pdf; For a summary of earlier research, see: Goldberg, H. &
Schott, L. (October 2000). A Compliance-Oriented Approach to Sanctions
in State and CountyTANF Programs. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities. Available at: http://www.cbpp.org/10-1-00sliip.htm.
\22\ See Statement of Dr. Deborah A. Frank, Boston Medical Center
(February 10, 2005) available at: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/
hearings.asp?formmode=printfriendly&id=2498
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 240 would require all states to use full-family sanctions
(i.e., terminate all TANF assistance for failing to meet program
requirements). We urge the Subcommittee to drop this provision. There
is no research evidence that programs that cut off all assistance are
more effective in moving families to employment or economic
independence, and, as noted, there is clear evidence of potential harm.
Moreover, in the context of high participation rates and scarce
resources, there is considerable risk that when a parent with
employment barriers is unable to meet program requirements, states will
perceive a much stronger incentive to terminate assistance than to
actively work with the family to resolve barriers to participation.
The 2003 Senate Finance bill did not mandate full-family sanctions.
It contained a provision requiring that, prior to imposing sanctions,
states should, to the extent determined appropriate, review the
family's plan and make a good faith effort to consult with the family.
A provision such as this, and additional safeguards, could help
communicate that the goal of federal policy is to work with families to
promote employment, not simply terminate assistance. H.R. 751 would not
require full-family sanctions, and would provide for new safeguards in
the sanction process.
Conclusion
While we urge a number of changes in the Subcommittee bill, we
share the view that it is important for Congress to resolve outstanding
issues and complete TANF reauthorization. During the last three years,
there has been a significant cost to the uncertainty and instability
resulting from lack of reauthorization and repeated short-term
extensions. We urge the Subcommittee to work for enactment of a final
bill that is responsive to the need for state flexibility and that
addresses issues of better jobs, employment retention and advancement,
helping families with the most serious barriers, and providing adequate
resources to help working families both on and outside welfare.
Statement of Molly K. Olson, Center for Parental Responsibility,
Roseville, Minnesota
This written testimony is a BUDGET SAVINGS IDEA applicable to
federal Title IV welfare reform, with a potential to save taxpayers
nationwide as much as $88 billion a year.
The Title IV-D program is unnecessarily costing taxpayers (federal,
state, local) as much as $88 billion in direct and indirect costs
because of the misapplication of federal law resulting in an overreach
of authority by the state's IV-D agency, under the direction of the
Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), a division of the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), which take their
instruction from Congress and the President.
Title IV-D of the Social Security Act is a federal program that
states are mandated to implement if they voluntarily participate in and
want federal funding for Title IV-A (TANF). Title IV-D is a federal
program that is administered by the state or a local agency within the
state. All Title IV programs are meant for the needy and most
vulnerable families. We need to continue to protect this class and
promote independence from government.
My concerns are particular to Minnesota, but the issues are
identical in all other states that implement their IV-D program void of
any eligibility standards and means testing.
ISSUE: The OCSE has directed the state IV-D agencies to exceed
their authority through their unwarranted practices, which are contrary
to congressional intent, defying the purpose of the Title IV program,
and unnecessarily costing taxpayers billions. This program must be
restrained to protect the public purse and protect the privacy and
independence of our families. The program has become over-inclusive
because of the misapplication of the law, creating an excessive burden
to the taxpayers. The program is violating individual rights because of
an unlawful overreach of IV-D authority into private domestic relations
matters, which are reserved to the states. Absent a determination of
financial need prior to approval of the IV-D application, there is no
pecuniary or protectable interest for the government to provide Title
IV-D services.
LAW/RULE: A change or clarification of the law or regulation, or a
clarification to the states from the OSCE are needed to restore the
program to its intended purpose and stop unwarranted government
intrusion of the Title IV-D program into non-needy families nationwide.
According to the congressional record Title IV-D requires:
1. First, Title IV as a whole, is limited to ``needy'' families
who have become ``dependent'' on the government for financial support.
2. Title IV-D requires an ``absent parent'' and a ``needy''
family. The congressional record indicates the definition of the term
``absent parent,'' for the purpose of Title IV, includes those parents
who were not at all involved with their children, who abandoned the
family to public assistance, and who are not fulfilling their
responsibility to raise the children, thereby resulting in a ``needy''
family.
3. The congressional intent of Title IV-D clearly limits the class
of IV-D recipients to two:
a. those on welfare, then IV-D becomes a cost recovery program,
to save taxpayer money by collecting money through IV-D to reimburse
the IV-A agency, and
b. those at risk of falling on welfare (former and never
welfare recipients), to protect those who would become ``needy'' if
they don't receive their support payment privately, to ensure payments
as a cost avoidance measure.
Currently, loving, involved, responsible, regular paying non-
custodial parents (good parents) are unnecessarily falling under the
control of the government IV-D program even when their children are
fully taken care of and at no risk of becoming part of a ``needy''
deprived family. Private domestic relations family matters are being
unnecessarily drawn into the IV-D program even when: 1) there is no
support problem and the non custodial parent has a history of
consistently paying, and 2) the custodial parent (IV-D applicant) is
financially well off (earning as much as $100,000 a year) and has never
been on public assistance, is not likely to ever need public
assistance, and could afford to take care of all collection privately--
so in effect, self-sufficient and even affluent people are using IV-D
services because they get the services free or substantially subsidized
by the taxpayer. State and local agencies encourage ALL divorced people
to participate in the IV-D program regardless of need or circumstance,
because the MORE people that are in the program, the MORE federal
funding the state/local agency receives. The IV-D agency is growing on
the backs of good people who have no need for the government program,
but who are encouraged (even erroneously ordered) to use it, just
because it is available. Larger IV-D agencies may be good for the
agency, but it is not good for our families, and it does not promote
efficient government.
Unfortunately, nationwide, the practices under IV-D have exceeded
the law and defeat the purpose of the program, using scare public
resources to provide services to a class Congress did not intend to
serve. Testimony, as far back as 1997, has warned of this problem
created by perverse incentives to the states.
Responsible Public Servants Warned Congress of the Problem
Ms. Frye, Chief, Office of Child Support in CA
She states:
``As we understand it, the proposal goes far beyond the
Congressional intent to develop an incentive system that rewards good
outcomes and in fact encourages states to recruit middle class
families, never dependent on public assistance and never likely to be
so, into their programs in order to maximize federal child support
incentives''. She goes on to say, ``And my colleagues across the
country have already informed me how I can win at this system; recruit
the middle class, bring those higher orders into your system and that
way you will be able to benefit like some of the other states from the
cap removal on the never-welfare population''.
As an ``agent'' of the federal government, for the purpose of
delivering IV-D services, the Minnesota State Department of Human
Services shows their misunderstanding of the program, as they falsely
inform our state legislators and judicial officers that IV-D is an
``entitlement'' program. The MN DHS has also declared to the other
branches of government that: 1) IV-D is a stand alone program, and 2)
that the federal government requires the state to provide all the IV-D
services to anyone and everyone who applies. The U.S. Supreme Court
decision, Blessing v Freestone, made it clear that IV-D is NOT an
``entitlement'' program.
Title IV-D is NOT an ``entitlement'' Program
U.S. Supreme Court
Blessing v Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997)
``Title IV-D was not intended to benefit individual children and
custodial parents, and therefore it does not constitute a federal
right. Far from creating an individual entitlement to services, the
standard is simply a yardstick for the Secretary to measure the system-
wide performance of the State's Title IV-D program. Thus, the Secretary
must look to the aggregate services provided by the State, not whether
the need of any particular person have been satisfied . . . As such, it
does not give rise to individual rights.''
The intended beneficiary of the IV-D program is not an individual, it
is the government.
TITLE IV-D PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION: The state and federal OCSE is
mis-interpreting 42 USC 654 (4)(A)(ii), and using the phrase ``any
other child'' to swallow up every child in the country, when an IV-D
application is filled out. Because of the federal incentives to the
state, the local IV-D agencies are encouraging everyone to apply.
Currently, there are only two criteria for an applicant to enter the
IV-D program and receive IV-D services. In Minnesota and other states,
the two step need determination assessment process for IV-D services is
limited to: 1) did one parent fill out an application and sign it, and
2) are the two parents living in different households. Subsequently,
even the upper middle class are being added to the program, absent a
finding of financial need. There is nothing on the congressional record
to support this over-inclusive eligibility standard--or lack thereof.
Serving the affluent is contrary to congressional intent of Title IV
and outside the scope of Title IV-D, which is to provide services to
financially ``needy'' families only,
which is clear limitation of all Title IV programs. This over-inclusive
practice leads to a violation of many individual rights because the
loving, involved, responsible, regular paying non-applicant parent is
not provided an opportunity to object to the delivery of IV-D services
in their private domestic relations case.
The IV-D program was designed to recapture money from legal
``deadbeats,'' not dads who involuntarily moved out, but relocated down
the block so they could stay involved and see the children 3-4 days a
week and maintain a strong record of regular support. However, once
under the snares of the administrative IV-D agency, all non custodial
parents find they have no individual rights and are assumed to be
deadbeats, which increases conflict between the parents, which
negatively impacts the children. The stated goal of the state IV-D
system is to ``maximize federal funding.'' It's not about the children.
The system doesn't have the best interest of children in mind, because
the state is primarily after their own financial interest--that is, the
federal funding. Loving, involved, responsible, regular paying dads do
have their children's best interest in mind, and these efforts are
often thwarted and discounted by the IV-D agency. Many non-needy
middle-class custodial parents ignorantly sign up for full IV-D
services just for the wage-withholding service, because they are misled
to do so by the local IV-D agency and told ``IV-D is the easiest form
of wage-withholding.'' With modern technology, private domestic
relations cases have many private banking options for wage-withholding
and direct deposit, and all divorced people do not need the IV-D
program.
The state IV-D agency and the federal OCSE are misinterpreting 42
USC 654(4)(A)(ii), 45 CFR 302.33, and 45 CFR 303.2 to mean the federal
government requires the states to ``provide'' full IV-D services to
anyone and everyone who applies regardless of need or circumstance. On
its face, the regulation merely states the services ``must be made
available.'' Clearly ``made available'' is very different than
``provide.'' A ballpark is ``made available'' to everyone, but that
doesn't mean everyone is ``provided'' entry on the day of a game or a
seat of their choice, unless they meet certain requirements.
By allowing everyone and anyone into the IV-D program, when they
simply fill out an application, we are creating a welfare program for
the affluent. The IV-D program is making self-sufficient people
dependent on the government, contrary to our welfare program
objectives. This defies logic and common sense, and is unsupported by
the record. (see attachment, with statement from GAO report).
Wade Horn, Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and
Families, U.S. DHHS provided testimony to the U.S. House Ways and Means
Committee on February 10, 2005 (before the subcommittee on Human
Resources). In his testimony, he indicated that the purpose of ``these
programs'' (referring to Title IV programs) is ``to improve the lives
of families who otherwise would become dependent on welfare.'' As many
as 40-60% of all current IV-D cases nationwide would not be eligible
for services using the congressional purpose to limit the program to
applicants: 1) on welfare, and 2) at risk of falling on welfare. Mr.
Horn further testified that the next steps are to make ``economic
independence within the reach of America's neediest families.'' People
earning $80,000-$100,000 a year do not fit that focus or achieve the
goals established by Congress for the IV-D program. Providing services
to this class of people must stop or the whole system will eventually
crash and go bankrupt (see attachment, with statement by former
Secretary DHHS).
Congress may not be opposed to providing IV-D welfare service
funding to the wealthy. However, if the states are opposed to this
practice and want to limit IV-D services to the ``needy,'' consistent
with congressional intent, it seems that Congress should make it clear
that the states are allowed to limit IV-D services based on an
assessment of ``need'' and be assured they can do this without being in
violation of any federal law, regulation, or the State Plan.
Is this a federal question or a state question? The Minnesota
Department of Human Services claims the authority to determine who is
provided IV-D services is ``a federal issue'' further claiming ``the
feds make us do it'' (i.e. provide IV-D to the wealthy families who are
receiving their support with no problem, but apply for IV-D). If
providing IV-D services to the non-needy and even affluent families is
not a federal requirement, but rather, a choice the state can make or
not make, and still be in compliance with IV-D, this must be made clear
throughout the entire IV-D system nationwide.
CONCLUSION/SOLUTION/WHAT CONGRESS CAN DO: Minnesota citizens and
state legislators want to change state law to clarify that IV-D
services are limited to those ``needy'' families Congress intended to
serve: 1) those on welfare, and 2) those at risk of falling on welfare
if they don't receive their private support payments. State taxpayers
nationwide need to know the delivery of IV-D services must be limited
to ``needy'' families. The MN DHS claims the Federal government WILL
NOT ALLOW MINNESOTA to limit IV-D services to needy families, and that
the state must provide services to everyone and anyone who applies.
This means Minnesota (and all other states) are providing IV-D welfare
services to the non-needy, who have never been on public assistance,
display no evidence they are ever likely to need public assistance, and
have never experienced a support collection problem. To provide clarity
to the states, if this is not the position of Congress, please dispel
the notion that the Secretary of DHHS can require that the states
``must provide'' services to the non-needy who are outside the scope of
the purpose of the Title IV-D program and beyond the stated intent of
Congress.
BOTTOM LINE: Minnesota has wide bi-partisan support for a deficit
reducing measure that would limit the non-public assistance IV-D
services to the ``needy.'' We are assured other states would follow.
The Minnesota state legislative body is seeking documentation from the
federal government that would ensure:
1) Minnesota will not be out of compliance with the Title IV-D
State Plan or federal law, if we enacted a state law that would limit
IV-D services as Congress intended to: 1) those on welfare, and 2)
those at risk of falling on welfare if they didn't receive their
support privately.
Please help solve this problem of the over-reach of authority by
the IV-D agency, resulting in unwarrated intrusion by the government,
impacting the privacy rights of non-needy families, and causing an
excess burden to taxpayers at all levels: federal, state, and local. I
represent a 100% volunteer organization, and we have no paid lobbyists,
and ``we the people'' need your help. We have been seeking an answer
from Congress on this issue for more than two years; 201 Minnnesota
legislators are waiting for a response. The awareness of this
misapplication of the IV-D program is spreading over the internet and
emails are being forwarded nationwide to expose the problem.
WE WANT OUR FAMILY AUTONOMY BACK. We expect fiscal responsibility
with our tax dollars. Congress and federal and state agencies are
charged with the task of allocating limited funds across a range of
needy families. Private domestic relations matters should remain
private absent a compelling state interest. When there is no pecuniary
interest for the government, nor a need to invoke parens patriae powers
to protect the child, the government should not be involved in the
family. Putting loving, involved, responsible, regular paying non-
custodial parents and high earning custodial parents into the Title IV-
D program unnecessarily increases conflict, destroys what little is
left of the fractured family, thereby harming children, and is nothing
short of a fraud upon the taxpayer. We have 7 people on our research
team with 38 years of cumulative experience researching Title IV-D. We
would appreciate the opportunity to share more of our research with
you, and answer any questions at anytime.
__________
The GAO has already figured out this problem.
Why has this report has been largely ignored?
June 13, 1995 ``Opportunity to Reduce Federal and State Costs''
Report # GAO/T-HEHS-95-181
By Jane L. Ross, Director, Income Security Issues
``. . . many non-AFDC clients may not be within the population the
Congress envisioned serving.'' p. 6
According to the Bureau of Census 1991 data, ``about 65% of these
reported incomes, excluding any child support received, exceeding 150%
of the federal poverty level.'' p. 6
``. . . about 45 percent reported incomes exceeding 200 percent of
the poverty level and 27% reported incomes exceeding 300 percent.'' p.
6
``. . . the rate at which child support services are being
subsidized appear inappropriate for a population that Congress may not
have originally envisioned serving.'' p. 5-6
``The non-AFDC child support program . . . many are not within the
low-income population to which Congress envisioned providing child
support enforcement services.'' p. 3
The U.S. DHHS has made a strong policy statement
Why has OSCE policy changed to require that a full range of services be
provided to all applicants?
U.S. Supreme Court Case--Blessing v Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997)
Silver's Reply Brief (page 5) to the Eleventh Circuit Court
Policy Statement From Donna Shalala, U.S. Secretary DHHS:
``. . . a guarantee . . . of the full range of . . . child support
enforcement services . . . for all individual cases . . . would
bankrupt IV-D agencies across the country.''
Statement of Leslie R. Wolfe, Center for Women Policy Studies
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony on the
reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Act. The Center for Women Policy Studies was founded in 1972 as the
nation's first feminist policy analysis and research institution. From
the start, the Center has focused its research and analyses on social
and economic policies that support moving women from poverty to
economic self-sufficiency and independence, whether the concern has
been creating equal credit opportunity, as it was in the early years,
ending violence against women, ensuring educational equity or reducing
poverty by reforming welfare.
Since 1988, a major focus of the Center's welfare reform efforts
has been on the issue of postsecondary education as an effective route
to economic self-sufficiency for a large percentage of women now
receiving TANF, formerly Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC). We operate on certain premises when it comes to ending poverty
for women and their children. First, we believe that our goal must NOT
be just one of moving women from welfare to work, but instead, we must
look for policy options that put a dent into women's poverty over the
long term. Real welfare reform should offer women an effective and
permanent route out of poverty to economic independence. We have
evidence that, for many women, that route is through postsecondary
education. A college education has always been a route for people to
achieve economic self-sufficiency and social mobility--witness the
success of the GI bill, which brought scores of men into college and
the middle class after World War II. This path to a life of economic
independence should be available to low income women and their
children; they need no less.
Today, a college education is required more often than not to
succeed in our economy (Carnevale and Desrochers, 2002). But, you ask,
if college is a realistic and affordable option for state and federal
policymakers to consider. The answer is yes. Fully 59 percent of women
receiving public assistance are high school graduates or have earned
GEDs, or have attended some college (Loprest and Zedlewski, 1999). Many
of the women are ready and eager to earn a two- or four-year college
degree.
The importance of postsecondary education in poverty reduction
cannot be overestimated. Among people living below the federal poverty
level, one third (33 percent) have a high school diploma and only 9.3
percent have a college degree (U.S. Department of Commerce, Census
Bureau, 2001). In fact, even one year of postsecondary education makes
a difference for women of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. The
poverty rate for African American women with one year of postsecondary
education is 21 percent--less than half of the poverty rate (51
percent) for those who have completed 12 years of school. Among
Latinas, the change is equally dramatic, as poverty rates drop from 41
to 18.6 percent with one year of postsecondary education. And the
poverty rates for white women with one year of postsecondary education
drop from 22 to 13 percent (Census Bureau Population Survey, as cited
in Sherman, 1990).
