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: 3088 words
COMMITTEE:
HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE:
HUMAN RESOURCE
HEADLINE: WELFARE OVERHAUL PROPOSALS
TESTIMONY-BY: BICH HA PHAM,, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
AFFILIATION: HUNGER ACTION NETWORK OF NEW YORK STATE,
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
BODY: Statement of
Bich
Ha Pham, Executive Director, Hunger Action Network of New York State, New York,
New York
Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the
House
Committee on Ways and Means
Hearing on Welfare Reform
Reauthorization Proposals
April 11, 2002
The Hunger Action
Network of New York State appreciates this opportunity to share our thoughts on
TANF Reauthorization legislation with the Subcommittee. We are
a statewide anti-hunger advocacy and community food organization working to end
hunger and its root causes. Our membership includes faith-based organizations,
emergency food providers, community groups, low- income individuals and citizen
advocates. Monitoring of welfare reform and advocacy for promising
welfare-to-work practices is one of our primary goals. We have conducted
regional forums, speak outs and conferences on welfare reform and
TANF reauthorization throughout the state of New York,
including the Bronx, Staten Island, Ithaca, Rochester, Buffalo, Elmira, Albany
and Westchester. We have also conducted surveys of over a thousand welfare
recipients to assess job placement levels, income levels, access to benefits and
sanctioning. Hunger Action Network is also an active supporter of the Welfare
Made A Difference National campaign.
TANF reauthorization is
taking place at a crucial time in New York State. The September 11th disaster
brought with it an estimated loss of over 100,000 NY City jobs in the first
month after the attack and nearly half of the emergency food programs (EFPs) we
surveyed experienced an immediate increase in demand the months following the
attack. Amidst the increased needs of unemployed and low-income individuals, we
saw a $
2 million cut in EFP funding and a current Executive
budget proposal that zeroes out most of the welfare-to-work transitional
employment programs and services such as wage subsidy programs, transportation
assistance and transitional benefits.
These are frightening times to be
poor and unemployed in New York. However, we have seen New Yorkers respond with
an increased sensitivity to the needs of others. When we reported that the EFPs
saw a large dip in donations due to the assistance going to the 9/11 relief
funds, the public quickly responded with donations that brought the food back to
the pantries and soup kitchens. From what we have seen from statements from the
House and Senate, many Congressional members appear to also be looking at how
best to meet the needs of low-income families and looking into how best to
support the efforts of those who have left welfare to hold onto their jobs and
to assist with increasing their income; to address the needs of those remaining
on welfare who have multiple barriers to employment; and to make improvements in
the current program. Hunger Action applauds these efforts and particular support
many aspects of
TANF legislation introduced by Congressmember
Mink, and also support some aspects of Congressmember Cardin and Senator
Rockefeller's bill.
Many of the impacts of welfare reform to New Yorkers
are similar to those experienced by other states. A "work first" policy has led
to the vast majority of welfare participants not being able to seek education or
training and instead much of the welfare-to- work funds go to
pay businesses such as temp agencies that provide job search and job placement
services for a short period of time. Since 1995, the City University of New
York, the community college system in NY City, has lost over 23,000 of a total
of 30,000 students who were on public assistance. Less than 2% of those engaged
in countable work activities in NY City were in an education or
training program. This despite the fact that a national survey
by the Children's Defense Fund found that the only group of welfare participants
who routinely earned enough to escape poverty once they left welfare were those
with a college education.
Very little is known about what happened to
these individuals and about the other 123,000 families who have left welfare
since January 1995. A State leavers survey in 1997 showed that only 40% of these
families had an adult employed at least one day in each quarter in the year
after they left welfare. Median annual earnings for these families were
$
12,611 outside of NY City and $
16,530 in NY
City. Hunger Action also conducted two rounds of participant surveying in 1997
and 2000 that showed that the workfare or welfare-to-work program led to jobs
for only 11% (less than 8% in 1997) of those surveyed. The average wage of
leavers was $
7 an hour ( $
12,740 per year).
The emergency food programs (EFPs) have seen a tremendous increase in need, with
900,000 people going to EFPs a week in NY State, which we believe is a result of
a combination of factors including the recession, the impacts of the September
11th disaster, the sanctioning and diversion policies applied against welfare
recipients, and the low-wages of the leavers.
With these factors in
mind, Hunger Action Network urges this Subcommittee to adopt the following
policies for
TANF reauthorization, many provisions of which are
included in Congress member Mink's bill (HR 3113) which we strongly support:
Revise the goal of
TANF to include poverty reduction as
a primary goal, rather than just caseload reduction. Congress should eliminate
"process" measures - such as work participation rates - and embrace "outcome"
measures instead, such as reduction in childhood poverty rates, increased wage
levels and higher family incomes. It is relatively easy to deny benefits to
households; it is far more difficult to ensure that such households are raised
out of poverty.
