Copyright 2001 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
October 16, 2001, Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 3508 words
COMMITTEE:
HOUSE EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
HEADLINE: CHANGES IN THE WELFARE SYSTEM
BILL-NO:
H.R.
3113 Retrieve
Bill Tracking Report
Retrieve
Full Text of Bill TESTIMONY-BY: MARTHA DAVIS,
LEGAL DIRECTOR
AFFILIATION: NOW LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATION FUND
BODY: TESTIMONY OF NOW LEGAL DEFENSE
AND
EDUCATION FUND ON "WELFARE REFORM: SUCCESS IN MOVING TOWARD
WORK"
SUBMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES HOUSE 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE COMMITTEE
Hearing on "Welfare Reform: Success in Moving Toward Work" held on
October 16, 2001
Martha Davis Legal Director
Sherry Leiwant
Senior Staff Attorney
Yolanda Wu Senior Staff Attorney
NOW Legal
Defense and
Education Fund
Introduction
Thank
you for the opportunity to testify today. The NOW Legal Defense and
Education Fund has been working for more than thirty years to
define and defend women's rights. One of our major goals is to eliminate
barriers that deny women economic opportunities by addressing 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, to analyze the impacts of welfare
reform and to develop more effective policy approaches. Based on both research
results and first-hand experience, our coalition believes that changes in the
1996 law are necessary to insure that families are able to leave poverty. While
welfare caseloads have declined around the country, poverty has actually
deepened for many. More than 40 percent of former welfare recipients continue to
live below the poverty line. (Urban Institute, "How Are Families That Left
Welfare Doing? A Comparison of Early and Recent Welfare Leavers (2001)). In
addition, the disposable incomes of the lowest fifth of families headed by women
have declined since 1995. (Center on Budget Policy Priorities, "The Initial
Impacts of Welfare Reform on the Incomes of Single-Mother Families" (Aug.
1999)).
About 25 percent of former welfare recipients have no paid
employment and have either no partner or a partner who is unemployed. Of the 64
percent of former recipients who are employed, their median hourly wage is a
mere $
7.15, and many did not receive that hourly rate on a
full-time basis. (Urban Institute, "How Are Families That Left Welfare Doing? A
Comparison of Early and Recent Welfare Leavers (2001)). A GAO report on welfare
recipients in seven states found that most former recipients found jobs in
low-wage occupations such as restaurant and retail sales. Their average hourly
wage ranges from $
5.67 in Tennessee to $
8.09
in Washington state. (General Accounting Office, "Welfare Reform: Information on
Former Recipients' Status." GAO-HEHS-99-48 (Apr. 1999)). Because welfare leavers
lack the necessary skills to progress beyond the low wage market into jobs that
pay a living wage, in the wake of welfare reform such workers are likely to
experience little wage growth. (U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Serv. "The
Low-Wage Labor Market: Challenges and Opportunities for Economic
Self-Sufficiency," Kaye & Nightingale, eds. (2000)).
These numbers
take a human toll. A recent analysis of welfare-to- work programs shows that
children's well-being is tied to their parent's income, as opposed to employment
rates. In fact, several welfare programs that increased employment without
lifting income were found to do more harm than good for children. (Children's
Defense Fund, "How Children Fare in Welfare Experiments Appears to Hinge on
Income" (Aug. 22, 2001)).
So far, states have been able to meet
TANF's work participation requirements. But they did so during
a period of unprecedented economic expansion. Declining caseloads and an
expanding economy are almost certainly a thing of the past. There can be no
doubt that the economic uncertainty wrought by the September 1 Ith terrorist
attacks and the deepening recession put our nation's poor in an even more
precarious position, and will make it more difficult for states to meet their
mandatory work participation requirements. As more workers are laid off, welfare
recipients will increasingly be competing with more experienced and highly
educated workers for scarce jobs. Under the circumstances, perpetuating Federal
restrictions on
education and training activities will hinder
states from making the most effective decisions to promote long-term economic
stability for their welfare caseload.
