Massachusetts Law Reform Institute
99 Chauncy Street, Suite 500, Boston, MA
02111-1722
phone 617-357-0700 * fax 617-357-0777
The Honorable Tommy Thompson
Secretary of Health and Human
Services
Hubert H. Humphrey Building
200 Independence Avenue,
SW
Washington, DC 20201
RE: TANF Recommendations from Massachusetts Law Reform Institute
Dear Secretary Thompson:
We are writing on behalf of the Massachusetts
Law Reform Institute and our clients and legal services colleagues
throughout Massachusetts regarding the TANF provisions of the 1996
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.
Massachusetts Law Reform Institute has more than 30 years' experience
representing and working with low income people and we have extensive
experience with the TANF program in Massachusetts. We appreciate your
invitation to communicate our views on what changes the Administration
should propose for the TANF program.
The goal of federal welfare policy should be to
reduce family poverty. PRWORA failed to achieve that goal in Massachusetts
during the past five years despite dramatic declines in the state's cash
assistance caseload. In fact, there was a distressing increase in child
poverty despite the economic boom. There was also a sharp percentage
increase in very poor children_those with incomes below 50% of the the
federal poverty level who previously were assisted by transfer programs
such as AFDC and food stamps.* To reverse this trend and to promote the
well-being of children and families, the Administration should include the
following critical provisions in its TANF reauthorization proposal.
1. Assure adequate
funding with increases for inflation and a workable contingency fund.
* People
left on welfare are harder to serve. Many have disabilities or chronic
health problems, are domestic violence survivors, or have other major
barriers to employment. Services to assist these populations_including job
training and education programs that adequately meet their needs_are more
costly than services for people with fewer barriers to employment.
* In Massachusetts
and other states, most of the block grant is being used for services for
families who are not and may never have been TANF assistance recipients.
These supports are critical, particularly in light of the persistence of
deep poverty in the state.
* The decline in
the real value of block grant funding (13% since 1997) presents a huge
fiscal problem for states such as Massachusetts, that have fully utilized
available funds, particularly now that we are facing an economic downturn.
If
TANF funds are not at least increased annually for inflation,
Massachusetts will be faced with cutting an array of programs. For
example, subsidized child care for non-welfare families received almost
half of the state's block grant funds in the state's most recently
completely fiscal year. Despite this substantial commitment, there are
serious concerns that the quality and supply of child care are compromised
by the low rates paid to providers. Increased funding of both TANF and the
child care block grant is necessary to maintain and increase the number of
children served while also addressing the quality and supply
issues.
* In order
to assure adequate funding, states should be required to maintain the
“maintenance of effort” (MOE) requirement. Any increase in TANF funding
should be accompanied by an increase in the MOE requirement. We support
the flexibility states have to count spending towards MOE whether it is
made in the state's TANF assistance program or in other programs such as
child care or the state's earned income credit.
* Although cash
assistance caseload increases typically lag increases in the unemployment
rate, the state is already experiencing an increase in cash assistance
caseloads with the current economic downturn. A workable contingency fund
is needed to assure that states can meet the needs of the state's most
vulnerable families during a recession.
2.
Allow states to
operate TANF programs in accordance with waiver provisions that are
inconsistent with TANF.
* The
Massachusetts' waiver and current 42 U.S.C. § 615 allow Massachusetts
flexibility with respect to required activities for disabled persons and
other persons with barriers to employment In light of the high percentage
of the Massachusetts caseload with disabilities and other barriers to
employment, the waiver flexibility is very
important.
* Consistent
with the principle of state flexibility in the original PRWORA, states
should be allowed to operate in accordance with previously approved
waivers that are inconsistent with TANF rules, to extend those waivers, to
reinstate expired waivers, and to obtain new waivers.
3.
Promote work
activities that recognize the importance of education and training and of
caring for children.
*
Eliminate restrictions on education and training. Current law severely
limits the education and training activities that meet the work
requirement. 42 U.S.C. § 607(c)(1), (c)(2)(D), (d). In light of the
increased percentage of families on all states' TANF caseloads with
barriers to employment and the need for low-income parents to get the
skills and credentials they need to support their families, it is
important to encourage states to provide appropriate services by giving
them
credit in the work participation rate. Allowable work activities should
include education, including elementary and secondary education, literacy,
ESL, GED and higher education, work-study, study time and skills training,
without arbitrary limits on the duration of these
activities.
*
Recognize the importance of activities to overcome employment
barriers. Federal law should recognize that for some families
participation in counseling or other activities designed to address
domestic or sexual violence, mental illness, substance abuse, or
disability is a necessary prerequisite to work and to healthy children.
