Copyright 2002 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
April 11, 2002 Thursday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 5778 words
COMMITTEE:
HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE:
HUMAN RESOURCE
HEADLINE: WELFARE OVERHAUL PROPOSALS
TESTIMONY-BY: ROBIN ARNOLD-WILLIAMS,, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, UTAH DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
AFFILIATION: ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF UTAH, AND
AMERICAN PUBLIC HUMAN SERVICES ASSOCIATION
BODY:
Statement of
Robin Arnold-Williams, Executive Director, Utah
Department of Human Services, on behalf of the State of Utah, and American
Public Human Services Association
Testimony Before the Subcommittee on
Human Resources of the House
Committee on Ways and Means
Hearing
on Welfare Reform Reauthorization Proposals
April 11, 2002
Good
afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I am Robin
Arnold-Williams, Executive Director of the Utah Department of Human Services.
Today I am testifying on behalf of the state of Utah and on behalf of the
American Public Human Services Association (APHSA), a nonprofit, bipartisan
organization representing state and local human service professionals for more
than 70 years. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the
reauthorization of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996.
The National Welfare Reform Success
It is important to note that prior to the enactment of welfare reform,
AFDC caseloads were soaring and families were trapped in a pattern of dependency
that few believed could be reversed. Despite poor family outcomes, for decades
rigid federal rules prevented state administrators from implementing innovative
approaches to help families in need. Under AFDC, states could give families
little more than a check to help them provide for their children. Families faced
a financial cliff if they moved from welfare to work because federal rules
discouraged work. In an attempt to break free from federal restrictions, by the
mid- 1990s, 48 states, including my own, were operating their AFDC programs
under federal waiver demonstration programs. Work was the hallmark of early
welfare reform experiments, and by 1996 it became clear that states were in a
better position than the federal government to achieve success in this area.
Under the federal welfare reform law of 1996, states were challenged to achieve
new goals under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program-like
mandatory work participation requirements and lifetime time limits-with fixed
federal funding in a block grant. States accepted the challenge of meeting these
new goals within the funding parameters, because the new law also afforded them
tremendous flexibility to achieve those goals.
States have achieved
unprecedented success in implementing welfare reform, such as increased
private-sector employment, decreased dependency on cash benefits, expanded child
care services, escalating child support collections, and declining poverty. For
example, employment rates for never-married mothers increased by 40 percent over
the past five years, reaching an all- time high in 2000. Sixty-six percent of
TANF mothers are working for 30 hours a week in private-sector
employment and an additional 12 percent of them are actively looking for work.
Sixty percent of the
TANF mothers who left cash assistance are
holding jobs. And to support those families with work, between 1996 and 1999
there was an 80 percent increase in the number of children receiving a monthly
child care subsidy. Paternity establishment has exceeded all expectations and
the number of child support cases with collections has doubled since 1996.
The flexibility afforded to states spawned innovation at the local level
as well; new partnerships were forged with businesses, community agencies,
tribal governments, and faith- based providers to support welfare families in
their transition from welfare to work. In 1996, Congress may have envisioned 50
different state
TANF programs, but in fact today there are
thousands of partnerships in thousands of communities sharing in the
implementation of the welfare law.
Utah's Success
In 1993, Utah
received a federal waiver to launch its welfare reform program that was designed
to increase income through earnings and child support. Utah's strategy is a
departure from AFDC; the focus is placed on universal engagement in activities
leading to employment, a self-sufficiency plan, and full-family case closure for
nonparticipation. Utah achieved great success in moving families off of welfare
and into work through an individualized case assessment, diversion assistance,
employment and
training, on-going case management and
aggressive child support collection efforts. When the federal welfare law was
enacted, Utah implemented a 36-month lifetime time limit with extensions for
those who are medically unable to work; victims of domestic violence; parents
caring for the medical needs of a dependent; or unable to complete education or
training programs due to state inability to deliver needed
services. Month to month extensions are also granted for those employed at least
part- time.
Since 1996, Utah's welfare caseload has declined 44 percent
to a low of 7,990 in June 2001. Caseloads began increasing slightly in fall 2001
due to the recent economic downturn. The January 2002 caseload stood at 8656 -
an 8.3 percent increase over the June 2001 level. But the true success of our
program cannot be captured in caseload statistics or work participation rates.