THE CASE FOR
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Both research and real-life
experience underscore the importance of
education and training
in helping welfare recipients attain economic self-sufficiency. When
TANF was enacted in 1996, the strong desire to make it a "work
first" program led Congress to place limits on states' ability to include
education and training in their welfare programs.
TANF specifically prohibits states from counting higher
education as an allowable work activity, imposes a 12 month
limit on participation in vocational
education, and prohibits
states from having more than 20% of their
TANF work
participants in secondary school or vocational
education. 42
U.S.C.S 607(d). What we have learned over the past few years about the welfare
caseload, about successful work programs and about the need for more emphasis on
poverty reduction makes it clear that the original restrictions on
education and training are too extreme and that a correction is
necessary in order to free states to address the needs of poor families and help
them achieve self sufficiency.
Experience under
TANF
and current research demonstrates that welfare programs that include
education and training as part of a spectrum of activities can
produce more positive and longer- lasting effects on earnings than programs that
provide only job search assistance. Studies indicate that the most effective
welfare to work programs have had a flexible, balanced approach that offers a
mix of job search,
education, training and work activities and
tailors those activities both to the needs and abilities of individual
recipients and to the opportunities in the local job market. (W.K. Kellogg
Foundation, "Workforce Development: Employment Retention and Advancement Under
TANF" (Sept. 2001); Stephen Freedman, " Evaluating Alternative
Welfare to-Work Approaches: Two Year Impacts for Eleven Programs (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services and U. S. Department of
Education (2000); Marie Cohen, "
Education and
Training Under Welfare Reform" (Welfare Information Network, 1998); Center on
Law & Social Policy, "Beyond Job Search or Basic
Education:
Rethinking the Role of Skills in Welfare Reform" (1998)).
Because
education and training programs can help move women into better
jobs and can help remove barriers to long-term employment, Federal law
provisions which currently prevent or discourage states from including
education and training in their welfare programs should be
removed. Indeed, states should be encouraged to include individualized
assessment, analysis of local job availability and
education
and training in their
TANF work programs. The
TANF Reauthorization Act of 2001 (H.R. 3113) would remove the
arbitrary 12 month limit on training and the 20 percent limit on training or
educational activities. It would also make it clear that
education, including ESL, GED and higher
education, are work activities.
Post-High School and
Post-Secondary
Education: If our goal is to reduce poverty for
our nation's most vulnerable families, the next round of welfare reform must
concentrate on insuring that women have jobs that pay them enough to support
their families. Including
education and training as part of the
welfare program will help with both of these goals. Research suggests that
gaining a college degree is an effective way of increasing an individual's
employment and earnings. Data show that people with a college
education earn substantially more than those who have not
attended college. Using the National Longitudinal Survey and attempting to
control for differences between those who did and did not enter college, Thomas
Kane and Cecilia Rouse estimated that hourly earnings increase by approximately
19% to 23% for women earning an Associate's degree and 28% to 33% for those
earning a Bachelor's degree. Research indicates that post-high school
education or training is also strongly linked to subsequent
higher wages. (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, "Workforce Development: Employment
Retention and Advancement Under
TANF" (Sept. 2001)).
Significantly, starting off in a higher paying job is linked to both greater
employment retention and job advancement. (Id.)
Despite the positive
effects of
education, following enactment of
TANF, many states restricted access to
education and training for
TANF recipients in
order to be consistent with Federal requirements. In some states, stand-alone
college
education was permitted only to students who had begun
their studies before the implementation of welfare reform. An additional 15
states provided support services for school attendance for
TANF
recipients who attended school on their own time after complying with work
requirements. Out of 15 states that responded to an informal survey by the
American Association of Community Colleges, two responded that their state
welfare agencies were not counting work-study assignments as
TANF work activities. There have been large drops in the number
of students on welfare at several campuses and community college systems.
