SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 1923 words

COMMITTEE: HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS

SUBCOMMITTEE: HUMAN RESOURCE

HEADLINE: WELFARE OVERHAUL PROPOSALS

TESTIMONY-BY: MARTHA F. DAVIS,, VICE PRESIDENT, LEGAL DIRECTOR,

AFFILIATION: NOW LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND

BODY:
Statement of

Martha F. Davis, Vice President, Legal Director, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund

Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the House

Committee on Ways and Means

Hearing on Welfare Reform Reauthorization Proposals

April 11, 2002

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

By way of introduction, my name is Martha F. Davis and I am the Vice President and Legal Director of NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. I also teach welfare law at New York University School of Law. For more than thirty years, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund has used the power of the law to define and defend women's rights. Working in Congress, the courts and the media, NOW Legal Defense acts strategically to secure equality for women across the country. We currently chair a large coalition of groups - called the Building Opportunities Beyond Welfare Reform coalition - that is committed to shaping the welfare system to improve women's lives and opportunities. As this House approaches welfare reform reauthorization, we believe that there are five specific proposals that must be incorporated if welfare is to going to truly move women and their families out of poverty. There are also three proposals on the table, described below, that we believe would be harmful to the goals that we all share of assisting those in poverty to improve their lives.

First, any TANF reauthorization bill should expand opportunities for education and training. This is particularly important precisely because federal welfare primarily assists single female- headed families. Women can compete in the marketplace only if they have access to education and training. Consider these remarkable statistics: according to the National Committee on Pay Equity, a woman with a high school degree makes an average of $9000 a year less than a man with the same modest qualifications. Without additional education, women's wages lag behind men's; for example, in 1999 median weekly earnings for full-time wage and salary workers were $473 for women and $618 for men.[1] This gap is even more significant for women of color; African-American women are paid 65% of the salaries averaged by white men, while Latinas receive a mere 52%.[2] Significantly, however, 44% of adults (read women) on welfare report education less than high school.[3] In short, education and training are key to women's economic security.

The Bush Administration proposes to thwart additional educational opportunities while instead using precious TANF dollars to promote marriage - a combination that gives women no choice but dependency, while intruding on one of their most private decisions. In contrast, our specific proposals for reform would promote women's opportunities and abilities to compete for good jobs. Proposed legislative language is attached as Appendix A. In particular, TANF Reauthorization should expand the definition of work activity to include: elementary and secondary education, literacy, ESL, GED and higher education; participation in a work- study program; and 6 hours per week of study time. The arbitrary 12-month limit on training should be removed and individuals should be allowed access to a full range of training for jobs with living wages. Finally, the 30% cap on the percentage of a state's caseload that can be counted toward federal work participation rates for individuals participating in vocational training or teens pursuing a high school diploma should be removed.

Second, civil rights laws must apply to TANF recipients. This is something that we at NOW Legal Defense have first hand experience with, since we represent two women who are suing New York City because they were sexually harassed in their welfare-to-work placements. Indeed, one of them was stalked by her City supervisor. Another plaintiff in the case was racially harassed when she found a noose hanging above her desk along with racist caricatures. New York City has taken the position that these women have no protections and no recourse, a position that has been upheld by a federal district court but that will almost certainly be appealed. This is plainly inconsistent with our national values. It undermines the legal and human rights of all workers when TANF recipients are denied basic protections. TANF Reauthorization should require evaluation of the extent to which states have complied with civil rights protections as related to TANF and recommendations for improving such compliance. Further, TANF Reauthorization should ensure application of workplace protections such as the Fair Labor Standards Act, OSHA, Titles VII and IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the ADA to TANF recipients in the same manner as such laws apply to other workers. Proposed legislative language is attached hereto as Appendix B.

Third, TANF Reauthorization should recognize that welfare recipients face multiple work/life barriers to economic security. Forty-four percent of TANF recipients face more than one barrier to employment.[4] As many as 60% of women receiving welfare have been victims of domestic violence as adults and as many as 30% report abuse within the last year.[5] Long-term welfare recipients are 75% more likely than those on welfare for less than two years to have extremely low basic skills. Long-term recipients are also 39% more likely to have a mental health problem, 69% more likely to have abused alcohol, and 56% more likely to have a medical problem.[6] To address this, TANF Reauthorization must ensure that trained caseworkers screen individuals for barriers to economic security, refer those in need to qualified professionals for assessment and service provision, and recognize participation in counseling or other activities that address these barriers as work activities. Further, the Family Violence Option, the groundbreaking initiative from the 1996 law that has been adopted by 43 states, should be mandatory in every state. NOW Legal Defense worked closely with members of Congress in crafting the option. Proposed legislative language to extend the Family Violence Option to all states is attached as Appendix C.