TANF must provide benefits to all
families in need.
TANF reauthorization should be a vehicle to
provide opportunity and support to all low-income families, including families
now receiving welfare, low-wage working families who may or may not have
received welfare in the past, two-parent families and immigrant families who are
by statute or in practice denied assistance.
TANF should be
broadly available to low-income families to supplement low wages, provide
assistance for parents seeking education and
training, and
allow parents raising young children to balance the competing demands of work
and family life.
Eligibility for benefits should be restored to legal
immigrants. Legal immigrants are subject to the same obligations as citizens,
such as paying taxes, and should be eligible for the same public benefits. Under
the
TANF rules, immigrants are usually ineligible for benefits
for five years.
All families, including low-wage workers and two-parent
families, should have the right to apply for
TANF, and people
must be adequately informed of all services for which they are eligible.
States should be required to develop an index reflecting the real cost
of living for low-income families. A number of states have increased benefit
levels for poor families since 1996. Most states, however, have failed to
increase benefit levels. Changes in welfare policy since 1996 mean that many
families are doing everything they can and are "playing by the rules," but are
still poor. There is no excuse for states not to set benefit levels based on
real needs and costs, and federal law should encourage states to do so.
Children's early year's experiences are critical to their physical,
cognitive, and emotional development. There continues to be a severe shortage of
quality out-of-home childcare for pre- school age children, particularly for
children in low-income families. Until quality out-of-home care can be
guaranteed, parents should be allowed to care for their own children, and to
have that care count as satisfying work requirements.
TANF should be modified to curtail state's
supplantation of
TANF funds. A number of states have not used
TANF funds to assist eligible low-income families, but instead
have merely supplanted county and state expenditures on welfare and low-income
programs. The end result has been that families in need have not been receiving
the benefit of all the
TANF funds which could go to many needs
such as increasing transitional benefits,
training and
education, child care and transportation assistance.
To successfully
promote "work" as a path out of poverty,
TANF must be
redesigned around the realities of the low-wage labor market. Low-wages, few
benefits, lack of "family-friendly" policies, high turnover, few opportunities
for advancement, and areas of high poverty and high unemployment hinder the path
out of poverty. Existing federal policies like Unemployment Insurance and the
Family and Medicaid Leave Act do not generally benefit low-wage workers, and
other benefit programs are inadequate to provide the level of support that
families need.
All low-wage workers, including those who participate in
TANF- funded employment programs, should receive a combination
of decent wages and work supports, such as food stamps and child care
assistance, to lift them out of poverty.
Because education and
training lead to higher wages,
TANF must
encourage and support education and
training as viable ways for
low-income families to move out of poverty. Participation in education and
training programs (including literacy, ESL, high school/GED,
two- and four-year college, vocational
training, work- study
and internships) should count as work. Participation in these activities should
be supported with payment of
training related expenses, such as
carfare and childcare costs. The 30% cap on the number of families who may be
engaged in education and
training and count towards a state's
work participation requirements should be lifted. The one-year limit on
vocational
training for parents should be eliminated to allow
parents adequate time to complete education and
training. TANF
families should be given the right to pursue these education and
training options.
In an economic downturn, some job
seekers will be unable to find employment. When parents who have exhausted
TANF benefits are willing and able to work, but no job is
available, the appropriate governing body should either provide them with
temporary employment or continue to provide assistance. A new program should be
created that provides publicly financed wage paying jobs to parents with limited
skills and work experience. Such programs in Pennsylvania, Washington and
elsewhere have proven to be an effective model for enhancing employability and
skills and provide a needed buffer in areas of high unemployment. Such a program
will be especially valuable in rural and urban areas and on Native American
reservations.
Raise the federal minimum wage. The way to help people not
only move off of welfare, but stay off of welfare, is to promote
family-sustaining wages. One step in the right direction is to increase the
federal minimum wage so that work results in enough to provide a family with a
decent standard of living. Also, create a children's allowance and a caregiver's
allowance (refundable tax credits for those caring for children or others,
including elderly parents).
Punitive measures that harm families must be
replaced with measures that help families move out of poverty. The federal time
limit clock should stop, or exemptions be granted, for families who "play by the
rules," are in compliance with work requirements, or who are caring for young,
sick, or disabled children or disabled household members. In general, Congress
should consider extending or eliminating the five-year time limit on benefits
since it fails to reflect the characteristics of the individual participants or
the local labor market.
Exemptions should be increased for families with
significant barriers such as domestic violence, physical disability or mental
health disability, illness and/or substance abuse. The provisions of the
Americans with Disabilities Act should be enforced. Establish a new system that
rewards states that do the best job of
training caseworkers to
screen, refer and serve clients with significant barriers.