While there is a paucity of research on the impact of postsecondary
education on welfare recipients (Mayfield, 2001), there is growing and
persuasive evidence that this population group benefits greatly from
college. An earlier study of women on welfare who graduated from
Massachusetts colleges showed that most found mid-level professional
jobs and 79 percent earned between $20,000 and $35,000 a year--incomes
that meant that economic self-sufficiency had become a reality (Kates,
1991).
More recent studies of former TANF recipients who obtained college
degrees in Maine, California, Maryland and Washington show workers who
substantially increased their earning power, were employed in salaried
positions rather than as hourly workers, and reported such benefits as
health insurance, paid sick and vacation leave, life insurance,
disability insurance and compensatory time (Smith, Deprez, and Butler,
2002; Mathur, Reichle, Wiseley, and Strawn, 2002; Family Welfare
Research and Training Group, 2002; Karier, 1998).
It is significant to note that the entire family wins from a
woman's postsecondary education experience. We know that postsecondary
education not only increases women's income and job security, it also
improves their self-esteem, gives them greater self-confidence and
feelings of well being, increases their children's educational
ambitions, enriches their personal and family lives and improves their
parenting (Gittell, Gross, and Holdaway, 1993; Kates, 1999, 1991; Kahn
and Polakow, 2000; Center for Women Policy Studies, 2001; Lewis,
Schacher, and Simon, 2002; Smith, Deprez, and Butler, 2002).
Now more than ever, welfare recipients need postsecondary education
to obtain the skills needed to compete for jobs that pay a living wage.
If the goal of TANF really is to move women from welfare to work, then
all of us must confront the growing scarcity of jobs in the low skill
sector of the labor market in which most former welfare recipients
work. Nationally, these low skill industries were hit harder by the
2001 recession than the average industry, and have not performed as
well as other industries during the recent recovery (Boushey and
Rosnick, 2004). Indeed, while employment opportunities for low income
and poorly educated women have always been meager, now they are even
worse. And women who leave the welfare rolls for these low paying,
dead-end jobs likely still will earn wages that are below the federal
poverty line. Hence, we simply will move women from the ranks of the
welfare poor to the working poor--with little provision for their
children--a future generation of American workers.
States have long recognized the importance of postsecondary
education in helping women break the cycle of poverty and move into
economic independence. Like TANF, the Family Support Act of 1988 was
designed as a welfare reform law that would make welfare a temporary
system. But unlike TANF, the Family Support Act explicitly promoted
education and training for long term economic self-sufficiency. Under
the law's Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program, states
could offer postsecondary education to welfare recipients as a job
training option and also could adopt a two-year or four-year college
option.
Every state took advantage of this option. Two thirds of the states
allowed AFDC recipients to pursue four-year college degrees and some
states even developed strategies to actively encourage recipients to
enroll in college; the remaining states permitted recipients the choice
of a two-year degree (Gittell, Vandersall, Holdaway, and Newman, 1996).
This short-lived federal program and the college option came to an end
with the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, which brought about TANF.
As we know, the final TANF implementation regulations promulgated
by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) in April of
1999 left states the flexibility and discretion to define each of the
work activities allowed. Indeed, the state level policy makers and
their constituents--again in their great wisdom--recognized the
importance of postsecondary education to low income women striving for
self-sufficiency, as 49 states and the District of Columbia currently
allow some form of postsecondary education for TANF recipients. Of
these, 11 states count postsecondary education as a work activity for
12 months; 15 states count it as a work activity for 24 months; and 19
states and the District of Columbia count it as a work activity for
longer than 24 months. It is important to note that the majority of the
states require that TANF recipients' education be linked directly to
employment and self-sufficiency (Center for Women Policy Studies,
2002).
The TANF reauthorization bill introduced in January as the Personal
Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2005 (H.R. 240)
ignores the TANF experiences of policy leaders in these states that
have resoundingly rejected any attempts to bar welfare recipients from
college campuses.
This Congress now finds that TANF has been a success and resulted
in a dramatic increase in employment of current and former welfare
recipients. But, let us remind you that these changes have occurred in
an environment where the college option has been in place since the
late 1980s in most states, with the exception of some initial confusion
about access to postsecondary education after the passage of TANF in
1996. In fact, Maine's successful Parents As Scholars (PAS) program has
served as a model, as at least four other states--Iowa, New Mexico,
Vermont, and Wyoming--and the District of Columbia use their
Maintenance of Effort (MOE) funds to provide relatively supportive
environments for TANF recipients who are enrolled in postsecondary
education programs (Center for Women Policy Studies, 2002).
Additionally, in 2003 Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) introduced the PAS
model at the federal level in an amendment to the Senate's welfare
reform bill and in the ``Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act''--
unfortunately, the Act did not pass.
Whether policy makers seek to reform welfare in order to cut
government spending for the poor and quiet taxpayers' concerns, or to
move women from welfare to economic self-sufficiency and to strengthen
their families, providing TANF recipients with access to higher
education achieves both objectives.
Therefore, we urge you not to repeal the states' flexibility to
allow TANF recipients access to postsecondary education by limiting
their ability to include education and training activities as
``countable hours'' to only four months once every two years, and by
increasing their work participation requirements from 50 to 70 percent.
Instead, we urge you to follow the lead of the majority of states that
already allow postsecondary education to count as work, specifically
those states that allow education and training activities to count for
up to 48 months. We commend Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and James
Jeffords (I-VT) for their initiative (S. 141) to allow up to 24 months
of vocational educational training to be counted as work activity, and
recommend that Congress expand upon their colleagues' effort and extend
the limit for all educational and training activities to 48 months.
We can only hope and trust that the members of Congress will
reconsider the destructive nature of the proposed policy, which would
curtail participation in postsecondary education for TANF recipients
and deny millions of women and children the ``American dream'' of
economic prosperity.
Thank you.
Sources Cited
Boushey, H. & Rosnick, D. (2004). For welfare reform to work, jobs
must be available. Washington, DC: Center for Economic and Policy
Research.
Carnevale, A.P., & Desrochers, D.M. (2002). The missing middle:
Aligning education and the knowledge economy. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education.
Retrieved June 25, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/
about/offices/list/ovae/pi/hs/carnevale.doc.
Center for Women Policy Studies. (2002). From poverty to self-
sufficiency: The role of postsecondary education in welfare reform.
Washington, DC: Author.
Center for Women Policy Studies. (2001). ``Clipping our wings '':
The impact of welfare reform on the college aspirations of low income
women. Washington, DC: Author.
Family Welfare Research and Training Group. (2002). The Impact
2000 Project: Final report. Baltimore, MD: School of Social Work,
University of Maryland.
Gittell, M., Gross, J., & Holdaway, J. (1993). Building human
capital: The impact of postsecondary education on AFDC recipients in
five states. New York: Howard Samuels State Management and Policy
Center of City University of New York.
Gittell, M., Vandersall, K., Holdaway, J., & Newman, K. (1996).
Creating social capital at CUNY: A comparison of higher education
programs for AFDC recipients. New York: Howard Samuels State Management
and Policy Center of City University of New York.
Kahn, P. & Polakow, V. (2000). Struggling to stay in school:
Obstacles to postsecondary education under the welfare-to-work
restrictions in Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Education of
Women, University of Michigan.
Karier, T. (1998). Welfare graduates: College and financial
independence. Annandale-on-Hudson, NY: The Jerome Levy Economics
Institute.
Kates, E. (1999). Public assistance and workforce development: The
growing divide. Waltham, MA: Welfare Education Training Access
Coalition and Heller School, Brandeis University.
Kates. E. (1991). Transforming rhetoric into choice: Access to
higher education for low-income women. In Wolfe, L.R. (Ed). Women,
work, and school: Occupational segregation and the role of education.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Lewis, M., Schacher, S., & Simon P. (Eds). (2002). Empowering
lives through education: Women and men overcoming welfare. Oakland, CA:
Workforce Development/CalWORKS & EOPS/CARE Programs at Laney College.
Loprest, P. & Zedlewski, S. (1999). Current and former welfare
recipients: How do they differ? Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Mathur, A., Reichle, J., Wiseley, C., & Strawn, J. (2002).
Credentials count: How California's community colleges help parents
move from welfare to self-sufficiency. California Community Colleges
Chancellor's Office. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.
Mayfield, J. (2001). Fulltime higher education under TANF: Other
states practices and policy options for Washington. Olympia, WA:
Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Sherman, A. (1990). College access and the JOBS program.
Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.
Smith, R.J., Deprez, L. & Butler, S.S. (2002). Parents as scholars:
Education works. Augusta, ME: Alliance for Family Success.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. (2001). Years of
school completed by people 25 years old and over, by age, race,
household relationship and poverty status: 2000. Current Population
Survey, March Supplement. Available at:http://www.census.gov/hhes.
Statement of Robert E. Wordlaw and Rose Karasti, Chicago Jobs Council,
Chicago, Illinois
The Chicago Jobs Council (CJC) and its 100+ members; community-
based organizations, advocates, and concerned individuals, work to
ensure access to employment and career advancement opportunities for
people in poverty. We submit this testimony on TANF reauthorization and
the importance of education and skills training to employment and
family success.
CJC has a twenty-four year history of advocacy and collaboration
with the Mayor's Office in Chicago; with Illinois' Departments of Human
Services, Employment Security, and Commerce and Economic Opportunity;
with legislators at the state and federal level, and with state and
national partners like Women Employed and The Workforce Alliance, to
shape policies and programs that promote local labor market employment
for low-income individuals. CJC believes that living wage employment is
the quintessential anti-poverty strategy. The pathway to family-
sustaining jobs must be paved with education and training opportunities
throughout one's lifetime which prepare workers for real employment
opportunities in a changing labor market. When the traditional
educational system fails to engage or prepare young people for careers,
particularly in poor communities, or cannot accommodate the needs of
special populations, other avenues to skills development are essential
and must be available.
In 1996 and again in 2002, federal decision-makers purported to be
interested in family well-being and family independence when they
passed welfare legislation which tied government assistance for needy
families to work mandates and marriage goals. The success of the new
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program has largely been
measured by caseload reduction and earnings growth among single heads
of household. By these measures Illinois is ranked near the top among
states. But Illinois' huge reduction in caseload does not mean families
who left the rolls have jobs to sustain them. In fact, the fourth
annual report of the Illinois Families Study documents that 43% of this
sample population of TANF recipients is neither working nor receiving
TANF.\1\ Another Illinois study of the TANF caseload revealed that only
30% found or retained thirty or more hours of work.\2\ And what do we
know about wages? Ninety percent of those working live below the
federal poverty level. Only six percent have good jobs (jobs that pay
$8 or more/hr., offer benefits, and are day shift and not temporary or
seasonal).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Lewis, Dan A., Laura B. Amsden, Emily Collins. 2004. The Two
Worlds of Welfare Reform in Illinois. Illinois Families Study, Fourth
Annual Report. University Consortium on Welfare Reform. July.
\2\ Fraker, Thomas, Kirby, Gretchen, Kovac, Martha, Pavetti,
LaDonna. 2003. ``Families on TANF in Illinois: Employment Assets and
Liabilities'' Washington, D.C. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. June.
\3\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, there is an urgency to take welfare reform to a next stage.
Previous proposals from the Bush Administration and House Republicans,
however, undermine the most effective state strategies to transition
individuals from welfare to work and to keep them working. Moreover,
the legislation ignores the reams of research which identifies the
characteristics and needs of the remaining TANF and low-income
population, and the realities of state and local economies. The House
of Representatives must do better and prevail in passage of welfare
legislation that ensures basic family well-being and promotes real
employment success. The remainder of our testimony will provide details
on the TANF population's workforce potential, the importance and
benefit of education and skills training, and the misguided mandate for
a 40 hour work requirement.
Disadvantaged Workers and the Labor Market
The Aspen Institute reports that the projected growth of the
native-born workforce over the next 20 years will be zero percent, and
that immigrants must fill this worker void. In this same period, the
projected gains of workers with post-high school education will be 4%
compared to the previous growth level of 19% for the last 20 years.\4\
Yet, by 2013, more than 80% of the new jobs created in the United
States will require some postsecondary education.\5\ Understanding
these trends is essential to recognizing that we can have a skilled
worker shortage at the same time as a national unemployment rate of
5.2% and an Illinois unemployment rate of 5.8 %.\6\ States like
Illinois have learned that adherence to a ``work first'' TANF program
and work incentives like childcare and an earnings disregard program,
cannot alone produce employment. Advances in technology, the changing
labor market, the economic recession and slow recovery dictate what
jobs are available. In Illinois, our state longitudinal study of TANF
families reveals that the number of individuals in the sample
population currently working is 48%, down from the 54% peak in the
fourth quarter of 2001.\7\ In our state, nearly 1.4 million individuals
and 484,000 children live below the poverty level.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Aspen Institute Domestic Strategy Group. 2002. Grow Faster
Together. Or Grow Slowly Apart: How Will America Work in the 21st
Century?
\5\ Center for Workforce Preparation. Rising to the Challenge:
Business Voices on the Public Workforce Development System. Spring
2003.
\6\ Illinois Department of Employment Security statistic, January
2005.
\7\ Lewis et al. 2004.
\8\ United States Bureau of the Census. Census 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Researchers Julie Strawn and Karin Martinson contend that those who
remain on TANF, those who leave TANF without finding employment, and
those who leave TANF and return to the rolls have low education and
skill levels.\9\ In fact, research conducted by the Center for the
Study of Adult Learning and Literacy revealed that 76% of TANF
recipients tested in the lowest two levels of literacy and 35% scored
in the lowest level.\10\ In Illinois, 44% of the TANF caseload lacks a
high school diploma.\11\ The authors of the United States Department of
Health and Human Services 2001 report Indicators of Welfare Dependence
write, ``individuals with less than a high school education have the
lowest amount of human capital and are at the greatest risk of becoming
poor, despite their work effort. '' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Martinson, Karin, and Julie Strawn. 2002. ``Built to Last: Why
Skills Matter for Long-Run Success in Welfare Reform.'' Washington,
D.C.: Center for Law and Social Policy and the National Council of
State Directors of Adult Education. May.
\10\ Levenson, Alec R., Elaine Reardon, and Stefanie R. Schmidt.
1999. ``Welfare, Jobs and Basic Skills: The Employment Prospects of
Welfare Recipients in the Most Populous U.S. Counties.'' NCSALL Reports
#10B. Boston: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and
Literacy. April.
\11\ Fraker et al. 2003
\12\ U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2001.
Indicators of Welfare Dependence: Annual Report to Congress. CJC
underline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welfare research attests to welfare recipients' desire to work.
It's skills that are needed. In the midst of a slow-growing economy and
in the face of increasing competency levels demanded by vital employers
in local and national economies, it falls to policy-makers to craft
legislation that prepares TANF recipients to join the skilled workforce
and ensure work supports like child care, transportation, medical
insurance, and affordable housing to guarantee family and job
stability. House Resolution 240 ignores the research and the
recommendations of groups like the Welfare to Work Partnership, the
National Governors' Association, The Workforce Alliance, and the
Chicago Jobs Council when it promotes higher participation rates,
narrower definitions of work activity, arbitrary restrictions on
education and training, and the continuing exclusion of immigrants from
TANF services.
A House TANF bill must:
encourage a ``mixed strategy'' approach to family
independence that combines education and work,
include a broad definition of allowable work activities
to satisfy work requirements and prepare all job-seekers to meet local
labor demands, and
invest substantially in work supports to realize lasting
family and program success.
Skills Training Does Work
In 2002 the Workforce Alliance published Skills Training Works:
Examining the Evidence. This document challenges interpretations of the
research frequently used to defend a work first (and only) policy and
discusses research policy-makers may also find informative. Authors of
this report contend that a more comprehensive look at existing
research, including the three government-sponsored studies often cited,
show that: 1) training programs serving low-income adults document
earnings impacts of 10 to 156% beyond what similar job seekers gained
without training or with job search services only, 2) low-income
participants in skills training programs are more likely to access jobs
with greater employer-provided benefits than non-participants, and 3)
those who graduate from training programs work more regularly than they
did prior to training, and more consistently than those who do not
receive training.\13\ In fact, 60 % of the California Greater Avenues
to Independence (GAIN) evaluation participants from its most successful
site, Riverside County, received education and training prior to
entering the labor market.\14\ And the most successful site in the
National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS) study,
Portland JOBS, engaged almost half of their participants in education
and training activities achieving significant acquisition rates of
trade licenses or certificates, and post-secondary education
credentials in addition to GED attainment.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Smith, Whitney, Jenny Wittner, Robin Spence, and Andy Van
Kleunen. 2002. Skills Training Works: Examining the Evidence. The
Workforce Alliance. September.
\14\ Ibid.
\15\ Hamilton, Gayle, Stephen Freedman, Lisa Gennetian, Charles
Michalopoulos, Johanna Walter, Diana Adams-Ciardullo, Anna Gassman-
Pines. 2001. National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies.
Washington, D.C. Manpower Demonstration Resource Corporation for the U.
S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U. S. Department of
Education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Communities with a vision for their workforce and commitment to the
most disadvantaged job seekers have developed other successful
education and training programs. Research on transitional jobs
programs, which combine support, vocational training, and work and
target hard-to-place populations, show strong results. Eighty-one to 94
percent of program completers have been placed in unsubsidized
jobs.\16\ And ``bridge'' programs, like those at Chicago's Westside
Technological Institute and the Instituto del Progreso Latino, create
education and training pathways linking individuals with low literacy
or English proficiency to basic skills, vocational training and
advanced certification programs.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Hill, Heather, Gretchen Kirby, and LaDonna Pavetti. 2001.
``Transitional Jobs Programs: Stepping Stones to Unsubsidized
Employment.'' Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
\17\ Braza, Mark. 2001. ``Employment Outcomes of Chicago
Manufacturing Technology Bridge Graduates.'' Submitted to the Great
Cities Institute, University of Illinois, Chicago. January.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education and skills training is a proven anti-poverty strategy.