Despite Federal restrictions, some states have successfully experimented
with postsecondary
education components to their welfare
programs. In part, states could do this because a strong economy insured they
would meet work participation requirements under
TANF even if
portions of their caseload were participating in educational activities that
would not count as work activities under Federal standards. For example, Maine
created a separate program to enable up to 2,000 students to receive aid without
being subject to
TANF participation requirements and time
limits. Students meeting certain requirements receive benefits equivalent to the
cash aid, medical coverage, transitional benefits, and other services they would
have received had they become
TANF recipients, but can remain
in school without penalty. In Wyoming a small student aid program, funded
through state maintenance-of- effort funds is available instead of a
TANF grant to recipients who have completed an employment
assessment, meet income and resources eligibility requirements, and are
full-time students in an approved program.
In addition, several states
are promoting job retention and advancement by helping former
TANF recipients continue their
education to
help with. Florida pays the costs of
education, training and
necessary support services for up to two years for anyone who leaves
TANF for employment and wants to obtain further
education and training. Utah pays for up to 24 months of
education, training and needed support services for those who
leave
TANF. States' successful experimentation with
allowing post-secondary
education as a component of welfare
reform should be encouraged in any Federal reauthorization of the
TANF program. In light of the worsening economy, states may not
feel they can afford the luxury of including
education and
training programs if they will not count toward Federal work participation
goals. It is therefore essential that a reauthorized
TANF
eliminate restrictions on educational components in state programs.
Basic
education: A large proportion of welfare
recipients have very low educational and skill levels. One study of a nationally
representative sample of single welfare mothers found that 64 percent lacked
high school diplomas. (Institute for Women's Policy Research, "Welfare That
Works: The Working Lives of AFDC Recipients" (1995); Marie Cohen,
"
Education and Training Under Welfare Reform," Welfare
Information Network Issue Note 2 (2) (Mar. 1998); Urban Institute, "Work-Related
Activities and Limitations of Current Welfare Recipients," (1999)). Welfare
recipients ages seventeen through twenty-one read, on average, at the sixth
grade level. (National Center for Family Literacy, "Facts and Figures," (1997)).
Lack of literacy and basic
education translates into less
access to entry level jobs in most fields and poor pay when jobs are found. The
National Institute for Literacy finds that workers who lack a high school
diploma earn a mean monthly income of $
452 as compared to
$
1829 for those with a bachelor's degree. (National Institute
for Literacy, "Facts on Literacy" (1996)).
Just as having basic skills
increases the likelihood of job advancement, lack of basic
education can be a major barrier to sustained employment. In
addition, low literacy and low educational attainment can indicate learning
issues that may need to be addressed. Studies in Washington state, for example,
revealed that 35% of the caseload in two counties were learning disabled.
Many states are screening for low literacy and possible learning issues
and are piloting projects to use curriculums designed for low level readers to
increase their literacy skills. Washington, Kansas and Missouri have undertaken
pilot projects to screen for learning disabilities and refer to appropriate
vocational and educational services. Tennessee, Oregon, Kansas and New Hampshire
have special projects to screen and refer recipients to educational programs
designed to raise their specific reading skills using techniques geared to
individual learning needs with an eye to what skills are needed for employment.
(National Governor's Association, Issue Brief, "Serving Welfare Recipients with
Learning Disabilities in a Work First Environment (July 28, 1998)). Family
literacy programs have also been used in a number of states to increase literacy
for parents on welfare. These programs educate both children and parents and
focus on the importance of literacy for all members of the family. Research
indicates that these programs have been successful in both raising literacy and
increasing job placement and retention. (National Governor's Association, Issue
Brief, "States Can Use Family Literacy Programs to Support Welfare Reform Goals
(June 4, 1998)).
It is important that states screen for barriers to
employment such as low literacy and learning disabilities and be allowed, indeed
encouraged, to offer innovative basic
education programs.