Utah's success is best measured by the number of
TANF families
who entered employment. We are particularly proud of the fact that in FY 2000,
Utah received a federal High Performance Bonus for job placement and in FY 2001,
received a second High Performance Bonus award for our ability to retain our
former
TANF clients in employment. Utah has a universal
engagement strategy for all clients receiving assistance, but our ultimate goal
has been private-sector employment through
training, on-going
counseling, and aggressive job search. We have not focused our resources on
developing community work experience programs or community service.
Pending Reauthorization Proposals
First, on behalf of APHSA I
would like to express our support for many of the President's welfare reform
proposal outlined in the document, "Working Towards Independence." Specifically,
APHSA is grateful for the President's bold leadership in maintaining the present
level of
TANF block grant funding, and for his recognition of
the demands on high poverty and high population growth states by restoring the
TANF supplemental grants. Between 1990 and 2000, Utah was the
fourth fastest growing state in the country and we appreciate the recognition of
the impact this growth has on service needs. In addition, we enthusiastically
support other financing measures included in the president's proposal, such as;
continuing and improving the
TANF contingency fund;
removing the restriction on unobligated
TANF funds;
excluding child care and transportation from the definition of
assistance;
creating state "rainy day funds" using unobligated
TANF funds;
continuing the transfer of 30 percent of
TANF funds to the Child Care Development Fund; and restoring
the full transfer authority into the Social Services Block Grant. APHSA urges
the immediate restoration of transfer authority of up to 10 percent of
TANF funds and a funding level of $
2.8 billion
annually, as provided in the original 1996 welfare law.
These provisions
will dramatically increase state and local flexibility in the administration of
the
TANF program and we urge this subcommittee and Congress to
include these provisions in
TANF reauthorization legislation.
We understand that there were pressures to include earmarks in the
TANF block grant for various initiatives and we are grateful to
the President for proposing a block grant free from any so- called "set-asides"
that would restrict state and local flexibility.
We strongly support the
President's proposal to eliminate the Two- Parent Family Work Participation
rate. We recognize that Congress may act to eliminate the caseload reduction
credit and therefore, we support the President's proposal to phase-out the
credit over time. We support the President's proposal to continue state
authority to exempt up to 20 percent of their
TANF caseload
from the lifetime time limit on federal cash assistance payments.
We
support the President's proposal to provide technical assistance to the tribes
who currently operate Tribal
TANF programs as well as
assistance to those tribes interested in administering their own programs.
We support the President's focus on child well-being and the
reauthorization of the Abstinence Education Program. We believe the proposal to
fund research, demonstration and technical assistance programs related to
marriage and family formation is superior to a federal mandate on states to
spend a certain percentage of the
TANF block grant on such
efforts. In my state of Utah, we have engaged community, business and religious
leaders for several years in an effort to strengthen marriage and prevent family
disintegration. These efforts, in my view, are most effective when government is
one of many partners in a community-wide effort to invest in and support
families.
With respect to child support enforcement, we support
proposals, such as those put forth by the President, that would give states the
option to simply their child support distribution systems and passthrough more
support to families, with the federal government sharing in these costs.
The President's proposal also included recommendations to improve the
federal Food Stamp Program. We support efforts to simplify program
administration; allow families to own a vehicle; restore benefits to
non-citizens and eliminate the cost-neutrality criterion on state Electronic
Benefit Transfer Programs.
We are supportive of the President's
objective to provide states with greater flexibility to manage federal programs
together to better serve families. The Program Integration waivers have the
potential to move performance goals from process measures to outcome measures.
We are anxious to learn more details about eligible programs and the waiver
administration, particularly the rules pertaining to cost neutrality--a
criterion that in previous years, proved to be a serious obstacle to waiver
implementation.
Finally, with respect to the work proposals contained in
the President's reauthorization plan, we support maintaining work as the primary
focus of the
TANF program. Work is the centerpiece of state
welfare reform efforts across this country as it was the hallmark of the early
welfare reform demonstrations of the early 1990s. We support the objective to
set new effort to improve state performance with respect to work. And we look
forward to working with the Administration and Congress to setnew outcomes for
the
TANF program that would enhance, rather than refocus state
efforts in this area.
Principles of Reauthorization
As Congress
considers reauthorization of welfare reform, continued state success is
contingent upon four factors: (1) maintaining and enhancing the flexibility of
the
TANF block grant; (2) maintaining an adequate level of
federal support for the block grant and related programs; (3) maintaining work
as a key focus of welfare reform and, (4) simplifying and aligning federal
program rules and goals.