Many states
now deny aid to some needy children as a penalty for their parent's engaging in
conduct of which the state does not approve. It is wrong to deny children
benefits for their basic needs based on their parent's conduct. We also oppose
denying benefits to children born while their parents are receiving welfare.
The funding level of the
TANF block grant should be
maintained at present levels with an automatic cost of living adjustment. Though
welfare rolls have fallen, income support and related childcare funding needs
still far surpass the funding that is available from the federal block grant.
States are also exploring a variety of innovative approaches to better assist
individuals in moving from welfare to work, and funding for such efforts should
not be curtailed at such an early stage. In addition, the recent attacks of
Sept. 11th increase the likelihood of an economic downturn in the near future,
with a resultant increase in the number of individuals and families needing
assistance.
TANF should require a minimum grant level that all
states must adopt to lessen the economic struggles of poverty-stricken families.
Value and support all families regardless of marital status. The
government should not be in the business of legislating morals and trying to
influence personal relationships conducted within the realm of privacy of ones
life. We oppose government preference to married couples and government policies
that penalize non-married individuals in the distribution of benefits. We also
oppose any policy that results in the creation of a two- tiered system for
married and for unmarried individuals and disparate policies for the groups.
Instead,
TANF goals must be to promote economically stable
households, whether there are one or multiple adults in the household,
regardless of marital status. Domestic violence prevention should be funded,
rather than marriage promotion. A recent public opinion poll by the Pew Research
Center showed that by a margin of 79 percent to 18 percent, Americans favored
the government's staying out of marriage promotion. This was true even amongst
"highly committed" white evangelicals, by a margin of 60 percent to 35 percent
against such programs.
The Bush Administration proposal should be
fashioned to improve job placement rates at family-sustaining wages and to meet
the needs of those not able to work. In a recent discussion with the
Commissioner of the Department of SocialServices in one of the larger counties
in NY State, serious concernswere expressed that the proposal to increase work
activity hours and caseload percentage rates, along with the taking away of the
caseload reduction credit, would wipe out most of the current programs that they
have worked hard to establish over the past five years and make them start from
scratch. Many of the other county agency heads had expressed similar concerns.
One example is the 40 hour work requirement. Most agencies have a 35 hour work
week. Under the proposal, agencies throughout the country will be scrambling to
place participants in additional sites for the additional five hours, as well as
to pay for the additional program costs.
Moreover, in Hunger Action
Network's survey of hundreds of workfare participants, we asked what the workers
would suggest to improve the program. Overwhelmingly the response was to help
them get a job. The Department of Health and Human Services' current proposal
will not provide that help. It was difficult enough to sweep the parks for 35
hours a week and still fit in caring for your children, looking and interviewing
for jobs and perhaps getting an education or
training. Under
the proposal, participants will lose crucial hours while at the same time not
see the additional child care funding needed to fulfill work requirements or to
support them in employment-related activities.
As this Subcommittee has
likely been apprised of, a recent National Governor's Association survey
reported the views of governors and welfare officials in 38 states. The
consensus was that the HHS proposal would require states to create community
service jobs and expand workfare programs, instead of focusing on improving
current job placement and job
training programs. The HHS
proposal would also further limit participants' access to programs and even to
substance-abuse treatment for welfare recipients who need to be rehabilitated
before moving into employment.
Hunger Action Network is also concerned
that the "super waiver" discussions underway may lead to a decrease of federal
protections to the families receiving assistance. In NY City, we have already
witnessed what can happen when local agencies choose to ignore federal
provisions. The city's welfare agency decided that it would tell people coming
to them in need of food or assistance to prevent evictions or medical help that
"welfare no longer existed." Instead needy families were "diverted" elsewhere.
Many people were given "vouchers" to area food pantries, however, the pantries
knew nothing of these vouchers and many did not have enough food to meet this
unexpected referral. Eventually, a lawsuit was filed in federal court to protect
participants from such treatment and to allow them access to the benefits they
were entitled to. A "super waiver" that would give localities that green light
to begin and further these experiments would lead to increased hardships for the
hungry, the homeless and the unemployed in our midst.
One last point,
DHHS Commissioner Tommy Thompson had talked about promoting post-employment
training for welfare leavers to help them move up the salary
scale and move into jobs paying family- sustaining wages. States would be asked
to prepare a plan for implementing this goal and to track leavers. In NY State,
we have begun research to assess the current level of post-employment
training and services. Though we are only at the mid-point of
our study, we have found few counties that have developed programs. We strongly
support the Commissioner's proposal and see a strong need for the federal
government's leadership on this issue so that families who have left welfare can
permanently stay off of welfare by earning the wages needed to be economically
secure.
Hunger Action Network again thanks the Subcommittee for this
opportunity to present our oral and written testify for consideration as
Congress continues its work on
TANF reauthorization.
LOAD-DATE: May 1, 2002