Job Skills Training: Job skills training can and should play a critical
role in assisting welfare recipients in attaining economic self-sufficiency,
even within the "work first" framework. Studies have shown that although
welfare-to-work programs that promote rapid labor force attachment increase
earnings and work hours for participants, the most persistent rise in earnings
are found in programs that emphasize human capital development, i.e,. investment
in
education and training. Importantly,
education and training are more effective strategies for
increasing self-sufficiency over time. (Manpower Demonstration Research Corp.,
"Work First: How to Implement and Employment-Focused Approach to Welfare Reform"
(1997)). One study analyzing the cost effectiveness of Job Training Partnership
Act funded job training programs found that for low-skill welfare recipients,
job search assistance alone produced little or no benefits while more intensive
skill-building training was the most cost-effective in the long term. (Joint
Center for Poverty Research Working Paper #3, "Aiding Welfare-to-Work
Transitions: Lessons from JTPA on the Cost Effectiveness of
Education and Training Services" (1998)). Another study also
confirms that although job search can increase employment in the short term, it
has no long term effect on employment or earnings. (Center on Law and Social
Policy, "Beyond Job Search or Basic
Education: Rethinking the
Role of Skills in Welfare Reform" (1998)).
The research analyzing job
training programs suggests a number of "best practices." First, job training
programs should target high quality jobs. Such programs gather information about
the local living wage, high-wage growth industries, and the skills and interests
of potential job seekers. Training women for occupations typically filled by men
is one important example of such a "best practice." 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. 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. (Spalter-Roth et
al., "Welfare That Works: The Working Lives of AFDC Recipients, A Report to the
Ford Foundation" (1995)). By contrast, in 1997 the average welfare recipient
moving from welfare to work earned between $
5.60 and
$
6.60 an hour. (U.S. General Accounting Office, "Welfare
Reform: States and Restructuring Programs to Reduce Welfare Dependence," 107
(June 1998)). 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. (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)). 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.
Sectoral initiatives are
another "best practice." Sectoral employment programs target an occupation
within an industry and then intervene to assist low-income people in obtaining
such jobs with the eventual goal of systemically changing the occupation's labor
market. This approach benefits low-income people, who are trained to meet
existing needs, as well as the community, which can meet the demands of the
labor market with trained workers.
Another "best practice" is to focus
on long term job retention and career advancement instead of job placement.
Post-employment training can be an excellent way to support people who have jobs
but who have not attained self-sufficiency. One encouraging sign is that a
number of welfare-to-work grantees have developed innovative post-employment
education and training. (Urban Institute, "The Status of the
Welfare-to-Work (WtW) Grants Program After One Year" (Sept. 1999)).
Finally, an important "best practice" is for job training programs to
address barriers to self-sufficiency. Many recipients left on the rolls struggle
with multiple and severe barriers to employment and self-sufficiency. Over half
of women receiving welfare have been victims of domestic violence as adults.
According to several studies, a quarter to a third of welfare recipients report
having been abused within the last year. Abusive partners often interfere with
women's attempts to work or to obtain
education. Jody Raphael,
"Trapped by Poverty, Trapped by Abuse" (Taylor Institute, 1997); Eleanor Lyon,
"Poverty, Welfare and Battered Women: What Does the Research Tell Us?"
(Department of Health and Human Services, Welfare and Domestic Violence
Technical Assistance Initiative, 1998) Thirty-five percent of low-income
families reported having poor mental health through measurement of anxiety,
depression, loss of emotional control, and psychological well-being. (Urban
Institute, "Work Activity and Obstacles to Work Among
TANF
Recipients," (1999)). Similar rates have been found among welfare recipients.
(Sandra Danziger "Barriers to the Employment of Welfare Recipients," Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan, Poverty Research and Training Center, School of
Social Work (2000)). Lack of child care and transportation are also significant
barriers to economic sufficiency. Job training programs that address these
barriers have the best chance of success. Conclusion
The widespread
"work first" approach calls for recipients to take the first available job,
regardless of skills or work experience. But research shows that a "one size
fits all" approach neither serves the recipient nor the public policy goal of
increasing self-sufficiency. The most effective
education and
training programs must provide flexible, customized training for a diverse
population. The range of services should include basic/remedial
education, soft and hard skills training, on-the-job training,
and should address multiple barriers to economic-selfsufficiency faced by
welfare recipients.
LOAD-DATE: October 19, 2001