Maintaining and Enhancing Flexibility. States
are afforded great flexibility to design
TANF programs that
meet their individual goals and respect the diversity of each state and its
citizenry. Over the past five years, we have learned that the
TANF caseload is both dynamic and diverse. Private-sector
employment should continue to be the goal of the
TANF program
participants. States also need continued flexibility to design programs and
innovative approaches to meet the changing needs of the families served by their
programs. In addition to work,
TANF programs provide support to
fragile families struggling to support their children; promote family
well-being; provide child care services and early childhood development
programs; improve parenting skills and support and preserve families; extend
employment and
training opportunities to noncustodial parents;
support two-parent families; prevent teen pregnancy; and provide services to
youths to prevent intergenerational dependence on government assistance. All of
these
TANF investments are critical to ensure the continued
success of welfare reform.
There is broad agreement that welfare reform
has been a success, and we urge Congress to continue to support that success.
States have committed
TANF resources in support of their state
priorities and in compliance with federal goals and objectives. And thousands of
community partnerships are involved in the implementation of those priorities.
APHSA urges Congress to reject any changes in the
TANF statute
that would require states to abandon their goals and redirect their limited
TANF resources to meet process measures, penalties, or purposes
that are inconsistent with states' successful welfare reform strategies. We urge
Congress to set broad goals for the reauthorization of welfare reform and afford
states with the flexibility to devise their own strategies to meet those
outcomes.
We ask the Subcommittee to minimize the burden placed on
states to report unnecessary and costly data reporting requirements. The
information technology changes and increased administrative costs associated
with such requirement could be better expended on provided services to families
in need.
Maintaining Adequate
TANF and Related Program
Funding. After an initial start-up transition period from the check-writing
focus of AFDC to the work-focused
TANF program, the majority of
states are allocating their full
TANF block grant this year and
spending prior year dollars as well. According to the Congressional Budget
Office, current
TANF expenditures exceed the authorized level
of funding by $
2 billion. APHSA supports maintaining the
federal commitment to the
TANF block grant and allowing for
annual inflationary increases in the program in order to sustain services to
low-income working families.
Maintaining the Work Focus. Long before
Congress mandated work from welfare clients, states were implementing successful
waiver demonstration projects with work as the focus. States have demonstrated
that they could devise effective
TANF strategies that moved
more families from welfare to work than ever before in our nation's history.
This record of success should offer Congress adequate evidence that states are
focused on employment. And for those who are left on the cash assistance
caseload, according to the most recent federal data, 77 percent of the families
that count toward the participation rates are either in unsubsidized employment
or looking for it. Only 11 percent are engaged in workfare activities. The data
provide compelling evidence that states have placed their emphasis on "real"
work.
Recent Senate and administration proposals have placed a renewed
focus on
TANF work participation rates, hours, and definitions.
We urge this subcommittee to look at the welfare to work effort more broadly.
TANF work participation rates only represent a very small part
of the welfare-to-work story. The work participation rates only measure the
number of families receiving cash assistance who are engaged in at least 30
hours of work activities. And in a time-limited welfare system, the families
represented in the work rates are an ever-shrinking number.
The work
participation rates do not include the thousands of families who receive
TANF- funded child care or transportation that allows them to
keep their private-sector jobs. The current rates do not include the
TANF mother who works 29 hours or fewer in a private-sector
job. Mothers, who hold private jobs and received short-term
TANF assistance, such as car repair or assistance in paying
their rent or utilities, are not included in the work rates. Nor are the
hundreds of thousands of mothers who no longer receive cash assistance because
they are earning a paycheck in the private sector.
Work rates may have
been an appropriate measure when welfare reform was enacted in 1996, but today
they are an outmoded and incomplete measure of state welfare-to-work efforts.
APHSA recommends that states be afforded the option to choose between the
process measures of participation rates and the high performance bonus outcome
measures of job placement, retention, and earnings progression. At the very
least, reauthorization legislation should place as much emphasis on the
placement and retention of
TANF clients in unsubsidized
employment as it places on the work activity of those receiving cash.
The following proposed changes may require states to restructure their
TANF strategies-eliminating the caseload reduction credit,
increasing work participation rates, increasing required work hours to 40 per
week, restricting work activities for 24 of the 40 hours, and eliminating
federal waivers. States are in the process of evaluating the full effect of
these potential changes on their programs. We urge the members of this
subcommittee to reach out to your states to determine the full impact of such
policy changes.