The U. S. Census Bureau reported that every level of educational
attainment produces earnings gains of $2000 to $45,000 dollars.\18\
Additionally, research demonstrates that ``the higher a family's
income, the better children will do on ability measures and achievement
scores and the more likely they are to finish high school.'' \19\ Even
if our only interest is reducing family dependence on government
assistance, we are frugal to make education and skills training
available to TANF recipients. But if we keenly understand that job
skills are essential to family well-being and community economies then
a commitment to policies that provide opportunities and resources for
education and skills training is wise, far-sighted, and financially
responsible. With increases in participation rates and work hours, even
narrower restrictions on allowable work activities, and unrealistic
limits on education and skills training H. R. 240 forces states to
dismantle welfare-to-work strategies of greatest impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Day, Jennifer Cheeseman and Eric C. Newburger. 2002. ``The Big
Payoff: Educational Attainment and Synthetic Estimates of Work-Life
Earnings.'' Current Population Reports. U. S. Census Bureau. July.
\19\ Lyter, Deanna. 2002. citing Mary C. Corcoran, 1995. ``Rags to
Riches: Poverty and Mobility in the United States.'' Annual Review of
Sociology 21:237-267 and Greg J. Duncan, W. Jean Yeung, Jeanne Brooks-
Gunn, and Judith R. Smith. 1998. ``How Much Does Childhood Poverty
Affect the Life Chances of Children?'' American Sociological Review 63
(June): 406-423. ``Education and Job Training Build Strong Families.''
IWPR Publication # B238. Institute for Women's Policy Research. April.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A House TANF bill must:
eliminate arbitrary time limits on education and training
activities,
eliminate the 30% cap on the number of recipients engaged
in education and skills training,
allow a broad range of education and skills training to
count as work activities, and
offer incentives and rewards to states which develop
transitional jobs programs and skills training for low-income job
seekers targeted to labor market needs and higher wage placements.
Misguided Mandates
The Center for Law and Social Policy has determined that 40 states
currently allow postsecondary training or education services that would
not be countable under H.R. 4, a previous welfare bill similar to the
recently proposed H.R. 240.\20\ Additionally, it is expected that
states will have to cut these most innovative and effective services
and redirect resources to create and monitor ten additional hours of
activity for the 52% of TANF recipients who were engaged in work-
related activities that would not meet the new federal threshold.\21\
The increased work requirement, in addition to higher participation
rates, place families with significant barriers to work far down the
priority list for state services and renders them targets of diversion,
sanction, termination, and destitution. A study of TANF applicants in
Illinois revealed that 35% of those who could not comply with work
requirements were not working, not living with an employed adult, and
not receiving TANF benefits.\22\ These are families that need our
services and our commitment most.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Center for Law and Social Policy. 2002. ``Forty States Likely
to Cut Access to Postsecondary Training or Education Under House-Passed
Bill.'' Washington, D.C. June.
\21\ The National Governors Association and the American Public
Human Services Association. 2002. Welfare Reform Reauthorization: State
Impact of Proposed Changes in Work Requirements, April 2002 Survey
Results. Washington, D.C. April.
\22\ Maximus, Inc. 2002. Illinois TANF Applicant Study. Reston, VA.
Prepared for the State of Illinois Department of Human Services. May.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration-backed proposals like H.R. 240 purport flexibility
and an awareness of the need for barrier remediation with allowances of
16 hours per week for other activities and a 3 month time frame for
job-related education and training. The Chicago Jobs Council completed
a simple analysis of Workforce Investment Act (WIA) certified training
programs in three Illinois cities: Dixon, Aurora, and Chicago, to shed
some light on the misconceptions upon which these mandates are
built.\23\ Welfare recipients and other low-income job seekers in these
Illinois cities cannot readily get the education and training they need
in hours outside the proposed 24 hours of priority work activity or
within a 3 month time frame recommended by the House bill. Our findings
show:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Review of IDES data, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Few 3-month(or less) training programs are available.
In Dixon only 14% of the training programs available could be
completed in three months or less. In Aurora, a mere 5.7% could be
completed in 3 months or less. In Chicago less than half (49.3%) could
be completed within that time frame. It is important to note that those
that require less than three months to complete are often one-week
courses that will not provide adequate training leading toward family-
sustaining employment.
2) Even fewer training programs are accessible to low-skilled TANF
recipients.
Of 120 WIA-certified training programs in Aurora and Dixon, none
would accept a welfare recipient with a 6th grade proficiency level in
reading. In Chicago, only 9% of training programs would accept someone
with a 6th grade proficiency level in reading, and only 33% would
accept someone with 9th grade reading ability. As previously stated,
three, or even six months, of remedial education will not be all that
is needed for low-skilled TANF recipients to secure and advance in
employment.
3) Low-wage jobs don't accommodate education/training schedules.
Most training programs in Dixon and Aurora offer part-time study
options. In Chicago, however, nearly half (40%) of training programs do
not offer part-time hours. It is important to note that working welfare
recipients are most often employed in low-wage service industry jobs
that do not offer consistent hours or the flexibility required to
engage in a defined part-time training program. Service industry
employees are increasingly dependent on a schedule that may change
weekly, both in days worked and the number and sequence of hours
employers demand for round-the-clock, peak season, profit-making
operations.\24\ While many low-income workers would be interested in
combining work and training in order to make a better life for their
families, it is not always possible to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Lambert, Susan, Waxman, E, Haley-Lock, A. 2002. ``Against the
Odds: A Study of Instability in Lower-Skilled Jobs.'' Working Paper of
the Project on he Public Economy of Work. University of Chicago.
January.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2003, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary
Tommy Thompson testified before the Senate Finance Committee that the
next phase of welfare reform must ``help more welfare recipients
achieve independence through work, promote strong families, empower
States to seek new and imaginative solutions to help welfare recipients
achieve independence, and show compassion to those in need.'' \25\ H.
R. 240's mandates for more work hours, arbitrary restrictions on
education and skills training, and unrealistic and uninformed work/
advancement/parenting expectations for low-skilled job seekers
jeopardize the successes of states and welfare reform, and deny poor
families access to living-wage work and greater family well-being.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Thompson, Tommy. 2003. Statement before the Committee on
Finance, United States Senate, by Tommy Thompson, Secretary, Department
of Health and Human Services, on ``Welfare Reform: Building on
Success.'' March.I77A House TANF bill must:
maintain current work hour requirements,
include a broad definition of allowable work activities
to satisfy work requirements and prepare all job-seekers, including
immigrants, to meet local labor demands,
encourage a ``mixed strategy'' approach to family
independence that combines education and work,
eliminate arbitrary time limits and the cap on education
and training activities,
offer incentives and rewards to states which develop
transitional jobs programs, ``bridge'' programs, and skills training
for low-income job seekers targeted to labor market needs and higher
wage placements, and
invest substantially in work supports (child care,
transportation, medical insurance, food stamps, affordable housing) to
realize lasting family and program success.
Statement of Carolyn Wylie, Children's Defense Fund
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
The Children's Defense Fund (CDF) appreciates the opportunity to
submit this testimony on H.R. 240. CDF is a private, non-profit
organization with a more than 30 year history of advocating for
children, particularly poor and minority children and those with
disabilities. The mission of CDF is to Leave No Child Behind and to
ensure that every child has a Healthy Start, a Head Start, a Fair
Start, a Safe Start, and a Moral Start in life as well as successful
passage to adulthood with the help of caring families and communities.
The issue of welfare reform is of vital interest to CDF because of
its importance as a social safety net for millions of American families
with children. We believe Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)
can be a potent force for enhancing child well-being in the lives of
the millions of children who are currently living in poverty in America
today. However, research clearly demonstrates that the best way to
achieve this goal is through significant investments in work supports
such as childcare, job training and education, and screening and
treatment for barriers to employment. Therefore, we support:
Increasing funding for child care so that all eligible
families receive the child care for which they are eligible.
Setting work requirements that allow maximum flexibility
to achieve the job skills and training necessary to find and maintain
well-paying jobs, and differentiates work hours for families with
children under 6 years of age.
Allowing states to use TANF funds to assist all legal
immigrant families regardless of when they came into the state.
Requiring states to uniformly screen for barriers to work
and assess child well-being.
Refraining from adopting a superwaiver policy as a way to
achieve flexibility. Adopting sanctioning policies that acknowledge
families' good faith efforts to meet requirements.
Using the funds in the TANF block grant to meet the
employment, child care and educational needs of families, rather than
using it for unproven family formation and marriage promotion programs.
We oppose diverting funding for essential services proven to lift
families out poverty and utilizing those funds for untested marriage
promotion initiatives.
Child Care/CCDBG
For millions of parents, receiving child care assistance is
essential for staying employed. For families receiving TANF benefits,
child care assistance is critical in making the transition from welfare
to employment. In order to effectively support these families and to
help them remain in the workforce, the Child Care Development Block
Grant (CCDBG) must be adequately funded to provide reliable,
affordable, safe, high-quality care for children. Nationally, only one
out of every seven eligible children is receiving child care
assistance. It is extremely difficult for low-income parents to find
child care options that are affordable and flexible enough to
accommodate their employment. Thus, it is essential for states to have
adequate federal funding to fulfill this crucial need and to meet the
underlying purposes of this legislation--moving families from welfare
into work, helping them to stay employed and improving child well-
being.
However, H.R. 240 adds only $1 billion in additional mandatory
child care funding over the next five years and to $2.4 billion in
discretionary funding, which is subject to the appropriations process.
The mandatory funding is particularly low given that last year there
was bipartisan support for the Senate Snowe/Dodd amendment which
provided an additional $6 billion in mandatory child care funding. In
fact the Senate vote was 78 to 20 including the support of 31
Republican senators. Because the discretionary child care program must
compete on an annual basis for increasingly scarce federal money it is
at risk of not being fully funded. Overall, the funding falls short of
what is needed to ensure that states can meet the needs of both welfare
recipients making the transition to work and low-income working
families who are not receiving welfare.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that it would
require $4.5 billion in child care funding over five years simply to
compensate for the effects of inflation on the major child care funding
streams and avoid a reduction in child care services. In addition, the
CBO also estimated that the additional cost to states of meeting the
work requirements in H.R. 240 would reach $2.9 billion in 2010 and
total $8.3 billion over the 2006-2010 period.\1\ The current bill does
not address the growing costs of child care related to inflation, nor
the proposed cost increases in work requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Congressional Budget Office, Letter to the Honorable Jim
McDermott regarding the potential additional costs that states could
incur to implement the work participation requirements specified in
H.R. 240 for those receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF). February 9, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most states have already reduced child care assistance for working
families over the past few years due to tight budgets and the depletion
or exhaustion of many states' surplus TANF funds. Both the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and the CBO project that overall TANF
spending by states will decrease over the next five years because
states have been relying on the ever decreasing TANF reserves
accumulated in prior years.\2\ According to the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), states have already taken a variety of
actions affecting their child care programs such as reducing income
eligibility limits, instituting waiting lists, increasing the co-
payments for low-income families, reducing provider payments, and
reducing funding dedicated to improving the quality of childcare.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Fremstad, S. State Fiscal Relief Funds Do Not Address the Need
for Substantial Increases in Child Care Funding. Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, July 28, 2003.
\3\ General Accounting Office, ``CHILD CARE: Recent State Policy
Changes Affecting the Availability of Assistance for Low-Income
Families,'' GAO-03-588, May 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By imposing increased work requirements, without adequate child
care funding, states will be forced to make even deeper cuts in child
care programs that will have profound effects on low-income families.
These effects will be as extreme for many families as forcing them to
choose between leaving their jobs and leaving their children in unsafe
environments. It is unacceptable to put families in that position--we
must not force families to make a choice between employment and the
safety or well-being of their children. Federal policy should safeguard
both the long-term self-sufficiency and employment of parents and the
well-being of their children. Work requirements become punitive and
counterproductive when there is inadequate child care funding to assist
families in meeting those requirements, especially for single parents
with children under six who are required by H.R. 240 to double their
hours worked from twenty to forty hours per week.
One change H.R. 240 makes is to give states authority to transfer
more TANF funds to CCDBG, up to 50 percent from the current level of 30
percent. This change will not help fill the gap created by inadequately
funding this bill. Allowing states to transfer more money from an
already inadequate source of funds will not fulfill the need for more
child care funding. In fact, states can already spend TANF funds
directly on child care and this bill reduces the barriers to direct
expenditures. Currently, when states spend TANF money directly on child
care for non-recipient families those funds are counted as TANF
assistance with all the limitations associated with TANF. This bill
removes that restriction by clarifying that TANF funds spent directly
on child care do not count as TANF assistance. Because this bill will
allow states to freely and directly spend TANF funds on child care, the
ability to transfer more TANF funds to CCDBG is not an opportunity for
more child care funding but is really just another empty promise for
our children.
Despite the $1 billion increase in mandatory child care funding in
H.R. 240, hundreds of thousands of children in working families would
lose access to child care because added work requirements will only
increase the need. Ironically, low-income working families not
receiving TANF but rely on support from CCDBG may be forced to turn to
TANF because of the overall lack of child care funding.
Work Requirements
Hours/Week and Participation Rates
H.R. 240 proposes to increase work requirements for families now
required to work 30 hours per week to 40 hours per week. Single parents
with children under six now required to work 20 hours per week would
also be required to work 40 hours. Families must fulfill at least 24 of
the 40 hours per week by engaging in one of the specified direct work
activities and 16hours in other state defined activities. This bill
also makes the participation rate uniform for all families and
increases it by 5% each year from 50% currently up to 70% for fiscal
year 2010 and for each year thereafter. These requirements raise
serious concerns as the welfare policies proven to improve child well-
being are those that raise income and promote work by making work pay.
Mandating across the board increases in work hours without commensurate
increases in work supports simply increases the burden on families
without providing them the necessary tools to meet the requirements.
Research has shown that children do best when welfare to work
programs provide a mix of services including cash supplements, job
training and placement services, and supports like child care, job
retention services, and transportation assistance.\4\ Helping parents
overcome barriers can increase their chances of earning their way out
of poverty and achieving greater independence. Increasing work
requirements without adequate supports or services will not benefit
parents, children, or society and will ultimately undermine the goal of
moving people from welfare to work. CDF urges Congress not to increase
work requirements to 40 hours, particularly without a significant
increase in work supports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Hamilton, G., et al. (2001) ``Impacts of the Well-Being of All
Children.'' How Effective Are Different Welfare-to-Work Approaches?
Five-Year Adult and Child Impacts for Eleven Programs. Washington,
D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families; Brooks-Gunn, J., Han, W., and Waldfogel, J.
(2002) ``Maternal Employment and Child Cognitive Outcomes in the First
Three Years of Life: The NICHD Study of Early Child Care.'' Child
Development 73(4): 1052-1072.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are particularly concerned that under H.R. 240 single parents
with children under six will no longer have a reduced work requirement.
Recent research shows negative effects when mothers work during their
child's first year of life, including lower Bracken School Readiness
scores.\5\ In addition, negative effects for children are more
pronounced when mothers worked 30 hours or more per week.\6\ Therefore,
the proposed increase in work requirements poses significant risks to
young children, especially when coupled with inadequate child care
funding in the bill. Unless parents are able to find affordable,
quality child care, single-mothers with young children will likely be
forced to make difficult choices between working and obtaining quality
care for their children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Brooks-Gunn, J., Han, W., and Waldfogel, J. (2002) ``Maternal
Employment and Child Cognitive Outcomes in the First Three Years of
Life: The NICHD Study of Early Child Care.'' Child Development 73(4):
1052-1072; Morris, P., Duncan, G.J., and Clark-Kauffman, E.(2003)
``Child well-being in an era of welfare reform: The sensitivity of
transitions in development to policy change.'' New York, NY: Manpower
Demonstration Research Corporation; Paxson, C., and Waldfogel, J.
(2002) ``Work, Welfare, and Child Maltreatment.'' Journal of Labor
Economics 20(3): 435-474.
\6\ Brooks-Gunn and Waldfogel, 2002
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work Activities that Count Toward Federal Work Participation Rate
States have used the flexibility provided by the caseload reduction
credit and waiver provisions of current law to engage individuals with
disabilities, mental impairments, substance abuse problems and other
challenges in a set of rehabilitative activities that help move these
individuals towards work and greater independence. H.R. 240 would limit
states' ability to help families in this way.
H.R. 240 only enables states to count rehabilitative activities
towards the work requirements for three months. After three months,
such activities count only if the person first engages in 24 hours of
core work activities, defined as: subsidized or unsubsidized public or
private employment, supervised work experience, supervised community
experience, and on-the-job training. Many individuals with
disabilities, mental impairments and substance abuse problems,
especially those with multiple challenges, are unlikely to be to
participate in 24 hours of core work activities after only three months
of rehabilitative services. Unless states are provided more flexibility
in determining what activities count towards the participation rate, it
will be difficult for them to provide needed services.
For example, the Vermont Vocational Rehabilitation Agency, working
in conjunction with the state's TANF agency, recently assisted 109
recipients with disabilities in achieving successful employment
(defined as stable employment for 90 days). Less than 10 of these 109
TANF recipients achieved successful employment within 3 months. Thus,
if H.R. 240 were in effect, Vermont would have risked penalties
offering these individuals services beyond three months and more than
more than 100 of the 109 TANF recipients would have been unlikely to
receive the services they needed to become successfully employed.
Similarly, drug and alcohol treatment programs that serve women
with children, including women receiving TANF assistance, frequently
require more than three months of services. Successful programs often
combine job training, parenting classes, education, and life skills
training in their substance abuse treatment plans. These programs also
include employment as part of the treatment plan to the extent a
particular individual is ready to engage in work. Allowing individuals
time to complete treatment is critical. An Oregon study showed that
those who completed drug treatment received wages 65 percent higher
than those who did not.
The goal should be to help parents with disabilities, mental
impairments, substance abuse problems and other challenges, obtain the
help they need--for however long they need, as determined by the state
and local agencies working together--to help them successfully move
from welfare to work. Allowing states to receive credit for only a
limited number of months of rehabilitative services will mean that some
parents do not get the intensive help they need to succeed.
CDF is also quite concerned that many of the families who are
unable to obtain the services they need will end up in the child
welfare system. Those families at greatest risk have challenges such as
disabilities, mental impairments or problems with substance abuse.
To truly help families move towards work and greater independence
and to avoid harm to children, we encourage you to adopt the approach
proposed by Senators Smith (R-OR) and Jeffords (I-VT) in the Pathways
to Independence Act (S. 456).
Immigrant Eligibility
Despite continuing bipartisan support in Congress for restoring
legal immigrants' access to benefits, this bill retains its
discriminatory restrictions on their eligibility for TANF programs. In
2004, the Senate Finance Committee passed reauthorization bill had
strong bipartisan support and provided states with the option of using
TANF funds to assist legal immigrant families regardless of entry date.