Participation in these programs should count as work activities when
chosen by the family. Further, federal law should require states to adopt
sanction procedures that encourage compliance and should bar states from
reducing or terminating assistance to persons who have a reduced ability
to comply with program rules because they are survivors of domestic or
sexual violence, or are dealing with disability or other barriers to
employment.
*
Restore the child care guarantee. Child care should be assured for
children of all ages so that parents can participate in activities that
will allow them to escape poverty. States should be required to provide
quality, affordable, accessible child care before mandating any work
activity for a child who needs care, including school-age children.
* Continue
the caseload reduction credit. Current work participation rates (50%
for all families and 90% for 2-parent families) are unrealistic in light
of the increasing percentage of caseload with barriers to employment and
the current economic downturn. PRWORA addresses this problem in part by
the caseload reduction credit, 42 U.S.C. § 607(b)(3), which allows states
a credit against the work participation rate for declines in the caseload.
While the goal should be poverty reduction, not caseload reduction, the
credit allows Massachusetts and other states to design activities for
families with barriers to employment that are appropriate even though they
would not count as “work.” This flexibility is critical.
4.
Eliminate
discrimination against two-parent families and let child support payments
come home to the children.
* Current
law discourages states from serving two-parent families by imposing an
unrealistic work participation rate on these families. This discrimination
should be eliminated. States should also be barred from imposing
eligibility requirements or income treatment rules that discourage TANF
parents from
marrying.
* Current
law requires the state to forward to the federal government the federal
“share” of the child support collection for recipients of TANF
“assistance.” 42 U.S.C. § 657(a). In Massachusetts, the federal share is
50% of the collection.
This means that if Massachusetts wants to pay the child support
collection to the family, it can only do so by appropriating additional
state funds to pay the federal “share.” The notion of a federal “share” is
a relic of the old AFDC matching system. It has no place in the block
grant scheme and operates as a deterrent to states that might otherwise
increase children's well-being as well as noncustodial fathers' connection
with their children by allowing families to benefit from child support
that is paid on their behalf.
5.
Eliminate the
current TANF time limit provision.
* With
a 24 out of 60 month time limit, Massachusetts has already seen the
adverse consequences of a time limit on assistance. A study of families
who lost benefits because of the state's time limit showed that three in
ten were not working at the time of the interview. One-third of these (10%
of the total) had not worked since leaving welfare; two-thirds of those
not working (20% of the total) had a job at some point but not at the time
of the interview. Three-fifths of those who were not working were looking
for work at the time of the interview, yielding an unemployment rate for
former recipients in the study of 16.3%, seven times the state
unemployment rate of 2.3% at the time of the study.** With the worsening
economy, this picture will inevitably become even
bleaker.
* We oppose
time limits and support positive incentives for work and attention to
familial responsibilities. Federal law should at least insure that all
individuals have access to a minimum of five years of assistance no matter
where they live, should stop the time clock for individuals in compliance
with program requirements, and should give states the flexibility to
decide the number of families who can be excused from the federal
five-year time limit because of hardship.
6.
Restore benefits
for legal immigrants.
* Massachusetts,
with one of the nation's largest immigrant populations, has been
particularly hard hit by PRWORA's restrictions on eligibility for
immigrants. The state has enacted a number of state-funded programs for
immigrants (in some cases with lower benefits or more restrictive
eligibility than the comparable federally-funded program ). These
state-funded programs and the needy immigrants they serve are extremely
vulnerable as we face the current state fiscal crisis. If the programs are
cut, needy immigrants_whose children in many cases are citizens_will be
without a safety net during as the recession deepens.
Thank you very much for your consideration
of these comments.
Very
truly yours,
Deborah
Harris
Staff
Attorney
Ruth
Bourquin
Staff
Attorney
Margaret
Monsell
Staff
Attorney
____________________
* The percentage of very poor children rose 3.1
percentage points from 6.5% in the 1993-1995 period to 9.6% in
the1997-1999 period. The percentage of female-headed families with
children who were very poor rose 7.9 percentage points from 15.6% in the
1993-1995 period to 23.5% in the 1997-1999 period. Albelda, R. and
Friedman, D., Left Behind: The Persistence of Poverty Throught the
1990s, Massachusetts Benchmarks (Fall 2001).
** Mass. Dep't of Transitional Assistance, After Time Limits: A
Study of Households Leaving Welfare Between December 1998 and April 1999
(November 2000). |