With respect to the caseload reduction credit, we
recognize that Congress may not continue to allow states to be credited for a
caseload decline based on 1995 data. However, if it is eliminated we recommend
phasing out the caseload credit and replacing it with an employment credit. The
new credit would provide an incentive for states to place and retain
TANF clients in jobs with earnings; additional credit should be
earned for providing short-term assistance to clients with earnings as well as
for clients in part-time employment with earnings. As the caseload reduction
credit is phased out over time, the improved employment credit would be phased
in.
With respect to work participation rates, APHSA supports the
president's proposal to include two-parent
TANF families in the
all families rate. And we also believe that
TANF mothers, who
have multiple barriers to overcome such as mental health, substance abuse, or
learning disabilities, may need additional time to enter the workforce. States
should be afforded additional flexibility in defining work activities so that
they can place these clients in meaningful activities that increase the
likelihood of long-term success in the workforce. In this respect, APHSA also
supports continuing state welfare waivers.
With respect to increasing
required hours of work to 40, the new requirement would have unintended effects
and increased costs. First, it is important to note that in 27 states,
TANF clients no longer qualify for cash benefits when they work
40 hours per week at the minimum wage. In 16 states, clients lose eligibility
after 24 hours of work at $
7 per hour. In short, clients will
exit welfare before they can be counted toward the participation rate. For
example, if a
TANF client loses eligibility when she works 28
hours at the minimum wage, the state would have to adjust eligibility rules in
order to keep the family on cash long enough to count them. In a time-limited
TANF program, this would be unfair to the client and contrary
to our mission of moving families off assistance.
According to federal
data, in FY 2000,
TANF clients worked an average of 29 hours
per week in all federal work categories. Increasing the number of required hours
and work rates will increase the costs of child care and may require one or more
additional child care arrangements. It may be necessary to either significantly
increase
TANF block grant funding or child care funding to
support the new work requirements.
In states experiencing an economic
slowdown and in rural or tribal areas, significant challenges may arise in
implementing the proposed 24-hour requirement. Utah, for example, does not have
the community worksite infrastructure to place families in the strict work
activities as proposed. We are concerned that our employment counselors, who
work to negotiate individualized employment plans, would shift to work site
development and monitoring.
When considering changes to the work rates,
we urge you to consider the potential impact on the millions of families served
with
TANF funds. States may be required to redirect program
resources or face substantial financial penalties. States lose 5 percent of
their block grant and must appropriate the equivalent amount of state funds to
their program and the state maintenance- of-effort (MOE) requirement is
increased by 5 percent. While there is an existing corrective compliance plan
that might mitigate the financial penalty, the broader public message will be
that the welfare reform program is a failure.
In the long run, neither
rates, hours, nor activities matter for the families we serve. Rather, the
ultimate goal of welfare reform is the transition from cash dependency to job
retention and earnings progression-generating sufficient income to support a
family free from welfare for a lifetime.
Over the past year, APHSA has
worked with the National Council of American Indians to develop joint
recommendations for Tribal
TANF reauthorization. States and
tribal governments share the goal of expanding employment and economic
opportunities for tribal
TANF families. We have endorsed direct
and enhanced funding for tribes; new funding for technical assistance,
infrastructure improvement, research, and program evaluation; access to
contingency funds and performance bonuses; economic development assistance; and
a strengthened partnership between federal, state, and tribal governments. We
urge this subcommittee to consider these proposals.
Simplifying and
Aligning Federal Program Rules and Goals. Conflicting federal program rules,
restrictions, and requirements impede state administrators' ability to deliver
critical services to families in need. For example,
TANF
program goals and objectives conflict with Food Stamp Program rules. Rigid
eligibility requirements prescribed in the Workforce Investment Act and the
Welfare to Work Program do not afford states with the opportunity to structure a
continuum of employment and
training services. As states move
TANF clients from cash assistance, the resources to operate
their child support program decrease significantly. Current federal funding for
child welfare services creates perverse incentives to remove children from their
homes rather than keep families together. Last year, APHSA published Crossroads:
New Directions in Social Policy, setting forth an agenda for the reform of a
wide range of federal human service programs. We commend this document to your
attention and urge consideration of our recommendations.
Child Care
Since the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in 1996, we have seen a dramatic increase in the
number of families and children served as evidenced by the unprecedented growth
in child care expenditures. Between 1996 and 1999, there was an 80% increase in
the number of children receiving a monthly child care subsidy.