Proponents of this bill have repeatedly stated their intention to
provide states flexibility in structuring their TANF programs, yet it
is denying states the most basic flexibility to structure its program
as it chooses by giving all its residents equal access to benefits. We
urge you to restore benefits to all legal immigrants or to at least
allow states the option to use TANF funds to assist legal immigrant
families in their states regardless of entry date.
Waivers
H.R.240 includes a proposal to establish a new, broad authority for
the executive branch to grant states waivers of statutory and
regulatory requirements for specified programs in order to create new
demonstration projects to coordinate multiple public assistance,
workforce development and other service delivery programs. Although we
support the goal of improving coordination of low-income programs and
making them more accessible, we disagree that this ``superwaiver'' is
the most sensible or safe mechanism to achieve that goal. There are
multiple risks involved in giving this authority to the executive
branch and to states.
One important risk of the ``superwaiver'' is that it would allow
the executive branch and the states to make fundamental changes to the
structure of low-income programs, including how funds are spent by
these programs, without the input of Congress and outside of the normal
legislative process. The ``superwaiver'' lacks the protections to
prevent alterations in programs that could have far-reaching,
detrimental consequences for the low-income population, especially
children. Another risk is that the ``superwaiver'' could be used to
undercut Congressional requirements about the level of state investment
in federal-state programs.
Superwaivers take away Congressional power, especially the power of
authorizing committees like Ways and Means, by letting the
Administration change the rules of programs on its own. The overall
funding for low-income programs could decline because states could use
``superwaivers'' to shift federal resources into areas previously
funded with state resources thus allowing states to withdraw their
funds from low-income programs. This supplantation could have dramatic
ripple effects for low-income families and children.
The ``superwaiver'' goes far beyond what is needed to address
coordination problems among various low-income programs and we strongly
urge you to seek other approaches that will not put low-income programs
at risk.
Screening for Barriers to Employment
H.R. 240 eliminates the current law requirement for states to
conduct initial assessments of recipients' skills, prior work
experience, and employability and makes those assessments optional for
states. The approach proposed by the Senate Finance Committee in 2003
and 2004 would strengthen current law by adding screening for
employment barriers and assessments of child well-being to the
currently required initial assessments to allow a better understanding
of the needs and capabilities of each family to help move them to self-
sufficiency. However, H.R. 240 takes a step in the opposite direction
by making initial assessments optional. Personal assessments and
screening are important tools to identify barriers in order to
ascertain the best way to assist recipients achieve employability and,
eventually, self-sufficiency. Without identifying existing barriers, it
can be difficult if not impossible to identify the obstacles that a
recipient is facing and to help them overcome those challenges. CDF
strongly urges you to not only retain the current assessment
requirement but to add screening for barriers.
Sanctions and Protections
H.R. 240 includes punitive sanctions that reduce state flexibility,
are overly harsh, and punish children. States are required to sanction
families for failure to meet work requirements and to terminate all
assistance to families, including their children, when parents do not
meet program requirements, even if states would rather not adopt such
harsh full-family sanction policies. Based on the current proposal to
raise work requirements for all families without a commensurate
increase in work supports such as child care, training, education, job
placement, and transportation, it is possible that many families who
are facing barriers to work will not be able to meet the work
requirements.
Research has shown that a large proportion of families that have
been sanctioned face significant barriers to employment such as health
problems and low basic skill levels or substance abuse problems.\7\ In
fact one large study found that children in families that had been
sanctioned generally had higher rates of serious behavioral and
emotional problems than children in other TANF families.\8\ Therefore,
families may face these arbitrary and harsh sanction policies without
states having the option to adopt less stringent policies or the option
of providing additional services. Families that lose TANF assistance as
a result of sanctions or time limits are more likely to experience
hardship than other welfare leavers.\9\ State-level studies have found
that families who lose cash assistance due to sanctions or time limits
face serious material hardships including problems securing housing and
food. One national survey found that mothers who left welfare after
being sanctioned were more than three times as likely to have
experienced material hardship--homelessness or eviction, hunger, or
moving in with others--as mothers of infants who stayed on welfare.\10\
When researchers looked at the relationship between hunger and
sanctioning, they found that sanctioned mothers were more than six
times as likely as mothers staying on welfare to have experienced
hunger.\11\ These studies show that sanction policies can lead to real
hardship for many low-income parents and children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Pavetti, L. Review of Sanction Policies and Research Studies,
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., March 2003.
\8\ Chase-Lansdale, L., Levine-Coley, R., Lohman, B.J., and
Pittman, L.D. ``Welfare Reform: What About the Children?'' 2002.
\9\ Reichman, N.E., Teitler, J.O., and Curtis, M.A. ``Hardships
Among Sanctioned Leavers, Non-Sanctioned Leavers, and TANF Stayers.''
Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, Working Paper #03-17-FF,
December 2003; Cook, J., Frank, D., Berkowitz, C., Black, M., Casey,
P., Cutts, D., Meyers, A., Zaldivar, N., Skalicky, A., Levenson, S.,
and Heeren, T. 2002. ``Welfare Reform and the Health of Young Children:
A Sentinel Survey in Six United States Cities,'' Archives of Pediatric
and Adolescent Medicine 156(7).
\10\ Cook, et al., 2002.
\11\ Reichman, et al., 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDF urges you to reconsider these sanction policies and to instead
adopt safeguards for families making good faith efforts to meet the
requirements. The Feingold, Kennedy, and Landrieu Fair Treatment and
Due Process Act of 2003 (S. 770) would have helped to ensure fair and
non-discriminatory treatment for applicants and clients of state TANF
programs. Among other provisions, this proposal would have enhanced
sanction notification and due process protections for clients and
improved access for translation services.
Family Formation and Marriage Promotion
This bill proposes directing spending of up to $1.6 billion federal
and state money on marriage promotion at the same time efforts to
increase funding for basic income supports with proven effectiveness
such as transitional jobs and childcare have been opposed, defeated, or
underfunded on the grounds that they are not necessary and that there
are not enough funds available. Any funds available should be spent on
proven programs that will most directly benefit children.
On May 13, 2004 CDF submitted testimony on the impact on children
of proposed federal marriage initiatives to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space title ``Social
Science Data on the Impact of Marriage and Divorce on Children\12\'' We
believe that on its own, marriage is unlikely to pull substantial
numbers of people out of poverty. In fact, research suggests that
marriage has limited utility in this regard. Even if all fathers not
currently living with their children and their children's mother were
reunited, the overall child poverty rate would still be two-thirds of
what they are now.\13\ Marriage, while potentially economically
beneficial, would not end the majority of child poverty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ http://www.childrensdefense.org/familyincome/welfare/
testimony_on_marriage_initiatives.pdf
\13\ Hernandez, D.J. (1993). America's Children. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, prior to spending large sums of money on unproven,
potentially unsafe marriage promotion programs that have not been
rigorously evaluated, Congress should invest in programs that will
increase the economic and educational status of Americans living
poverty. The Administration and Congress assert that the over-arching
purpose of marriage promotion programs is to improve the well-being of
American children who are living in poverty. Given that it is clear
that marriage promotion is not the most consistent and proven direct
path to reach this goal, we urge you to ensure that adequate
investments have been made to meet the employment, child care and
education needs of single parents before investing scarce federal
resources in this unproven method.
Conclusion
TANF provides a vital social safety net for millions of people
living in poverty, especially for the growing number of children in
poverty. Extensive research demonstrates that children in low-income
families are at risk for low cognitive achievement, behavioral
problems, and health problems.\14\ TANF policies can lead to positive
effects for children when they increase family income and are combined
with adequate work supports. One recent study finds that positive
effects for elementary school children that are more pronounced when
programs have generous earnings supplement policies and work support
programs than programs without them.\15\ Other research shows positive
effects for preschool and early school-age children in programs with
work supports, but only in programs that increased both employment and
income.\16\ Reforms with work mandates but few supports, including few
wage and childcare subsidies for working mothers, appear to be
significantly less beneficial than programs with work supports.\17\ In
addition, reforms with positive effects on children tend to operate
more through changes outside the family--such as in quality child care
and after-school programs.\18\ Thus, child outcomes improve when family
income increases, when children are placed in high-quality child care
programs, and when adequate work supports accompany employment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne, Greg J. Duncan. 1997. ``The Effects of
Poverty on Children.'' Children and Poverty 7(2): 55-71; Yeung, W.
Jean, Miriam R. Linver, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. 2002. ``How Money
Matters for Young Children's Development: Parental Investment and
Family Processes.'' Child Development 73(6): 1861-1879.
\15\ Morris, et al., 2003.
\16\ Morris, Pamela A., Aletha C. Huston, Greg J. Duncan, Danielle
A. Crosby, and Johannes M. Bos. 2001. ``How Welfare and Work Policies
Affect Children: A Synthesis of Research.'' New York, NY: Manpower
Demonstration Research Corporation
\17\ Duncan, Greg, and P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale. 2001. ``Welfare
Reform and Child Well-being.'' JCPR Working Papers 217, Northwestern
University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research
\18\ Duncan and Chase-Lansdale, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDF supports:
Increasing funding for child care so that all eligible
families receive the child care for which they are eligible.
Setting work requirements that allow maximum flexibility
to achieve the job skills and training necessary to find and maintain
well-paying jobs, and that differentiate work hours for families with
children under 6 years of age.
Allowing states to use TANF funds to assist all legal
immigrant families regardless of when they came into the county.
Requiring states to uniformly screen for barriers to work
and assess child well-being.
Refraining from adopting a ``superwaiver'' policy that
creates substantive risks for families.
Adopting sanction policies that acknowledge families'
good faith efforts to meet requirements and give states demonstration
with sanction policies.
Using the funds in the TANF block grant to meet the
employment, child care and educational needs of families, rather
diverting them for unproven family formation and marriage promotion
programs.
Statement of Sharon McDonald, Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities
The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) is a coalition
of approximately 100 national consumer, advocacy, provider and
professional organizations headquartered in Washington, DC. We work
together to advocate for national public policy that ensures the self
determination, independence, empowerment, integration and inclusion of
children and adults with disabilities in all aspects of society. The
CCD TANF Task Force seeks to ensure that families that include persons
with disabilities are afforded equal opportunities and appropriate
accommodations under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block
grant.
We believe that many individuals with disabilities receiving TANF,
or those parents caring for a child with a disability, can successfully
move from welfare to work if the appropriate supports and policies are
in place. In a report issued in 2001, the National Council on
Disability stated: `` `Every American should have the opportunity to
participate fully in society and engage in productive work.
Unfortunately, millions of Americans with disabilities are locked out
of the workplace because they are denied the tools and access necessary
for success.' President George W. Bush, New Freedom Initiative at p.
18, (Feb. 2001), www.whitehouse.gov/news/freedominitiative/
freedominitiative.html. For many people with disabilities, TANF, if
appropriately designed, could provide the tools and access needed to
unlock doors to opportunity, productivity, and economic self-
sufficiency.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Council on Disability, TANF and Disability, Importance
of Supports for Families with Disabilities in Welfare Reform, March 14,
2003, available at: http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/
publications.familysupports.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important for federal and state policy makers to recognize
how many people now receiving services through state TANF programs have
disabilities. The General Accounting Office found that 44 percent of
parents receiving TANF had at least one physical or mental health
impairment, three times higher than the rate of such impairments among
adults not receiving TANF benefits.\2\ This confirmed earlier findings
from the Urban Institute and others.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Former TANF
Recipients with Impairments Less Likely to be Employed and More Likely
to Receive Federal Supports, (GAO-03-210), December 2002, available at
http://www.gao.gov.
\3\ Sheila R. Zedlewski, Work Activity and Obstacles to Work Among
TANF Recipients, Urban Institute, Series B, No. B-2, September 1999,
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/anf_b2.pdf. For a discussion of
numerous studies that have reported on the status of parents with
disabilities in state TANF programs, see Eileen P. Sweeney, Recent
Studies Indicate that Many Parents Who are Current or Former Welfare
Recipients Have Disabilities or Other Medical Conditions, Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, February 2000, http://www.cbpp.org/2-29-
00.htm. See also, Heidi Goldberg, Improving TANF Program Outcomes for
Families with Barriers to Employment, Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, January 2002, http://www.cbpp.org/1-22-02tanf3.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Studies show that parents on TANF have mental impairments such as
severe depression, general anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress
disorder, learning disabilities, and mental retardation, as well as
physical impairments and brain injuries. These impairments can make it
difficult for a parent to work or to understand and comply with state
rules. Many families have multiple barriers to work, one or more of
which is a disability or health condition.\4\ In many instances,
parents would like to work but will need intensive supports and
services if they are to succeed. Some examples of these supports
include training and education designed to take into account the
person's disability, counseling, substance abuse treatment, on-the-job
supports, child care and transportation. For some, full-time work may
be the long-term goal, but there will need to be numerous smaller steps
taken over time before such a goal can be reached. For others, part-
time work in a supportive setting may be the ultimate goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Sandra Danziger, Mary Corcoran, Sheldon Danziger, et al.,
Barriers to Employment of Welfare Recipients, University of Michigan
Poverty Research and Training Center, February 2000, http://
www.ssw.umich.edu/poverty/pubs.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some states are taking positive steps to assist people with
disabilities in their TANF programs. A number of states, including
Iowa, Utah, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, and some counties in Colorado,
have developed partnerships to address the needs of individuals with
disabilities and help move them from welfare to work. Such partnerships
often include TANF agencies, vocational rehabilitation, workforce
investment, and local business and community groups. To adequately help
families that include a person with a disability requires a great
amount of flexibility in developing the programs that help individuals
with disabilities achieve self-sufficiency.
Under current law, states have the flexibility--either due to a
waiver or the caseload reduction credit--to ensure that a parent with a
disability, including a substance abuse problem, receives the
rehabilitative services she needs in order to move towards work. In
recent years, more states have used this flexibility as they became
aware that some parents require more specialized help to successfully
enter the workforce and maintain employment.
Under H.R. 240, the amount of time states could count
rehabilitative services as meeting the full work requirement would be
capped at three months. Under this proposal, after three months, states
could count the hours an individual participated in rehabilitative
services as meeting the work requirements only if the individual also
completed 24 hours of countable work activities each week. Many parents
with disabilities will be unable to meet the 24 hour threshold of
countable work activities despite their best efforts and the commitment
of states.
These restrictions are likely to be counter-productive for many
families who will require more time to successfully prepare to enter
the workforce and will likely discourage states from designing programs
that meet the needs of those with the most severe barriers.
The CCD TANF Task Force recommends that Congress take the following
steps to ensure that parents with disabilities and parents caring for
children with disabilities are able not only to fully benefit from the
TANF program but also are not harmed by policies that fail to take into
account the impact of their disabilities on their ability to comply
with program rules:
1. Allow states to count participation in rehabilitative services
as meeting work requirement for more than three months if the TANF
recipient is progressively increasing participation in core work
activities.
We urge the Committee to consider adopting provisions similar to
that of an amendment co-sponsored by Senators Smith, Jeffords, Chafee,
Collins, Rockefeller and Landrieu in the 108th Congress that would have
amended provisions in the Personal Responsibility and Individual
Development for Everyone (PRIDE) Act. PRIDE was the TANF
reauthorization proposal approved by the Senate Finance Committee in
the last Congress. Due to other unrelated issues, this amendment was
not considered. We urge both Houses to consider it and include it in
their TANF reauthorization legislation in 2005.
The Senate's PRIDE Act would have allowed states to count
rehabilitative services as a work activity for up to six months, as
long as some core work activity is combined with the rehabilitation
services during the second three-month period. The proposed amendment
would have extended this to allow states the option of counting
individuals participating in rehabilitative services beyond six months,
as long as the individual also continues to participate in at least
one-half of the required core work activity hours.
Extending rehabilitation services beyond six months would allow
states to create a progression of work activity combined with
rehabilitative services over time that will assist in moving a family
from welfare to work at a pace that will lead to success for a family
that includes a person with a disability. The amendment also encourages
states to develop collaborative relationships with other governmental
and private agencies with expertise in disability determination or
designing appropriate service plans for people with disabilities.
As noted earlier, the House bill only permits states to count three
months of participation in rehabilitative services as work activity. We
prefer the Senate Finance Committee's creation of a base period of six
months, although that too is inadequate to address the needs of some
individuals with disabilities including substance abuse. We urge both
the House and Senate Committees to include in your legislation the
provisions in the Smith-Jeffords amendment. The progression of
increased work included in the amendment addresses the concern that
TANF recipients in a pragmatic way that can result in more people with
disabilities successfully moving off of TANF without the need to re-
cycle back onto TANF due to unsuccessful work attempts.
2. Allow states to count as a work activity the time that the adult
in the TANF family spends caring for a child with a disability or an
adult relative with a disability.
There are also children with disabilities in TANF families. The
General Accounting Office reports that fifteen percent of families on
TANF include a child with a disability; and eight percent of families
on TANF include both a child and an adult with a disability. In
contrast, only 3% of children in the general population have a
disability and 1% of the families include both a child and an adult
with a disability.\5\ The Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation
(MDRC), studying TANF recipient families in four urban counties--Los
Angeles, CA, Philadelphia, PA, Miami-Dade, FL, and Cuyahoga County, OH
(Cleveland)--found that one-fourth of non-employed mothers receiving
TANF had a child with an illness or disability that limited the
mothers' ability to work or attend school.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Outcomes for
TANF Recipients with Impairments, (GAO-02-884), July 2002, available
at: http://www.gao.gov.
\6\ Denise Polit, Andrew London, and John Martinez, The Health of
Poor Urban Women: Findings from the Project on Devolution and Urban
Change, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, May 2001, http://
www.mdrc.org/Reports2001/UC-HealthrReport-FullRpt2001.pdf. See also,
Barbara W. LeRoy, Donna M. Johnson, Sharonlyn Harrison, Open Road or
Blind Alley? Welfare Reform, Mothers and Children with Disabilities,
Skillman Center for Children, Wayne State University, Occasional Paper
Series 2000, No. 4, November 2000, http://
www.skillmancenter.culma.wayne.edu/OP%202000-4.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is very difficult to find safe, accessible, and appropriate
child care for a child with a disability. This is often the case
regardless of the family's income. In addition, the nature of some
children's disabilities and health conditions means that parents are
called from work regularly to assist a school with the child or to take
the child to medical appointments--jeopardizing their ability to retain
employment. Other TANF recipients are providing care for an adult
relative who depends on them for that care. They face a serious dilemma
when they are told they must work away from home but leave an elderly
parent or other relative with a disability without the care they need
to continue to live in the community.