Fourth, safe, quality child care must be a key component of welfare reform. Only 12% of eligible families are currently receiving federal child care assistance.[7] TANF Reauthorization must ensure access to child care to TANF recipients who are engaged in a work activity, and increase CCDBG funding to meet that goal. Further, TANF Reauthorization should strengthen protections from sanctions for parents who cannot find child care. Although current law includes sanction protection for single parents with a child under age 6, there are no protections for parents with children over age 6 who cannot find appropriate or affordable after school care or for parents of children who may need specialized care. I think we can all agree that a 7-year- old is not ready to stay home alone. TANF Reauthorization must recognize that older children need care, and if such care is not available, families should not lose basic subsistence benefits as a result. Proposed legislative language that would address this issue is attached as Appendix D.

Fifth, TANF Reauthorization should be fair to those families that are playing by the rules and, because of larger economic factors, continue to need welfare. As the economy has soured, the need for cash assistance has increased. Thirty-three states reported higher caseloads in September 2002 than in March 2001. Some states have shown continuous caseload growth in recent months, including substantial growth over the past year in Nevada (38%), Indiana (25%) and West Virginia (22%).[8] To address these issues, TANF Reauthorization must ensure that the clock is stopped while individuals are in compliance with program rules (for instance, engaged in a work activity). The arbitrary 20% cap on hardship exemptions should be repealed. Finally, the time clock should be stopped by a recession, when the state unemployment rate is 5.5% or higher, or has increased by the lesser of 50% or 1.5 percentage points. The legislative language in Appendix A would address these concerns.

If these five proposals were adopted as part of TANF Reauthorization, it would go a long way to improving the system and addressing the needs of poor women and families on welfare.

While there are many components of the Bush Administration's TANF Reauthorization Proposal about which we have grave concerns, there are three components that we believe would significantly harm women on welfare and their families.

First, the Bush Administration has proposed continuing federal TANF funding at the 1996 level through 2007, despite the clear need for a major increase. This funding level is tens of billions less than the amount that is needed to address family poverty and support parental employment, and represents a substantial cut in funding after inflation.

Second, the Bush Administration's plan would further divert TANF funds away from cash assistance and job training by setting aside $300 million for highly speculative and faddish marriage promotion and family formation projects. Particularly when juxtaposed with the Administration's failure to expand educational opportunities for welfare recipients - an already proven route out of poverty - the Administration's plan seems intended to return us to a day when women were expected to sacrifice their individual potentials and opportunities at the altar. Many - in fact, polls say the majority of the public - are skeptical of any government role in promoting marriage. Certainly, if public funds are to be used for this purpose, they should not be taken from funds needed to provide basic cash assistance, training and child care. Similarly, while there is a need for more funding for "responsible parenthood" programs which provide services to low income non-custodial parents, this should be new funding, not a diversion from existing capped amounts. And these programs should serve all non-custodial parents, not just non-custodial fathers, as the Bush plan seems to propose.

Finally, the Bush plan would increase to 40 the number of hours required for work to count; increase the participation rate standard to 70%; and eliminate the case load reduction adjustment to the participation rate standard. To meet these new requirements, states would almost inevitably have to assign most recipients to workfare programs, where they would work from 24-40 hours a week without compensation beyond their welfare check. This is counterproductive. Studies have consistently shown that education and training are critical components of moving toward self-sufficiency. Further, welfare families are by definition families with children. We have already seen disturbing evidence that onerous work requirements are harmful to these families - increasing delinquency, for example. Increasing the required hours will only further undermine these families.

In sum, TANF Reauthorization provides an opportunity to assess the successes and failures of the past six years, and improve upon the current system. To do that, Congress must pay careful attention to the data that demonstrates that welfare reform cannot be done "on the cheap" and that education, training and child care are critical components of successful poverty reduction. We look forward to working with you to improve the lives of low income women as this legislation moves forward.



LOAD-DATE: May 1, 2002