States
have programmed every dollar available for child care. The child care story is a
CCDF and
TANF story. Since Fiscal Year (FY) 1997, we have
doubled spending on child care. In FY 2000, states expended over
$
9 billion in combined federal and state dollars on child care.
This includes $
7 billion from the Child Care and Development
Fund (CCDF) and
TANF dollars transferred, plus
$
2 billion in direct
TANF spending. States
have increased
TANF spending on child care from
$
189 million in FY 1997 to $
4.3 billion in FY
2000.
TANF funds spent on child care exceeded the entire
federal portion of the CCDF allocation in FY 2000.
Under CCDF, states
have met or exceeded the 100% maintenance-of- effort requirement each year.
States have drawn down all matching funds and have obligated all mandatory and
discretionary funds.
The simplicity introduced with the Child Care and
Development Block Grant has greatly contributed to state child care successes.
APHSA supports the need for flexibility in the CCDF that permits states
to design child care plans that balance the expansion of services and new
quality of care initiatives. To that end, state administrators oppose creating
new mandatory set-asides of funding and increasing current ones. CCDBG was
created in part to simplify what was a myriad of child care programs with little
flexibility. We have demonstrated that we can achieve much more under the
current program. Let us not move backwards by adding more strings to the program
and impeding states' abilities to meet parental needs in a changing employment
environment.
APHSA also advocates flexibility in programming by
transferring funds to CCDF. We support permitting states to transfer up to 10%
of their
TANF block grant to the Social Services Block Grant
(SSBG), a key source of funding for child care. APHSA also backs the
preservation of state authority to transfer up to 30% of the
TANF block grant into CCDF and the ability to spend
TANF funds directly on child care.
APHSA believes that
the funding currently in the system should remain in the system. States are
concerned that increased
TANF caseloads during the current
economic recession may reduce the amount of
TANF funds
available for child care. In addition, if Congress mandates new
TANF work requirements, then federal child care funding must
increase as well. We need $
4 billion in addition to the CCDF
funding to maintain our current investment. If Congress wants states to increase
quality and increase access, then additional funds will also be needed.
APHSA supports maintaining the state's option to draw down these funds
by a matching fund formula to make unmatched dollars available to other states
at the close of a fiscal year. APHSA calls for a statutory change to allow
donated funds from private sources to count toward maintenance of effort when
funds benefit the donors' facility or use.
States continue to have
strong concerns about using 85% of the state median income as an eligibility
standard. Federal funding has not been provided in order to furnish child care
services to this population deemed federally eligible. In light of the fixed
funding available for child care, we believe strongly that program eligibility
be determined at state and local levels.
Demand for different types of
child care is growing as well. We need more funding to help increase access and
quality within nontraditional hours for child care. We also need additional
resources to create greater access and quality for children with special needs
who require child care. Expanded access and quality require financial
investment. In a block grant, reaching a balance between these objectives must
be accomplished at the state and local levels. We oppose increasing or expanding
quality set-asides before we have agreed that we have sufficient resources to
expand access to all families in need of such support.
Finally, with
respect to child care data reporting requirements, the system must be
simplified. The aggregate data collection report asks elements repetitive of
other required reports and should be eliminated. The case-level data collection
report needs to be amended to contain elements that actually inform programming
needs. States should also be allowed the option of requiring a social security
number for receipt of benefits under CCDF to increase the ability to offer
cross-programming opportunities.
Child Welfare
APHSA believes
that now is the ideal time to address child welfare issues related to the
TANF program. To meet current challenges, additional
requirements posed by the Adoption and Safe Families Act, increased expectations
of state performance, and to sustain and expand the significant progress that
has been made in assisting children who have been abused or neglected and their
families, states will require greater flexibility in using current funding or
increased resources in the form of new federal investments, and an increased
capacity to get the job done. APHSA supports increased flexibility within the
entitlement structure, with additional federal investments, while maintaining
state accountability and the statutory protections for children. Our
recommendations for child welfare reform at this time consists of three specific
points, 1) Fixing the AFDC "Look Back, " 2) Reauthorization of the Title IV-E
Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Program and 3) Increased flexibility in Title
IV-E funding.