At the same time, there are many parents who are providing care to
a family member with a disability who would like to maintain as much
employment as they can or secure the training they will need to gain
employment when they are no longer needed in the home to care for their
family member.
The Family and Community Protection Act (S. 6), introduced in the
Senate, includes a provision that would allow states to receive work
credit for the time that a parent spends caring for a child with a
disability or adult relative, if the state has determined that that is
the most appropriate way to secure needed care. The provision
specifically states that it does not prevent a state from designing a
plan with the parent that combines some amount of in-home care as work
activity with other activities that will help the parent prepare to
enter the workforce at a time that is appropriate in meeting the needs
of the child or adult relative with a disability.
In order to count such care, the state must determine that the
child or adult has a significant physical or mental impairment or
combination of impairments that has been verified through ``a medically
acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic technique.'' The state
must further find that, as a result of that impairment, the child or
adult needs ``substantial ongoing care'' and that the TANF recipient is
the most appropriate person to provide that care. Due to the caretaking
responsibilities, the state must determine that the recipient is not
able to participate fully in other work activities. In addition, the
state will be required to conduct regular, periodic evaluations of the
recipient's family to determine whether there is a continuing need for
care provided by the recipient and include regular updates on this in
the recipient's self-sufficiency plan.
Providing work credit fits nicely into the concepts of universal
engagement and of helping families to get the individualized plans they
need so that they ultimately succeed. As it allows the state the
flexibility necessary to tailor a plan that can evolve with the
changing needs of the family, it can help facilitate the development of
a family-centered helping relationship that may be non-existent when
families are simply ``exempted'' and, perhaps, forgotten on the
caseload rolls.
3. Include provisions that protect families with barriers from
unneccessary and inappropiate sanctioning.
The 1996 law requires states to impose sanctions where a parent
``refuses'' to comply with a state work requirement. Unfortunately,
many of those who are being sanctioned cannot comply--they are not
refusing to comply; they simply cannot because of a disability or other
barrier, or may not even understand what is being required of them.
Efforts to increase the number of hours of required work activity and
states' overall work participation rates are likely to harm these same
families. Without strong protections against inappropriate sanctioning,
it is likely that the number of inappropriate sanctions will increase.
Sanctions in TANF are associated with negative health consequences for
very young children. Toddlers and infants (36 months and younger) have
greater odds of experiencing food insecurity and hospitalizations if
their family's welfare benefits have been terminated or reduced due to
sanctions compared to those in welfare families whose benefits have not
been reduced. Children in sanctioned families have a nearly 30% higher
risk of hospitalization and a 50% higher risk of food insecurity than
similar children in families who benefits had not been reduced.\10\
States should be required to have procedures that review a family's
circumstances prior to the imposition of a sanction; determine whether
additional assessments are needed (and secure them); determine whether
there are services and supports the family needs before work can be
required and whether modifications are needed to the requirements so
that the family is better able to comply. Many states, including Maine,
Tennessee, Iowa, Virginia, and Vermont, already do this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ These findings are part of the Children's Sentinel Nutrition
Assessment Program (C-SNAP), a joint effort of a number of medical
institutions. The research on sanctions was conducted in six cities:
Baltimore, Boston, Little Rock, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and
Washington, D.C. For more information, see http://dcc2.bumc.bu.edu/
csnappublic/Fact%20Sheet%2071402.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, in closing, we have two additional concerns. First, we are
very concerned that Congress not take any action that will result in
less TANF funds being made available to states in the future. For
states to think creatively about how best to assist a person with a
disability or other significant barrier to successfully move to work,
states are going to need the resources that will allow them to provide
the person with whatever services and supports the person needs. Any
actions which reduce the amount of the TANF block grant will mostly
likely undermine the ability of states to assist people who require
more intensive supports in order to work.
Second, we are very concerned that proposals to increase the number
of work activities per week required of parents and to increase states'
work participation rates will increase the negative outcomes for people
with disabilities in TANF-funded programs. Even under current law, many
people with disabilities cannot meet the work rules. Any increase in
the work requirement will onlycreate a new, even more insurmountable
barrier. The TANF law should be designed to allow states to encourage
parents to work for as many hours as they can, recognizing that the
goal should always be independence and that, for some families, that
goal will be reached by degree and, for a smaller number, will never
mean they are meeting the full state work requirement. Independence--
not failure--should be the basis for all federal public policy
including TANF reauthorization.
The members of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities TANF
Task Force concur with the findings of the National Council on
Disability that ``[f]or many people with disabilities, TANF, if
appropriately designed, could provide the tools and access needed to
unlock doors to opportunity, productivity, and economic self-
sufficiency.'' \11\ We appreciate your attention to our concerns. We
look forward to the opportunity to work with the Committee to address
these essential questions in TANF reauthorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ National Council on Disability, March 14, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of Frank J. Mecca, County Welfare Directors Association of
California, Sacramento, California
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record
nregarding Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) proposals
being considered by the Subcommittee on Human Resources. The County
Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA) has been actively
involved in the TANF reauthorization discussion over the past four
years. We appreciate your comments regarding the success of welfare
reform to date, and agree with the need to fully reauthorize TANF
during the current session. This testimony sets forth our key
priorities for TANF reauthorization and comments on some of the
proposals contained in vehicles being considered by the subcommittee.
The 58 counties that administer California's TANF program are proud
of the job that we have done in implementing the 1996 federal welfare
reform law and our authorizing state statutes. We have formed strong
public-private partnerships at the local level, bringing together
employers, community- and faith-based organizations, and the other
local and state agencies that serve our participants. We have changed
an entire culture, moving our staff from check-writers who adhere to
strict processes into counselors who assist clients in moving from
welfare to work. The way in which we use our state and federal funding
has shifted from a focus on cash aid to a focus on supportive services
such as child care, transportation, and skills training. Instead of
speaking of ``entitlements,'' we speak of ``self-sufficiency.''
Certainly, you are aware of the massive caseload reductions that
have occurred in states across the nation since welfare hit its peak in
the mid-1990s. The story is much the same in California; despite some
caseload increases during the recent recession, our welfare rolls are
still a fraction of what they used to be. A majority of those who are
on the rolls are engaged in some activity, including a mix of work,
education, training, and treatment. In California, we are also in the
process of ensuring that every required participant has a welfare-to-
work plan in place.
Despite these successes, our program faces numerous challenges. For
California counties, as with states and counties across the country,
one major challenge is to address and remedy the problems of families
that are a long way from being ready to maintain stable employment and
move off welfare, the ``multiple barrier'' families. Many of these
families are engaged in work or other activities, but for less than the
required number of hours. We have discovered over the past few years
that many of these families include a disabled adult or child, a victim
of domestic abuse, or in other situations that render them exempt from
participation under California rules and who we believe should be
exempt under the federal rules as well. This does not mean that we stop
working with these families to get them engaged in appropriate
activities; it is a recognition that the barriers for some are so great
that expecting 32, 35, or 40 hours of work from them is unrealistic.
Another major challenge is to assist displaced or underemployed
workers who lost their jobs during the recent recession. In many areas
of the state, unemployment rates soared during the past few years. A
substantial percentage of those who recently entered the TANF program,
or returned to the program after leaving due to employment, already
have marketable skills but need temporary assistance, possible
retraining, and supportive services to boost them back into the
workforce.
Your H.R. 240 and the Administration's proposal highlight child
well being and strengthening of families as the over-all goal of TANF
Reauthorization, a goal that we firmly endorse. Several policies
adopted in California's CalWorks program exemplify those principles and
serve as the framework for numerous ``family friendly'' programs and
services provided by the counties.
In addition, H.R. 240 improves flexibility in use of TANF funds, by
allowing states to:
spend prior-year funds carried over for non-assistance
needs, as well as cash assistance;
provide support services to non-working families, without
counting it as assistance;
encourage equitable treatment of two-parent families; and
count some treatment activities as participation for a
limited period of time.
FUNDING
We appreciate your understanding that child care funding is a
critical element of welfare reform, and recognize that the amount of
funding contained in H.R. 240 represents an increase over last year's
H.R. 4. It is vital to increase funding for child care services, in
addition to preserving or increasing the funding available for all TANF
purposes. CWDA supports additional funds for child care and encourages
the creation of annual inflationary increases for the overall block
grant.
Funding for incentive programs and new initiatives, such as the
healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood initiatives contained in
H.R. 240, should not be carved out or set aside from the TANF block
grant, but should be separately provided.
CWDA also supports restoring federal benefits to immigrants who are
lawfully present in the country.
FLEXIBILIITY
Preserving the flexibility provided by the TANF law, the hallmark
of California's welfare reform program, is critical. Our program has
creatively and responsibly used the flexibility allowed under federal
law to provide assistance and supportive services over a longer period
of time, while making work pay more than welfare alone, in order to
foster employment stability and long-term family self-sufficiency. We
have enacted an earned income disregard that reflects the generally
higher cost of living in the state and a ``child safety net'' that
continues a reduced, child-only grant when parents reach their 60-month
lifetime limit on aid. In addition to providing a basic level of
subsistence for children, this safety net also enables counties to keep
in touch with parents and provide additional services to support their
work participation--an advantage that many states have recognized.
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT INCENTIVES
Nearly every TANF proposal would increase state participation rate
requirements over time. We support the drive to take welfare reform to
the next level and to hold states accountable for their performance. A
increase in the participation rate requirement should be coupled with
provisions that promote improvement over time by holding penalties in
abeyance as long as states are making progress each year toward the
required work participation rate. This would be consistent with the
Employment Achievement Bonus contained in H.R. 240, which would replace
the current high performance bonus.
EMPLOYMENT CREDIT
We recommend that states receive credit for the numbers of
recipients placed in full or part-time employment and those engaged in
activities leading to work. Specifically, we support a credit structure
that contains some or all of the following elements:
Bases credit on the number of families employed while on
assistance and after leaving assistance.
Provides a larger credit for higher earnings and partial
credit for part-time work.
Gives states credit for using TANF funds directly for
child care and transportation subsidies to working families.
Enables states to receive credit for diverted individuals
who are later employed.
Rather than rewarding states for the number who leave the rolls for
work, as with the existing caseload reduction credit, an employment
credit would reward progress toward meeting participation rates. It
would recognize job entry efforts of states such as California, where
many families with an employed adult remain on assistance because of
low wages and high cost of living. Partial credits for part-time
engagement recognizes that for many multiple-needs families, part-time
work coupled with other activities that meet their assessed needs is
appropriate.
As with the performance improvement incentives outlined above, the
creation of a data-driven employment credit would be consistent with
the Employment Achievement Bonus proposed in H.R. 240.
UNIVERSAL ENGAGEMENT WITHIN 60 DAYS
H.R. 240 would require every family with a ``work eligible''
individual to have a family self-sufficiency plan in place within 60
days of program entry. We appreciate the addition of a 12-month phase-
in period for those on aid at the time that the reauthorization
legislation is enacted. However, we are concerned that this approach,
coupled with a narrower definition of work that no longer specifically
includes job search, may require revision of our ``work first''
approach that engages participants in an upfront test of the labor
market.
California already has enacted universal engagement requirements
that we believe preserve the work first approach undertaken in our
state. Specifically, counties are required to develop a welfare-to-work
plan for every work eligible individual within 90 days of their entry
into the program. If job search activities are initiated within the
first 30 days after they enter the program, however, the 90-day period
begins after the period of job search is completed. Those participants
who find full-time work during that time are not required to develop a
plan, enabling the counties to focus their efforts on those for whom an
upfront test of the labor market is not successful.
Counties have been working to implement these recently requirements
since late 2004. In order to minimize disruption to clients and enable
the effects of the state statute to be realized, we respectfully
request that H.R. 240 be amended to allow states with universal
engagement requirements already in place to meet the universal
engagement requirement for TANF purposes.
This is appropriate because our current approach allows a
significant percentage of participants to secure unsubsidized
employment within their first few weeks on aid. An initial, intensive
period job search instructs recipients on the preparation of resumes
and job applications and requires them to apply or interview for
certain numbers of jobs each week. By the end of this period, those who
are readily employable typically have found a job, and those who
haven't found work are assessed further to determine what is holding
them back. At that point, counties work to identify an individualized
mix of activities that will move these participants into the workforce,
and toward unsubsidized employment, as quickly as possible.
UNIVERSAL ENGAGEMENT PENALTIES
We cannot support separate penalties for any of the process-based
requirements under the TANF law, including the universal engagement
provisions. Universal engagement should be treated the same as other
elements of the TANF program that are incorporated into each state's
federally required TANF plan, none of which have separate penalties.
States should only face penalties for the primary outcome measure--work
participation rates. The process-based elements of the program,
including universal engagement, serve to assist states in meeting the
work participation rate. If a state fails to sufficiency engage
families, or to implement other processes required under the TANF law,
it is likely to fall short of its work participation rate and thus face
the substantial penalties that already exist.
WORK PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS
We support efforts to increase participation in work and work
activities; however, these efforts must maintain maximum flexibility
for states and counties, recognizing the unique needs of families
receiving TANF and the need to tailor services to meet those needs.
Specifically, we believe that the federal law should set clear outcome
expectations, and allow the states to determine the best means of
meeting those goals.
The proposed combination of phasing up the state participation rate
to 70 percent, requiring 40 hours weekly of work and work-related
activities, and generally limiting the activities that count toward the
24 hours of work gives states less flexibility than under the current
program. CWDA strongly recommends that states be allowed to retain
their current minimum of work hours and the discretion to determine the
mix of direct work and other activities that individuals need to
perform. Job search and vocational education should remain a part of
the definition of work.
Eliminating separate work requirements for one and two-parent
families supports the goal of stabilizing families and improving child
well being, and it will simplify the tracking, case management, and
reporting of the work participation requirements. Consistent with our
recommendations above, we recommend that the current single-parent
hours and work participation rate be used for both single-parent and
two-parent families.
We are concerned that in order to step up to more than 50 percent
participation, and to meet he proposed 24/16 hour minimums, we would
have to drop some of the support services that we now provide to
working TANF families and to many less job-ready families. Without
additional funding, case management staff and service resources would
be drawn away from the current programs.
California's existing 32-hour-per-week requirement for one-parent
families engages recipients in the workforce with a mix of work,
education, training, or treatment that is determined by the county in
consultation with each participant. Although some participants work
less than the federal weekly hours requirement, California's program
allows working recipients to continue receiving a reduced grant and
supportive services during and after their time on aid. Research on the
Minnesota Family Investment Program, after which California's program
is patterned, shows that a longer period of assistance, coupled with an
emphasis on work and the provision of services to the family, leads to
better outcomes for children and families.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Virginia Knox, Cynthia Miller, Lisa A. Gennetian (September
2000). Reforming Welfare and Rewarding Work: A Summary of the Final
Report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program. Manpower
Demonstration Research Corporation and Minnesota Department of Human
Services. Available online at http://www.mdrc.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40-HOUR WORK WEEK
We have significant concerns regarding the proposed increase to a
40-hour work week. This represents a doubling of the requirement for
single parents with a child under six, who represent about half of
California's caseload. Many of the working parents on our caseload
would have to take on multiple jobs or find other allowable work
activities to meet a 40-hour-per-week requirement. Additionally, many
large corporations, retail establishments, and small-business owners
prefer to hire employees at less than 40 hours per week. A 40-hour
requirement would thus make welfare recipients less competitive with
respect to their non-welfare counterparts. For example, a welfare
recipient who secured a job providing 30 hours a week, and did not have
a need for substance abuse or mental health treatment or any other
support or educational activity would have to find 10 hours of some
other allowable work activity to fulfill the 40-hour total. Juggling
this activity with their work schedule would make them more likely to
miss work, jeopardizing their job and making them a less attractive
hire than a person who was not receiving cash aid.
More than 400 businesses, chambers of commerce, workforce experts
and community leaders from across California signed on to a letter sent
to members of the House and Senate in May 2003 urging the preservation
of the existing work week. These organizations and individuals
recognized that business owners expect their employees to be at work on
time and complete their job duties without distractions or delays
caused by scheduling conflicts, transportation difficulties, or other
concerns.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Complete sign-on letter is available at http://www.cwda.org/
downloads/TANF-Letter.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COUNTABLE ACTIVITIES
All current work activities, including job search and time-limited
vocational education, should continue to count as work participation.
For example, we have found that an upfront test of the labor market
through a period of assisted job search is the best way to determine
who is employable and who needs more in-depth services and training in
order to find a job. Supportive services (ranging from child care and
transportation to substance abuse and mental health treatment) are
needed by most of the working TANF families and almost all of the
families with severe or multiple barriers to employment.
We appreciate your willingness to count barrier reduction
activities toward the 40-hour requirement for three months in a 24-
month period. In recognition of the ongoing need for treatment to
address many mental health and substance abuse issues and all-too-
common learning disabilities among our client population, we urge you
to consider a counting these activities for a longer period of time.
For example, states could be given the opportunity to extend the three-
month period for an additional three months if it is consistent with
the individual's assessed needs and family self sufficiency plan.
It is important to remember that many of those who remain on aid
have little or no experience in the workforce. These adults do not know
how to deal with the trials of daily life, let alone the requirements
of TANF. They may have limited education or training, learning
disabilities, poor English skills, mental illness, substance abuse
problems, criminal records or current legal issues. Typically there is
no reliable way to get from their homes to training programs, child
care, or a job. They need a full range of basic supportive services.
Over the past several years, counties have started creative
programs, such as multidisciplinary clinical evaluation and treatment
teams stationed at their welfare offices, specialized training for case
workers in spotting potential barriers to employment and talking with
the recipients about these issues, and intensive training in life
skills that many of us would consider very basic, but that our
recipients never learned. It has taken time to learn from the results
of these attempts, to refine our approach, and to help our staff learn
to use the tools they have been given to work with these extremely
challenging recipients. We ask only that the federal TANF law support
us in these efforts and support our clients in their efforts to gain
these important skills and move into the workforce.
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
We have strong concerns regarding the proposed elimination of
vocational education as a primary work activity, with a very narrow
exception allowing work-related education or training to count as a
primary activity for not more than three months in a 24-month period
(four months under limited circumstances) to permit program completion.
Many higher wage jobs require vocational training that lasts longer
than four months, and many training programs are not available on a
part-time basis. If a training program does happen to be available
part-time, it would likely conflict with the part-time work schedule
set by a person's employer.
Stricter limitations on vocational training will create
difficulties for employers and disadvantage TANF participants.
Businesses seek out employees who are ready to work and have the skills
to succeed. Employers want to hire workers who already have the skills
or can complete the vocational education program within a short period
of hiring. They will not hire a welfare recipient who has to complete
needed skills education on a part-time basis over a year or longer.
Restricting TANF recipients' access to vocational training will,
for this significant pool of workers, result in a labor force that is
less skilled and less desirable, both as potential hires and as
candidates for career advancement. Therefore, we urge you to at least
maintain the current ability of states to count up to 12 months of
vocational training as participation. This will give employers a
broader labor pool from which to choose and will enable TANF
participants to compete for skilled jobs with the potential for
advancement.
CHILD CARE
Any change to work requirements would create significantly higher
demand for supportive services, especially child care. The estimated
additional child care costs in California due to the proposals
contained in past House reauthorization vehicles ranged from $300
million to half a billion dollars annually. The state already commits
$3.2 billion each year, about half state and half federal funds, to
child care subsidies for current and former welfare recipients and the
working poor.
If child care demand increases significantly, we will be unable to
meet that demand and also provide the kind of case management and
supportive services that will be needed to get recipients engaged in
work and work activities. We are very concerned that some of the
creative county-run programs that have made welfare reform a success
would have to significantly scale back or even end as resources shift
to more child care and monitoring of expanded work participation. For
this reason, we encourage you to provide as much additional TANF
funding for child care as possible in the final reauthorization
legislation.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is: Let states decide the best way to put people to
work, based on the research in the field and the successes they have
already achieved. Replace the caseload reduction credit with a credit
that better reflects how states and counties put people to work, while
maintaining the current work week. Recognize the significant barriers
that so many of our TANF families face, and let us work with them--on
an individualized basis--to help them progress. Preserve at least the
current funding level and provide new funds for any extra demands that
the reauthorized program imposes, particulary child care. Provide
states with incentives to improve over time, and the flexibility to
achieve that improvement.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present our views on TANF
reauthorization. My colleagues and I were pleased to be part of the
first stage of welfare reform and we are confident about moving
California's program into the second stage with new TANF legislation.
We remain ready to assist you as reauthorization legislation moves
through the process.
Statement of Esta Soler, Family Violence Prevention Fund, San
Francisco, California
As Congress considers reauthorization of the nation's welfare
program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) it is
imperative that any welfare bill consider the particular and often
urgent needs of welfare recipients who are victims of domestic
violence. Research demonstrates that domestic violence is prevalent
among TANF recipients and that TANF is vital in helping women to escape
abuse. Congress must ensure that TANF reauthorization address domestic
violence and enhance the safety and self-sufficiency of all TANF
recipients. Given the high numbers of TANF recipients who are victims
of abuse, it is imperative that the TANF program make safety a primary
concern and provide families, whatever their structure, the economic
resources and options they need to provide for the well-being of all
family members. In order to responsibly serve all welfare recipients,
and particularly those who are victims of violence, Congress should:
Support education and training for TANF recipients;
Improve and expand the Family Violence Option; and
Oppose programs that encourage women to get married as a
means of escaping poverty.
High Rates of Domestic Violence among TANF Recipients
Congress should not consider any new TANF policies, including the
proposed marriage promotion program, without serious attention to the
prevalence of domestic violence in the lives of TANF recipients.
Violence is not an exception to the rule for poor women; it is a
reality. Studies consistently show that at least 50 to 60 percent of
women receiving welfare have experienced physical abuse by an intimate
partner at some point during their adult lives, compared to 22 percent
of the general population.\1\ One study of two California counties,
Kern and Stanislaus, found that welfare recipients had lifetime abuse
rates of 80 percent and 83 percent, respectively.\2\ Young mothers,
many of whom are welfare recipients,\3\ are particularly at risk for
domestic and sexual violence, with one study finding that 26 percent of
new mothers between the ages of 13 and 17 experienced such violence in
the three months after the birth of their children.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Tolman, Richard and Jody Raphael. 2000. A Review of the
Research on Welfare and Domestic Violence, Journal of Social Issues
56(4): 655-682. See also Lawrence, Sharmila. 2002. Domestic Violence
and Welfare Policy: Research Findings That Can Inform Policies on
Marriage and Child Well-Being. Research Forum on Children, Families,
and the New Federalism. National Center for Children in Poverty, Issue
Brief. See also Lyon E. 2000. Welfare, Poverty and Abused Women: New
Research and Its Implications. Policy and Practice Paper #10. Building
Comprehensive Solutions to Domestic Violence. National Resource Center
on Domestic Violence. Harrisburg, PA.
\2\ Meisel, Joan; Daniel Chandler; and Beth Menees Rienzi. 2003.
Domestic Violence Prevalence and Effects on Employment in Two
California TANF Populations. California Institute of Mental Health.
\3\ Acs, Gregory and Heather Koball. 2003. TANF and the Status of
Teen Mothers under Age 18. The Urban Institute. Series A, No. A-62.
Washington, DC.
\4\ Allen Guttmacher Institute. 1999. ``Nearly 10% of Teenage
Mothers Experience Violence While Pregnant.'' Family Planning
Perspectives. 31(2): 106+.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recent study of Oklahoma, the leader in state spending on
marriage promotion, found high rates of domestic violence and marital
conflict among low-income populations in the state. The study found
that 47 percent of divorced Oklahomans who had received government
assistance\i\ cited domestic violence as a reason for their divorce,
compared to only 17 percent of those who had never received government
assistance. In addition, 70 percent of those who had received
assistance cited ``too much conflict'' as the reason for their divorce,
compared to 54 percent of those who had never received assistance.\5\
Oklahoma is not unique; women who receive welfare consistently report
high rates of domestic violence. This alarming data illustrates the
need for TANF programs to be responsive and responsible in dealing with
the violence in the lives of TANF recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ The Oklahoma study defined low-income Oklahomans as those who
had received Food Stamps, Medicaid, or Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families.
\5\ Johnson, Christine; Scott Stanley; Norval Glenn, et. al. 2003.
Marriage in Oklahoma: 2001 Baseline Statewide Survey on Marriage and
Divorce. Bureau for Social Research, Oklahoma State University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic violence contributes to women's poverty and it also can
create serious obstacles that prevent women, many of whom are mothers,
from achieving safety and self-sufficiency. In addition to domestic
violence, many welfare recipients face other barriers to employment:
access to educational and job training opportunities; lack of child
care; housing instability; lack of transportation; mental and physical
health problems; disabilities; and substance abuse.\6,7\ Given this
reality, battered women who receive TANF should have access to a broad
range of supportive services to address the violence in their lives and
the barriers to safety that they may face. Ensuring these critical
services, rather than promoting marriage, should be lawmakers'
priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Danziger, Sandra; Mary Corcoran, Sheldon Danziger, et al. 2000.
Barriers to the Employment of Welfare Recipients. University of
Michigan.
\7\ Pearson, J., E.A. Griswold, and N. Thoennes. 2001. ``Balancing
Safety and Self-Sufficiency: Lessons from Serving Victims of Domestic
Violence for Child Support and Public Assistance Agencies.'' Violence
Against Women. 7:176-192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marriage Does Not Address the Root Causes of Women's Poverty
Common sense suggests that two incomes are better than one and that
getting married is likely to move some people off of welfare. But a
closer look shows that marriage is anything but a panacea to poverty.
Forming a two-parent family does not guarantee greater economic
security; in fact, 40 percent of families living in poverty are two-
parent families.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Proctor, Bernadette D and Joseph Dalaker. 2003. Poverty in the
United States: 2002. Current Population Reports. U.S. Census Bureau.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, because of death and divorce, getting married does not
ensure that women will achieve economic security. Approximately 40
percent of marriages end in divorce and 12 percent end due to the
husband's death.\9\ Among women currently on welfare, about 40 percent
are married or were married at one time; 18.4 percent are married; 12.3
percent are separated; 8.3 percent are divorced; and about 1 percent
are widows;\10\ as the Oklahoma study found, a significant number of
divorces and separations are due to domestic violence. Given this,
there is no indication that marriage alone would provide security,
economic or otherwise, for families on welfare. Marriage promotion
programs hold little hope of improving the economic situation of
families who receive welfare unless they address the factors that keep
women from being economically self-sufficient--child care
responsibilities, lack of education and job training, and domestic
violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The National Marriage Project, Annual Report: the State of Our
Unions: the Social Health of Marriage in America, 2000 (June 2000),
available at http://marriage.rutgers.edu/NMPAR2000.pdf.
\10\ United States Census Bureau, Current Population Reports,
Series No. P20-514, Marriage Status and Living Arrangements: March 1998
(Update) (2000), available at http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/p20-
514u.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proponents of marriage promotion suggest that marriage leads to
greater economic security, but a study of the Minnesota Family
Investment Program (MFIP) suggest the reverse of this causal order. The
study finds that economic security improves the likelihood that a
marriage will be successful. The MFIP reached single and two-parent
low-income families and provided employment services and financial
incentives to encourage and support work. Supports included providing
child care and health care while rewarding work by increasing earned-
income disregards, allowing families to retain more of their income
while still receiving TANF benefits, and ensuring that working always
resulted in more income than not working.
A study comparing the economic progress of those in the standard
Aid to Families with Dependent Children \ii\ (AFDC) welfare program
with MFIP participants found that 14 percent of AFDC recipients--
compared to 25 percent of families in the MFIP program--were out of
poverty within 2\1/4\ years and the MFIP families had on average $1400
more in annual income. After 36 months, MFIP participants were 40
percent more likely to be married than participants in the standard
AFDC program, and nearly 50 percent less likely to be divorced after
five years. The experience of the MFIP program shows that allowing
families to combine welfare and work, and providing work supports to
help individuals become economically secure will strengthen marriage
and reduce divorce.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ii\ The study began in 1996, before the federal TANF law was
passed. At the time, the Minnesota welfare program was still known as
AFDC.
\11\ Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. 2000. Reforming
Welfare and Rewarding Work: Final Report on the Minnesota Family
Investment Program available at http://www.mdrc.org/Reports2000/MFIP/
MFIP-Vol-1-Adult.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nor Does Marriage Reduce Domestic Violence
Proponents of marriage promotion often argue that marriage and
domestic violence have an inverse relationship--that marriage causes a
decrease in domestic violence. Data to support this claim includes
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) data drawn from the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS).
The NCVS tracks rates of domestic violence for three groups: never
married, married, and divorced or separated women. Between 1993 and
1998, the rates of domestic violence in these three groups were as
follows: 11.3 percent for never married women; 2.6 percent for married
women; and 31.9 percent for divorced or separated women.\12\ Some
proponents of marriage promotion argue that these numbers indicate a
casual relationship between marriage and reduced rates of domestic
violence because the domestic violence rates for married women are
lowest. However, this misrepresents the NCVS data. First, these
statistics indicate only correlation, not causation. There are many
factors beyond marital status that affect domestic violence rates. For
example, the age cohorts of women who fall into these three groups--
never married, married, and divorced or separated--must be taken into
consideration. Young women age 16 to 24 are particularly at risk for
domestic violence and this group is highly represented in the never
married category, which has an 11.3 percent reported rate of domestic
violence.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Rennison, Callie Marie and Sarah Welchans. 2000. Intimate
Partner Violence. U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice
Statistics. Washington, DC. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/
ipv.pdf.
\13\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, as the BJS states: ``Because the NCVS reflects a
respondent's martial status at the time of the interview, it is not
possible to determine whether a person was separated or divorced at the
time of the victimization or whether the separation or divorce followed
the violence.'' \14\ In other words, there is no way to know whether
the 31.9 percent of divorced or separated women were victims of
violence during or after marriage. Without this information, it is
impossible to conclude that rates of domestic violence are actually
lower for married women. In fact, it is far more likely that many
divorces were prompted by violence or that violence and abuse
contributed to the divorce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, it is widely accepted that reporting rates for domestic
violence are low across the board,\15\ and it should be expected that
married women who are experiencing violence would be less likely to
report, given that they often have more at stake, such as children,
family, and financial considerations. Thus, we reject the argument that
there is a casual relationship between marriage and reduced rates of
domestic violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ National Research Council. 1996. Understanding Violence
Against Women. National Academy Press. Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women Who Have Experienced Violence are Less Likely to Marry
New findings drawn from a federally-funded study by Johns Hopkins
University highlight the importance of addressing the reality of
violence in the lives of TANF recipients and focusing on preventing
violence before it starts; these strategies are essential to improving
the health and safety of low-income women and their families. The study
found that women who have been victims of domestic and sexual violence
are less likely than other women to be married or in long-term
relationships. More than half of the low-income women studied (52
percent) said they had been physically or sexually abused at some time
in their lives, and 24 percent had been sexually abused before reaching
age 18. Forty-two percent of women in the study who did not report past
abuse were married, compared to 22 percent of the women who did report
past abuse.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Cherlin, Andrew J; Linda M. Burton; Tera R. Hurt; and Diane M.
Purvin. 2004. ``The Influence of Physical and Sexual Abuse on Marriage
and Cohabitation.'' American Sociological Review. 69(768-789).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the study's authors state: ``If we are concerned about the
decline in stable, long-term unions among the poor and near-poor, then
we may need to consider measures that would directly reduce the high
levels of physical and sexual abuse that women must bear.'' \17\ The
study's findings underscore the fact that proposed marriage promotion
programs will not meet the needs of women receiving TANF who have
experienced violence. In fact, marriage promotion programs may be
counter-productive, as many of the women in the study reported that
they were taking a conscious break from romantic relationships to
recover, focus on raising their children and on improving their
education and personal development. These women would be better served
by programs that address the history of violence in their lives, and
provide the child care and educational opportunities that can support
employment and self-sufficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment May Endanger Some Victims of Domestic Violence
Most battered women work or want to work if they can do so
safely.\18\ In fact, many women use welfare and work as a way to escape
an abusive relationship.\19\ But abusive partners often see women's
employment as a threat because it gives her greater independence and
her own income. Abusive partners often sabotage women's efforts to
become more financially self-sufficient by preventing them from
working, attending interviews, or studying. For example, abusers start
fights or inflict visible injuries before key events, threaten to
kidnap the children, or fail to provide promised child care or
transportation.\20\ Some abusive partners try to stop women from
working by calling them frequently during the day or coming to their
place of work unannounced. Research indicates that about 50 percent of
battered women who are employed are harassed at work by their abusive
partners.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Lyon E. 2000. ``Welfare, Poverty and Abused Women: New
Research and Its Implications.'' Policy and Practice Paper #10.
Building Comprehensive Solutions to Domestic Violence. National
Resource Center on Domestic Violence. Harrisburg, PA.
\19\ Ibid.
\20\ Raphael, Jody. 2000. ``Domestic Violence as a Welfare-to-Work
Barrier: Research and Theoretical Issues.'' Pp. 443-456 in Sourcebook
on Violence Against Women, edited by Claire Renzetti, J. Edelson, and
R.K. Bergen. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
\21\ Domestic Violence: Prevalence and Implications for Employment
Among Welfare Recipients. 1998. General Accounting Office: Report to
Congressional Committees. Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to a General Accountability Office report, while victims
of domestic violence are employed at the same rates as women who are
not, domestic violence victims experience different patterns of work,
with more spells of unemployment and job turnover.\22\ Battered women
actually tend to hold more jobs than other women, but are employed for
fewer total months.\23\ Both caseworkers and welfare recipients report
that women who experience domestic violence have a more difficult time
maintaining employment. In fact, working often makes these women's
lives more dangerous because many abusers feel threatened when their
partners are working. Five separate studies indicate that anywhere from
16 to 60 percent of women surveyed were discouraged from working by
their abusive partners, while 34 to 46 percent were actually prevented
from working. The research indicates that women do want to work, but
their efforts at sustained employment are disrupted by the abuse that
they face.\24,25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Ibid.
\23\ Lyon E. 2000. ``Welfare, Poverty and Abused Women: New
Research and Its Implications.'' Policy and Practice Paper #10.
Building Comprehensive Solutions to Domestic Violence. National
Resource Center on Domestic Violence. Harrisburg, PA.
\24\ Domestic Violence: Prevalence and Implications for Employment
Among Welfare Recipients. 1998. General Accounting Office: Report to
Congressional Committees. Washington, DC.
\25\ Lyon E. 2000. ``Welfare, Poverty and Abused Women: New
Research and Its Implications.'' Policy and Practice Paper #10.
Building Comprehensive Solutions to Domestic Violence. National
Resource Center on Domestic Violence. Harrisburg, PA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When it is safe to do so, the TANF program can and should play a
vital role in supporting battered women who are seeking to overcome
barriers so they can find or maintain work and become economically
self-sufficient. What we know about victims of domestic violence who
receive welfare suggests that, rather than promoting marriage, which
may endanger battered women and their children, the TANF program should
support education and training for welfare recipients, including those
who are victims of violence who can participate without risk. Many
women use welfare and work as a way out of abusive relationships.
Quality education and training programs can substantially increase
recipients' chances of securing employment that will lift them out of
poverty. Research clearly shows the need for greater supports as these
women strive to find the sustained employment that may help them leave
their abusive partners, thereby achieving both safety and self-
sufficiency.
Marriage Promotion Programs may be Dangerous for Battered Women and
their Children
Marriage promotion programs raise myriad concerns about the health
and safety of battered women and their children that must not be
ignored. Given the economic vulnerability of many welfare recipients,
particularly battered women, the decision to participate in a marriage
promotion program may not be fully informed or optional. By
stigmatizing single parents, stigmatizing divorce, or encouraging women
to believe that they are harming their children if they leave their
partners, these programs make it more difficult for some women to leave
violent relationships or encourage them, intentionally or not, to
remain with abusive partners.
In addition, participation in marriage promotion programs may be,
or may be perceived to be, linked to the receipt of TANF benefits and
other services. There is little doubt that financial incentives to
marry or stay married would encourage women to remain in abusive
relationships. For example, West Virginia's TANF program has offered a
$100 incentive if the parents in a household receiving welfare get
married,\iii\ and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' own
compilation of model programs for states that are developing marriage
promotion programs suggests a $2,000 cash bonus for couples who
marry.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\iii\ This program is discontinued effective August 2004.
\26\ Strengthening Healthy Marriages: A Compendium of Approaches.
2002. The Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for
Children and Families. Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No one should be pushed into making a decision that could adversely
affect his or her safety and health. But the proposed TANF law actually
requires states to set numerical performance goals for marriage
promotion programs in their state plans. This would pressure states
officials to encourage women to marry, thereby making it likely that
individuals will be coerced or pressured into marriages that may not be
healthy or safe.