APHSA believes that income eligibility as a criterion to
determine who among the children placed in foster care or subsidized adoption is
eligible for federally reimbursed foster care and adoption assistance under
Title IV-E should be eliminated. Under the welfare reform law, states are
required to "look back" to old AFDC rules in effect on July 16, 1996, to
determine Title IV-E eligibility. Not only is this administratively burdensome,
but as the law does not allow the income standards in effect on July 16, 1996 to
grow with inflation, eligibility for federal reimbursement will continue to
decrease over time, resulting in a loss of federal funding to states. It is only
reasonable that federal funds be provided for the care of all children in foster
care.
In order to maintain needed flexibility in child welfare, the
current Title IV-E Child Welfare Demonstration Waiver program, which expires
this fiscal year, must be expanded and made more flexible. The National Council
of State Human Service Administrators (NCSHSA) recently reaffirmed earlier
policy stating that substantial modifications should be made to the Title IV-E
waiver process to allow more flexibility, a broader scope, and to foster system
change in child welfare. Specifically, the program should be reauthorized for
five years with additional state flexibility including expanding the limited
number of waivers and the number of states that may conduct waivers on the same
topic.
APHSA believes that states should be allowed to use Title IV-E
funds for services other than foster care maintenance payments, such as front
end, reunification, or post-adoption services for children who come to the
attention of the child welfare system. Title IV- E should be amended to give
states the option to redirect federal revenue for Title IV-E maintenance
payments into their Title IV-B programs, thereby providing states with the
flexibility to reinvest federal revenue into other child welfare services
whenever foster care is reduced, while maintaining accountability for outcomes.
If states had up-front funding to reinvest foster care foster care expenditures
in the kinds of services that reduce the need for foster care, better outcomes
could be achieved while allowing more efficient use of current resources.
Child Support
States have shown remarkable achievement in
implementing the child support provisions contained in the welfare reform act.
The percentage of child support cases with orders that had collections increased
from 34 percent in 1995 to 68 percent in 2000. Total paternities established and
acknowledged increased from 931,000 in 1995 to 1.556 million in 2000.
We
believe that child support should be included in
TANF
reauthorization discussions in light of the key role that child support plays in
promoting self-sufficiency. The current system for distributing child support
arrears collected on behalf of families that have left welfare is complicated
and confusing. The assignment and distribution of arrears depends on what year
the arrears accrued, whether the family was on welfare, and by what method the
arrears were collected. If a family never received
TANF, AFDC,
or Medicaid, all of the child support collected by the state child support
agency, including arrearages, goes to the family. While a family is receiving
TANF benefits, the state can keep any child support it
collects, regardless of how it is collected, to reimburse itself for the
family's benefits.
For families that formerly received public
assistance, the rules are more complex. For former recipients of public
assistance, welfare reform legislation created a more "family friendly"
distribution policy. In general, once a family leaves
TANF, if
the state collects child support for the family, the state must give the family
any current child support as well as arrearages that have built up after the
family left
TANF and any arrearages that built up before the
family received
TANF before it reimburses itself for assistance
costs.
States have spent many resources programming computers to keep
track of the many "buckets" of support, determining whether an arrearage accrued
before assistance, during assistance, or after assistance; whether it is
permanently assigned, never assigned, temporarily assigned, conditionally
assigned, unassigned during assistance, or unassigned before assistance; and
whether it was collected by the tax refund intercept program, by levy of a bank
account, or by other methods. Many state personnel believe that the complexity
of the system contributes to more errors and creates more difficulty in
explaining payments to clients.
The complicated distribution system is a
burden on state child support programs. Staff has spent considerable resources
programming computer systems to properly distribute child support. Maintaining
these systems requires continued staff resources. In addition, families find the
current distribution system hard to understand. The fact that an arrearage
payment goes to the state rather than the family just because it was collected
through the tax intercept program does not make intuitive sense, and states must
devote staff to answer questions related to the current distribution rules. Such
complexity adds to the sense of arbitrariness of the program and reduces public
support for it.
We support proposals, such as those put forth by the
President, that would give states the option to simply their child support
distribution systems and passthrough more support to families, with the federal
government sharing in these costs.
Concluding Comments
In order
to achieve program outcomes, inspire state innovation, and leverage scarce
program resources, funding streams should be flexible, program eligibility and
federal funding restrictions should be simplified and the values underpinning
the programs should be aligned as well. In the end, the success of human service
programs will be measured by the health and well-being of America's children,
families, and adult; by their reduced dependence on government assistance; and
by self-sufficiency for generations to come.
Thank you for the
opportunity to testify. I would be happy to respond to any questions you may
have.
LOAD-DATE: May 1, 2002