Finally, marriage promotion programs are not a good investment of
TANF funds. Scarce public funds should not be diverted from desperately
needed economic supports, such as child care and job training, into
questionable programs that are unlikely to help reduce poverty or
increase the safety and well-being of recipients and their families.
Precious TANF funds should not be spent to promote potentially
dangerous marriages; they should be used for the supports and services
that will help to lift all families, including battered women and their
children, out of poverty.
Marriage Promotion Programs May Not Improve Child Outcomes
Marriage promotion programs, which have been touted as a way to
improve outcomes for children, may in fact have the opposite effect.
Battered women are not the only victims of abuse; their children are
affected as well. In a national survey of more than 6,000 American
families, 50 percent of the men who frequently assaulted their wives
also frequently abused their children.\27\ Experts estimate that 3.3 to
10 million children witness domestic violence each year and research
demonstrates that exposure to violence can have serious negative
effects on children's development.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Strauss, Murray A., Gelles Richard J., and Smith, Christine.
1990. Physical Violence in American Families; Risk Factors and
Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families. New Brunswick: Transaction
Publishers.
\28\ Lawrence, Sharmila. 2002. Domestic Violence and Welfare
Policy: Research Findings That Can Inform Policies on Marriage and
Child Well-Being. Research Forum on Children, Families, and the New
Federalism. National Center for Children in Poverty, Issue Brief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, new findings drawn from the 25-year Simmons Longitudinal
Study, one of the longest-running and most respected mental health
studies ever conducted, show that growing up in a traditional two-
parent marriage may not be beneficial for children if the marriage has
conflict or abuse. At the annual meeting of the National Society for
Social Work and Research in January 2004, researchers running the
Simmons study of nearly 400 Massachusetts residents reported that
family conflict and violence take ``a heavy toll'' on the mental health
of children. The researchers said it affects them even more than
marital disruption, divorce or separation.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Unpublished Research. Simmons Longitudinal Study. Simmons
School of Social Work. Boston, MA. http://www.simmons.edu/ssw/sls/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Researchers found that males exposed to family conflict and
violence over the years were significantly more likely than other males
to have suicidal thoughts, be depressed, have emotional and behavioral
problems, be drug dependent, or have post-traumatic stress disorder.
Girls from violent homes had higher rates of alcohol problems and lower
grades when they graduated from high school than girls who did not
experience conflict or violence in their homes.\30\ These findings show
that growing up in a violent home can take a terrible toll on children
and teens, and can cause serious, long-lasting harm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the American Psychological Association, recent
research utilizing more sophisticated methodology than previous studies
shows that, while children of divorced parents overall have more
adjustment problems than children of intact families, the differences
between these two groups is smaller and less pronounced than previously
believed. Recent results from a 20-year longitudinal study found that
78 percent of children of divorce feel that they are better off or not
harmed because of their parents' divorce and 50 percent of those
studied reported that their relationship with their father grew
stronger after the divorce, even though most lived with their
mothers.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Ahrons, Constance. 2004. We're Still Family: What Grown
Children Have to Say About Their Parents' Divorce.'' New York, NY.
Harper Collins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, the majority of children of divorce fall within the normal
range of adjustment on standardized measures and research indicates
that marital conflict rather than divorce or post-divorce conflict is a
more important predictor of child adjustment. For example, children in
high-conflict marriages are more likely to experience behavioral and
academic problems including, but not limited to, disobedience,
aggression, delinquency, poor self-esteem, antisocial behaviors, and
depression. Young adults who experienced a high level of marital
conflict during childhood are more likely to experience depression and
psychological disorders than young adults from low-conflict
families.\32\ This evidence suggests that the relationship between
divorce and child outcomes is more about the conditions that led to the
divorce than the divorce itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ American Psychological Association. An Overview of the
Psychological Literature on the Effects of Divorce on Children. May
2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new study from Cornell University finds that growing up with a
single parent does not have a negative effect on the behavior or
educational performance of children. The study looked at 1,500 12- and
13-year-old children from white, black and Hispanic families.
Researchers found that the most important factors in determining child
outcomes were the mother's level of education, income level, and the
quality of the home environment, not the mother's marital status.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Ricciuti, Henry. 2004. ``Single Parenthood, Achievement, and
Problem Behavior in White, Black, and Hispanic Children.'' The Journal
of Educational Research. (97)4: 196-207
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The research on child outcomes suggests that marriage promotion
programs may actually endanger children who grow up in violent homes
and negatively affect their development by encouraging women to remain
in violent relationships. Two-parent families are not ideal when there
is violence or abuse; in fact, this kind of household can be damaging
or dangerous for women and children who experience or witness violence.
Education and Training Promote Safety and Self-Sufficiency
Rather than focusing on a potentially dangerous marriage promotion
program that may not lift women out of poverty or improve child
outcomes, Congress should strengthen existing provisions to support
women who receive TANF. TANF programs should support education and
training opportunities that will help recipients find and keep well-
paying jobs, with appropriate measures to protect victims of violence.
There is a direct link between educational attainment and economic
well-being. In 2000, only 1.2 percent of single mothers with a college
degree who worked full-time year round lived in poverty. Less than
eight percent of single mothers with some college working full-time
lived in poverty.\34\ Clearly, education, not marriage, is the best and
most direct strategy for lifting families out of poverty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Neil G. Bennett, et. al., National Center for Children in
Poverty, Young Children in Poverty: A Statistical Update, June 17,
1999, available at http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/nccp/99uptext.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When parents have access to education, children also benefit. For
example, among children whose parents work full-time and year-round: 72
percent of children whose parents do not hold a high school degree live
in low-income families, compared to 42 percent of children whose
parents have a high school degree, and only 16 percent of children
whose parents have at least some college.\35\ Parents who have
educational opportunities beyond high school have drastically improved
economic outcomes and are better able to provide for their children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ The Effects of Parental Education on Income. 2003. The
National Center for Children in Poverty. New York, NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, Congress must understand that any increase in required
work hours or state work participation rates will have a negative
affect on education and training programs and may in fact prevent women
from finding well-paying jobs. In welfare reauthorization, Congress
must recognize that welfare recipients achieve greater economic
security when they are given the opportunity to gain new skills and
knowledge. Investments in education, training and work supports can
both empower women to achieve economic security (which empowers
families and couples as well) and strengthen marriages.
Strenghthening the Family Violence Option Will Improve Safety
While most women who experience domestic violence want to work if
possible, some may need help or extra time to find or keep work that
will lead to self-sufficiency. In addition to strengthening education
and training programs, the Family Violence Option (FVO) should be
expanded to include all 50 states and to require each state to certify
that it has trained caseworkers who can screen individuals for domestic
and sexual violence, or that it will contract with domestic violence
experts who will conduct the screenings. All states should be required
to give oral and written notice to individuals who have been
sanctioned\iv\ or are at risk of being sanctioned that welfare program
requirements may be waived if domestic or sexual violence has
contributed to their non-compliance. Congress should also fund
demonstration projects to develop and disseminate best practices in
addressing domestic and sexual violence as a barrier to economic
security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\iv\ TANF recipients may face a reduction or elimination of cash
benefits, known as sanctions, for failing to comply with TANF program
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the FVO is not mandatory, 33 states and the District of
Columbia have adopted it. Eleven other states have equivalent policies
that enable violence victims to get waivers from some or all TANF
requirements. Six states--Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma,
Virginia and Wisconsin--have no FVO or equivalent policies.
Currently, the FVO allows states to: screen for and identify
victims of domestic violence; refer victims of domestic violence to
appropriate services; grant ``good cause'' waivers to domestic violence
victims when TANF requirements are harmful or unsafe; and protect the
confidentiality of domestic violence victims and their children. In
addition, the FVO exempts states from TANF requirements when excusing
domestic violence victims who fail to meet TANF requirements results in
a state's failure to meet its TANF work participation and/or 60-month
limit requirements. Congress should both strengthen and expand the FVO
in the next reauthorization of the TANF program.
Congress Should Support Safety and Self-Sufficiency for All TANF
Recipients
Given the large numbers of TANF recipients who are victims of
domestic violence, Congress must address violence as a primary concern
in the lives of women and children who receive welfare. Welfare and
work are powerful tools in helping battered women leave abusive
relationships, particularly when women have access to supportive
services such as education, job training, mental health services, and
child care. In contrast, marriage promotion programs run the risk of
endangering battered women and their children and do not address the
root causes of poverty for families on welfare.
Welfare reauthorization must focus on meaningful and gainful
employment; recipients must be allowed to gain the education and
training skills necessary to finding well-paying jobs; and barriers to
employment such as domestic violence must be reasonably and responsibly
addressed. In contrast, the marriage promotion initiative that Congress
may include in the TANF program has not been shown to reduce poverty,
and it poses a threat to the safety of battered women and their
children. Rather than supporting an untested and potentially dangerous
marriage promotion program, TANF reauthorization should help families
on welfare who are experiencing domestic violence while supporting the
safety and self-sufficiency of all TANF recipients.
Statement of Joseph Mendez, Goodwill Industries of Sacramento Valley,
Inc., Sacramento, California
Goodwill Industries is a network of 207 community-based, autonomous
member organizations that serves people with workplace disadvantages
and disabilities by providing job training and employment services, as
well as job placement opportunities and post-employment support.
Established in 1902 by the Rev. Edgar J. Helms, a Methodist minister,
Goodwill helps people overcome barriers to employment and become
independent, tax-paying members of their communities.
Goodwill's mission is to provide employment, training, and support
services to increase the employability, retention and earnings of
individuals with barriers to employment. As a community leader,
Goodwill provides workforce development through innovative, quality
programs designed to reduce poverty in our community. Goodwill is
dedicated to the ideal of strengthening our families and community
through the power of work. To fund our mission, we collect donated
clothing and household goods to sell in our retail stores. These stores
are in essence, ``economic engines'', creating revenues and jobs that
enable Goodwill to serve our communities. Nearly 85 percent of these
revenues are channeled into job training and placement programs and
other critical community services to in excess of 600,000 persons a
year. The only barrier to Goodwill serving more individuals is access
to capital to increase their market penetration.
To implement this mission, Goodwill is consistently striving to
meet the changing workforce development needs of our community. As a
result of welfare reform, in addition to serving individuals with
disabilities we expanded our mission to serve individuals with other
barriers to employment. These barriers include welfare dependency,
limited academics, little, if any, work experience, substance abuse,
and lack of English proficiency. Often times, these individuals have
childcare, transportation, housing, financial, and domestic abuse
issues, which create additional barriers.
We knew, based on our experience and expertise, that in order to
effectively assist individuals with these barriers, we needed to
develop a variety of vocational training programs. Some of the programs
needed to provide the industry specific job skills, or hard skills that
are needed in our community. Other programs were specifically designed
to address the life or soft skills that often prevent otherwise
qualified individuals from successfully maintaining employment. Many
entry-level employees lose their jobs because of a lack of work ethic
and decision-making skills that prevent them from solving their
childcare, transportation, and personal issues.
Congress partnered with Goodwills in Florida and Louisiana by
authorizing a capitalization demonstration project in the 1996 Welfare
Reform Authorization bill. These projects were tremendously successful
in meeting their targets in placing the hardest to serve. The
capitalization strategy is a viable tool that Congress could use to
allow business model non-profits to meet these needs in a broader, more
immediate, and self-sustaining fashion. This program was designed to
serve ``hard to serve'' Welfare to work individuals through
individualized job placement assistance and intensive job retention
services. By definition, ``hard to serve'' individuals are those with
academic levels below 5th grade, substance abuse issues, or a
demonstrated inability to maintain employment. As all of our programs,
this program recognizes that the ``one size fits all'' approach to
workforce development services is likely to fail. Goodwill recognizes
that employment issues vary in different communities.
While the project was a success in its placement of thousands of
former welfare recipients in employment, it failed in its secondary
mission--to convince the Department of Health and Human Services that
there is a more efficient way to provide human services--through a
capitalization model. BuildingGOODWILL, a consortium of 13 Goodwill
around the country, including Goodwill Industries of the Sacramento
Valley, was formed to demonstrate the capitalization model on a larger
scale. BuildingGOODWILL has spent the last 3 years educating members of
Congress about this approach, and was included in Section 119 of the
Senate Finance Committee's version of H.R. 4. Chairman Grassley is
including our program in his new Chairman's mark, and Senator Santorum
has included our program in Section 229 of his S. 6. We are confident
that the Congress will reauthorize welfare reform during the 109th
Congress. Chairman Herger has recently praised Senator Santorum's bill
as ``legislation that will help improve the program for families''.
Nationally, over the last 100 years, Goodwill Industries has helped
nearly 6 million people earn a living and support their families.
Goodwill is a unique community organization that utilizes a business
model approach allowing us to be good stewards of the resources that
are given to us, in order to provide effective workforce development
programs. Capitalization money would allow Goodwills to use the
resources and revenues from their retail operations to fund these and
additional programs.
Statement of Amy Correia, Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Des
Moines, Iowa
Thank you for providing this opportunity to comment on the proposal
before the U.S. House of Representatives to reauthorize the Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families program. The Iowa Coalition Against
Domestic Violence (ICADV) is a state-wide advocacy and technical
assistance provider representing its 33 member domestic violence
programs in Iowa. In FY 2000, 2,099 women and 2,358 children were
sheltered by Iowa's domestic violence shelters, and 18,300 domestic
abuse victims received services from Iowa's victim service agencies.
A study of Iowa's domestic violence programs, conducted in 1998,
found that over half of women residing in an emergency domestic abuse
shelter received welfare benefits. Additionally, poverty
disproportionately affects female-headed households in Iowa. Forty-five
percent of female-headed households with children under the age of 18
live in poverty (as reported in the Iowa Department of Economic
Development's Consolidated Plan, submitted to the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development in 1995).
Our experience with women seeking shelter and other services tells
us that domestic violence and poverty are interconnected. Many women
apply for welfare benefits as a lifeline to safety for themselves and
their children.
During October 2001 and April 2003, I visited with low-income women
(some current and others past recipients of welfare benefits) in six
communities across Eastern Iowa to assess what they need to achieve
economic security. A few of their stories follow:
A young woman with one child told me of her dreams of becoming a
psychologist. Her welfare-to-work case manager told her that she
couldn't pursue a 4-year college degree while on welfare. To meet her
welfare requirements, she works at a low-wage job in the local shopping
mall, spending two hours round-trip on the bus, and as a result has
only a few hours with her daughter in the evening before bed-time.
A mother with a young child was sanctioned off of welfare benefits
because she lost her job when her car broke down (she lives in a town
with limited public transportation). She left numerous messages for her
welfare caseworker to explain the situation. This worker never returned
her phone calls, and she received a letter in the mail telling her that
she was being cut from benefits for not complying with the work
requirement. She is reapplying for benefits.
Another mother lost critical support benefits (Medicaid and Food
Stamps) when she financed a car worth more than the allowable ceiling
to ensure that she would have reliable transportation to get to a job
where she earns only $800 a month.
In response to a question about suggestions for changing the way
welfare programs are run, one focus group participant said ``Too much
politics--get more ideas from the community.''This statement is even
more powerful given the stalemate over welfare reauthorization that the
U.S. Congress has experienced since 2002.
All of the women expressed the desire to work. Critical to their
success at work are supportive services, including transportation,
childcare, Food Stamps, and medical insurance. The eligibility levels
and funds available for these supportive services should be expanded
and increased. Many ideas were generated during focus group
conversations about transportation, including: providing a fund for car
repairs; a welfare recipient that worked a certain # of hours of work a
week could be eligible for a certain dollar amount for car repair/
costs; and car dealerships should be offered incentives to donating
cars to welfare recipients.
Childcare is another topic of concern. H.R. 240 does not address
the fact that current childcare funding levels prevent 6 out of every 7
children from getting the childcare assistance for which they are
eligible. Parents will have difficulty increasing their economic
stability if affordable childcare is not available. Low-wage jobs
(under $11/hour) do not pay enough so that parents can afford childcare
in the private market. Childcare subsidies are a critical support that
increases the well-being of children and the success of parents at
work.
All of the women with whom I spoke believe that increasing
opportunities for job training and education is critical to their
success. Most felt they could get a minimum wage job, but that the
income from these jobs would not go far in supporting their families.
While most of the women with whom I spoke believe that more emphasis
should be placed on job-training and education for higher wage jobs,
H.R. 240 essentially shuts the door to better education and training
opportunities for low-skilled parents. This flies in the face of logic,
as according to 1993 Census data, a woman with a high school diploma
earned on average of $19,168/year, while a woman with a Bachelor of
Arts degree earned on average of $32,291/year. Educational attainment
is the one proven method for improving a family's economic stability,
and welfare assistance programs should not block these efforts.
The women with whom I spoke have complicated histories, which
include domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health and physical
disability issues. While all want to work, some may need more time to
meet requirements than is currently allowed. It is critical that the
welfare program allow recipients time to address life issues that
impede their success at work and their family's well-being. Research
studies document the high incidence of domestic abuse within the TANF
population--30% of TANF recipients report current abuse and more than
50% report abuse at some time in their adulthood. The Family Violence
Option should be expanded so that every state has policies and programs
in place to address the safety and self-sufficiency of its welfare
caseload.
Regarding marriage promotion policies, ICADV is concerned that any
efforts to promote marriage through the welfare office may be
detrimental to abused women.
On June 4, 2002 two survivors of domestic violence met with Senator
Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) via conference call to discuss welfare
reauthorization. The two survivors prepared a written statement in
advance of that meeting, and read this statement during the conference
call. The text of this statement follows:
``We as survivors of domestic violence feel that the idea of
promoting marriage to the father of your child or children is a short-
sighted solution for a difficult and varied amount of social,
economical, and religious problems. More needs to be researched and
developed to bring about the types of change and results that this bill
is proposing to accomplish.
``Although we agree with your idea that strengthening families will
bring about a change in welfare, we do also believe as survivors of
domestic violence that women are going to be forced into more violence
situations and have more detrimental effects on family relationships--
financially, emotionally and physically, thus tearing down the family
structure. So, we feel this would defeat the purpose of your proposal,
therefore putting us back to square one''
Many women leave abusive relationships after years of blaming
themselves for the abuse and trying to make it stop through a variety
of avenues, including couples counseling and/or conflict management
classes. Marriage promotion programs may have the negative effect of
encouraging women to stay in abusive relationships, or could be used by
an abuser to coerce their partner into staying in the relationship. The
potential impact of these policies on abused women should be further
analyzed before implementation.
Given the complexity of policy and program issues that marriage
promotion strategies raise, we strongly recommend that any legislation
reauthorizing welfare that includes marriage promotion require
consultation and collaboration with domestic violence coalitions in
states to ensure that domestic violence issues are appropriately
addressed. Such consultation should be conduced at every phase of the
design, implementation and evaluation of these programs. Such steps
will address the safety and well-being of all children and families.
ICADV's work with battered immigrant women leads us to also urge an
expansion of welfare benefits for immigrant families. While immigrant
women make up a small percentage of women in poverty and victims of
domestic violence, as a group they are facing some of the most
insurmountable barriers to safety. States should be able to provide
services to qualified immigrant families prior to the current 5-year
residency requirement.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Please feel free
to contact ICADV with any questions or further input.
Statement of Margot Bean, National Child Support Enforcement
Association, and New York State Division of Child Support Enforcement,
Albany, New York
Chairman Herger and distinguished members of the Committee:
My name is Margot Bean. I am the Deputy Commissioner and IV-D
Director of the New York State Division of Child Support Enforcement,
and the President of the National Child Support Enforcement Association
(NCSEA). I am submitting this written statement on behalf of NCSEA.
NCSEA is a membership organization representing the child support
community, consisting of a workforce of over 60,000 public and private
child support professionals. Our membership is vitally concerned with
welfare reform reauthorization, particularly those provisions that
affect the child support enforcement program.
NCSEA commends this Committee for the work you continue to do to
improve the lives of children and families. Your efforts to craft
effective child support provisions in welfare reform have kept many
children and families from sinking into poverty when parents separate
or never marry, and have helped states to administer effective child
support programs. There are always ways to make the child support
program stronger and more effective and thus I would like to take this
opportunity to comment on several proposals under consideration, as
well as some further enhancements that you can make.
Simplify Rules for Distributing Child Support Collections
Welfare reform reauthorization provides an opportunity to simplify
child support distribution rules and to increase the amount of child
support going to families. NCSEA strongly supports distribution reform.
We believe that providing additional support for families who are
attempting to reach self-sufficiency is critical. The current rules are
complex, costly to administer, and difficult to explain to families,
thus undermining the effectiveness of the nation's child support
program. Simplifying the rules for distributing child support
collections would bring more efficiency and flexibility to child
support programs, while providing more child support for former welfare
mothers making the transition from welfare to work.
NCSEA commends the House for its long-standing efforts to simplify
the child support distribution rules, beginning with the Child Support
Distribution Act of 2000. However, we believe that the proposal for
changing the distribution rules that is set forth in the Senate welfare
reform reauthorization bill is a more effective approach. In fact, the
Senate provisions are modeled after the original House legislation that
was approved by the members of the House in 2000 by a vote of 408 to
18.
The rules originally proposed in the House bill and now contained
in the Senate version of welfare reform reauthorization have been
thoroughly scrutinized and evaluated and have broad support from both
state child support professionals and advocates for families. The
Senate bill sets forth distribution rules that are simple and
equitable. Families assign their rights to support only for the period
that they receive assistance. Child support collections follow the
status of the case: the family's arrears are paid first when the family
is off welfare; the state's arrears are paid first when the family
receives assistance. Former welfare families receive all of their
arrears, no matter how collected, before the state is reimbursed for
arrears owed to the state. Under this proposal, the pre-welfare
assignment and the state's priority for federal tax offset collections
are gone. These rules are easy to explain, easy to follow, and easy to
program.
The state options in the Senate bill also provide the flexibility
that states need to make an orderly transition to these new rules,
taking into account states' different funding structures, their various
budget situations, and timing for reprogramming computers, as well as
their differing decisions about how best to support low-income
families. If adopted, these options will also unite the welfare and
child support programs squarely behind self-sufficiency, and will
likely improve coordination between the two agencies. The perception of
the child support program in the community will also improve, as it
will be seen as a vehicle to help low-income mothers and fathers work
together for the benefit of their children, rather than an arm of the
government seeking to recoup money for the state.
The current House bill, however, reduces state flexibility andcould
create counter-productive incentives for non-cooperation by custodial
parents and non-payment by noncustodial parents while the family
receives assistance. This is because the options in this proposal would
require states to distribute arrears collections based on when
collections are made, as opposed to when the arrears accrued. This
would represent a major paradigm shift for the child support program.
Under the current House proposal, the state's assignment would end once
the family leaves assistance. As a result, a custodial parent receiving
public assistance could be paid twice: once with welfare benefits, and
once with the child support that accrues while on welfare but is paid
when off welfare. At the same time, the government would be required to
keep money owed to families before they even applied for assistance.
The proposal in the House bill would require costly system programming
changes that would exceed the costs of implementing the proposal in the
Senate bill, because it would fundamentally change how automated
systems process collections.
In the short run, the Senate approach will likely reduce retained
collections for state and federal governments at a difficult budgetary
time, but it is important to look at cost savings in other areas in the
long run. Any proper analysis for changing the distribution rules must
look not only at possible decreased reimbursement for state and federal
TANF costs, but also at the dysfunctions of the current system that
waste valuable caseworker time and consume expensive computer
resources. A more efficient child support program can do a better job
of establishing paternity, collecting support, and modifying orders to
be consistent with parents' ability to pay, because staff that
currently deal with account adjustments can be re-deployed to these
more productive activities.
If the full set of options contained in the Senate bill is adopted,
we also expect that more welfare mothers will cooperate with child
support enforcement, and more fathers will pay support if both parents
see it going to the family instead of the state. Finally, welfare
prevention is much more cost effective than welfare cost recovery. The
real benefit from distribution rules that are designed to encourage
families to become or remain self-sufficient is in money saved, not in
money recovered. Rarely does child support recoup the full amount of
the TANF benefit. Anything that we can do to reduce welfare dependency
while providing for the financial needs of low-income families in other
ways is sound fiscal policy.
Support Responsible Fatherhood Programs
NCSEA supports the provisions of the House bill to promote and
support responsible fatherhood. This committee broke new ground when it
passed responsible fatherhood legislation as part of the Child Support
Distribution Act of 2000. Unquestionably, responsible father
involvement has a significant and positive impact on child well-being.
Children growing up without a responsible father in their lives are
more likely to be poor, to drop out of school, to end up in foster care
or juvenile justice facilities, to bear their own children out-of-
wedlock, and to be under-employed as adults. Research and our own
experience with the in-hospital paternity program tell us that about 80
percent of fathers are romantically involved with the mother at the
time of the child's birth. However, a few years later, all but 25
percent drift away. A job and the ability to provide financial support
are critical to keeping these connections.
Research also suggests that fathers who regularly pay child support
are more likely to make an emotional commitment to their children--in
other words, the heart follows the money. Effective child support
enforcement is therefore one way to promote responsible father
involvement. In addition, child support agencies can serve as a gateway
to responsible fatherhood programs.
Oppose Annual Fee on Families
NCSEA believes that imposing an annual service fee of $25 on
families who have never received welfare assistance places an unequal
burden on such families and is contrary to public policy to encourage
families to remain self-sufficient. Many families who have never
received assistance are indistinguishable from families who receive or
have received assistance. Never-assistance families include those who
have been diverted from welfare and receive child care or other
services from TANF that do not qualify as TANF ``assistance'' and other
low-wage earning families who choose to remain self-sufficient to the
extent possible.
A low wage-earning single parent who is barely keeping his or her
family afloat, but who has avoided going on welfare, needs child
support services just as much as a former TANF family. Nearly 80
percent of families in the state child support programs have incomes
below 250 percent of poverty. Families should be encouraged, not
discouraged, to participate in the child support program. Yet the $25
annual fee proposal would impose an additional charge on working poor
families who have so far been successful in remaining self-sufficient.
In addition, the cost to states for implementing this fee will be a
greater burden than the income that will be realized. The $25 fee would
count as program income, and as such, the state would keep 34 percent
of the $25 fee, or $8.50, and the federal government would get the
remaining $16.50. The collection of this fee would require states to
modify their automated system programming, including the financial
programming, one of the most complex parts of the state child support
automated systems. The $8.50 paid to the state would be offset by the
state's collection costs and the start-up costs of reprogramming
automated systems to accommodate this fee. Because the federal
government shares in these collections and reprogramming costs at the
federal financial participation rate of 66 percent, the net benefit to
the federal government would also be negligible, if any.
Expansion of Enforcement Tools
Oppose federizing the multi-state financial instution levy process.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996 (PRWORA) required each state to establish a process for
identifying and seizing the financial assets of child support obligors
held in financial institutions. In addition, the Child Support
Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 authorized the federal Office of
Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) to conduct data matches with financial
institutions that do business in more than one state. The data match
results are passed to the state child support agencies who then
determine whether it is appropriate to levy the identified asset and,
if so, take the necessary measures. This model--data matches conducted
at the federal level but enforcement taking place at the state level--
is also consistent with the approach so successfully used with employee
new hire reporting and payroll withholding.
State IV-D agencies use a lien/levy process to seize financial
assets identified through the multi-state financial institution data
match program. This program has been a successful child support
enforcement tool. Some multi-state financial institutions, however,
refuse to honor levies issued from states in which the institutions do
not conduct business. Financial institutions have also raised concerns
about the lack of uniformity in the current state-based process and the
resulting effort on their part to comply with diverse requirements.
Legislation that is currently before the Senate proposes to resolve
these problems by federalizing the levy process.
On February 11, 2005, NCSEA approved a resolution opposing the
proposal to federalize the multi-state financial institution levy
process and instead supporting a proposal that maintains enforcement at
the state level, while requiring greater standardization of levy
procedures and forms. NCSEA believes that this proposal strikes a
balance between making the levy process more uniform and easier to
follow for financial institutions and allowing states flexibility in
developing many of the implementation details.
Lower threshold for passport denial program. NCSEA supports
lowering the arrears threshold for the passport denial program from
$5,000 to $2,500. NCSEA believes that lowering the threshold will
result in an increase in child support collections for children and
families. The passport denial program has been a cost-effective tool
for difficult cases involving self-employed obligors with sources of
income that have not been reached through income withholding.
Use tax refund intercept program to collect past-due child support
on behalf of children who are not mminors. The tax refund intercept
program has been an effective enforcement tool for collecting past-due
child support debts. Unfortunately, not all debts can be collected
before children reach the age of majority. NCSEA supports the expansion
of the tax refund intercept program to include the collection of all
past-due child support debts regardless of the child's age.
Garnishment of lonfshore and harbor workers benefits. NCSEA has
long supported enforcement strategies that improve the ability to
collect child support. Although NCSEA has not taken a position on this
specific provision, it is consistent with our support for withholding
child support from income whenever possible.
Improve interstate enforcement. NCSEA supports requiring each state
to enact the 2001 version of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act
(UIFSA). In the 1996 federal welfare reform law, Congress required all
states to adopt UIFSA. This mandate has greatly improved interstate
child support enforcement. In 2001, the National Commissioners on
Uniform State Laws adopted certain amendments to address issues that
have arisen in case law or in implementation of the Act. These include
how to determine the controlling order and arrears amounts when there
are multiple orders, clarifying jurisdiction over modification cases,
clarifying rules on choice of law on interest rates and duration of
support, and more direction regarding international cases. NCSEA
believes that these revisions will further improve interstate
enforcement. NCSEA also supports the provisions that were in last
year's Senate version of the welfare reform reauthorization bill, H.R.
4, amending the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act so
that it is consistent with the 2001 version of UIFSA. Such amendments
are necessary to maintain consistency between federal law and UIFSA.
Other Provisions
Disclosure of IRS data. Increasingly, State IV-D agencies are
contracting with other entities to obtain greater efficiencies in the
collection of child support. These highly specialized contractors are
providing Title IV-D child support enforcement services under the
contractual oversight of the State IV-D agencies. NCSEA supports
authorizing the Treasury Department to disclose certain tax return data
to these highly specialized State IV-D agency contractors for the
purpose of providing Title IV-D child support enforcement services, but
only if these companies are performing under a state contract and
``standing in the state's shoes.'' NCSEA also supports authorizing the
Treasury Department to disclose certain tax return data to tribal IV-D
agencies and their highly specialized contractors for the same purpose.
Technical correction to definition of ``corrective action year''.
NCSEA supports technical improvements to the audit and penalty statute
that clarifies that states are entitled to formal notice and an
opportunity to fix child support problems before a penalty is imposed
on TANF funds.
Report on undistributed child support payments. State IV-D agencies
are actively working with OCSE to understand and address issues
regarding undistributed collections. Therefore, NCSEA believes that
there is no need for congressional intervention at this time.
We ask you to build on the success of PRWORA by continuing to
strengthen our nation's child support enforcement program. On behalf of
NCSEA, thank you for your leadership and for your continued support of
our important work to assist children and families.
Statement of Garrett Murphy, National Coalition for Literacy, Albany,
New York, and National Council of State Directors of Adult Education
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Garrett
Murphy and I represent the National Coalition for Literacy, a
nationwide group of associations having a stake in the advancement of
adult literacy in the nation. I also act as a policy consultant for one
of the Coalition's most prominent members, the National Council of
State Directors of Adult Education--the officials responsible for the
administration of Federal adult education funds in the States and
Outlying Areas.
I would like to set forth, on behalf of the Coalition, three
recommendations for changes to H.R. 240, the Personal Responsibility,
Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2005.
I. Our first recommendation is to remove adult education from the
provisions oc Section 601--Program Coordination Demonstration
Projects.
Justification: The Coalition recognizes that a number of
protections of program integrity have been written into Section 601 of
HR240. These include the exclusion from waiver authority any provisions
of law relating to purposes or goals of a program, maintenance of
effort requirements, and administrative provisions of the Adult
Education and Family Literacy Act. These protections also disallow any
waiver of any funding restriction or limitation provided in an
appropriations Act, and transfer of funds from one appropriations
account to another. Nevertheless, we are very concerned that Section
601 gives a Governor--or perhaps a person administering an adult
education program who does not report to the Governor--the ability to
alter application procedures, reporting requirements, performance
standards, and program and individual eligibility requirements of local
programs. We realize that there are also safeguards that call for the
Secretary's approval of proposed projects. However there are a number
of inadvertent effects that would negatively affect State's operations
and management.
First, performance standards are the result of intensive
negotiations with the U.S. Department of Education; changing them might
result in a State's not qualifying for the incentive funds built into
the Workforce Incentive Act. Changing them would also require re-
negotiating with all the local programs receiving assistance because
the State's target is a summation of all the local targets. A change in
program eligibility standards also appears to us to threaten our
compliance with the ``direct and equitable'' provisions in adult
education legislation whereby all not-for-profit agencies--public and
private--have a right to compete for funds and must receive the same
application.
Second, individual eligibility standards are laid out in the
definition of adult education in Section 203 of the Workforce
Investment Act. Spending adult education dollars on individuals not
authorized under the Act would appear to us to in effect ``waive a
funding restriction applicable to a program authorized under an Act
which is not an appropriations Act'' [Sec601(d)(2)(H)]. Of course,
individual eligibility standards could also be altered by restricting
eligibility to only some of the permissible categories, e.g. serving
only high school equivalency candidates or only persons with limited
proficiency in English. This would require major changes in the State's
plan as well as the need to renegotiate targets with all local programs
to serve only the restricted set of permissible individuals.
Overall including adult education in these Program Coordination
Demonstration Requirements appears to be very disruptive. Coordinated
adult education services can be better obtained through more
traditional cooperative planning and performance.
II. Oursecond recommendation is to amend the legislation to increase
allowable period for education and training beyond the 4 months
on case-by-case basis allowed in H. R. 240 for such activity.
The kinds of programming that have proved most effective in
helping clients obtain employment, remain on the job, and
quality for advancement is rarely accomplishable in such
alimited time frame.
Justification:A nationwide study entitled Built to Last: Why Skills
Matter for Long-Run Success in Welfare Reform found that ``the most
successful welfare-to-work programs--those that increased earnings and
employment on a sustained basis--are those that provide a range of
services, including job search but also education and training.
Recipients typically participated in just one activity at a time.'' I
personally talked to some of the officials responsible for programs
that the study found most effective and found that while education was
provided simultaneously with training in a few cases, the majority of
the programs provided basic education or English as a second language
first--transitioning into job training or directly to work as their
skills allowed. The education portion of the combined program was not
education in isolation--the kind of education that led to the severe
downgrading of the role of adult education in the transition from the
JOBS program to TANF. In these programs each candidate was assessed to
determine what educational skills would be needed to function
successfully in training or employment and how much time would be
needed to meet the entrance criteria. Progress toward mastering those
skills was constantly monitored. Whether the transition at the end of
the education phase was to training or directly to employment, the
education, training, and employment activities were complementary
components of a single plan.
At a time when the percentage of recipients involved in work
nationwide is actually declining, this auspicious model offers a
genuine route to long-term employment and self-sufficiency. But time
periods of 6 months to a year are often needed before individuals can
transition successfully into training or employment, particularly those
with low levels of literacy. H.R. 240 wisely requires family self-
sufficiency plans that specify appropriate activities that lead to
self-sufficiency. Limiting the education/training component to a
maximum of 4 months in any 24-month period with the expectation that an
individual will be job-ready in that time frame may confound the very
purpose of the family self-sufficiency plan.
III. Our third recommendation is that the family self-sufficiency
plans--as called for by HR240--clearly accommodate
transportation and child care needs of those individuals whose
self-sufficiency plans call for education to be provided
concurrently with work, in the weekly hours over and above
those devoted to direct work activities.:
Justification: This recommendation is put forward to assist those
individuals who may need education or training but for whom a prolonged
separation from the workforce is deemed inadvisable and who are,
therefore, working. The proposed legislation wisely accommodates these
individuals by permitting them to enroll in education and/or training
for as long as needed in the hours over and above the 24 weekly hour
minimum that must be devoted to work activity. Difficulties in securing
necessary support services--particularly transportation and child-
care--hinder greater use of this opportunity for working clients, often
constraining the opportunity to advance in education and qualify for
better paying work.
One potentially successful model could be similar to the 21st
Century Community Learning Center program of the Department of
Education. In that model education of adults, and child-care and
remedial education for children, occur at the same site and on the same
schedule. Traveling to the same site also simplifies transportation for
both children and adults.
I thank you on behalf of the National Coalition for Literacy and
the National Council of State Directors of Adult Education for this
opportunity to present our recommendations to the Committee.