Copyright 2001 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
May 22, 2001, Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 5254 words
COMMITTEE:
HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE:
HUMAN RESOURCES
HEADLINE: TESTIMONY WELFARE AND
MARRIAGE
TESTIMONY-BY: LAURIE RUBINER, , VICE PRESIDENT
AFFILIATION: NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR WOMEN &
FAMILIES
BODY: May 22, 2001 Statement of Laurie
Rubiner, Vice President National Partnership for Women & Families Before the
Subcommittee on Human Resources Good afternoon, Chairman Herger, Congressman
Cardin, and other distinguished members of the Subcommittee. I am Laurie
Rubiner, Vice President for Program & Public Policy at the National
Partnership for Women and Families. I am pleased to have the opportunity to
present testimony before the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human
Resources on marriage and welfare reform. The National Partnership for Women
& Families is a non-profit advocacy organization that has worked since 1971
to ensure fairness in the workplace, and to help women and men at all income
levels balance their work and family obligations. If we are truly committed to
helping people out of poverty, then our public policies should be directed at
providing real supports to those who are living in poverty. Such assistance
should be provided not based upon family composition but rather upon the needs
of the family and the adults' willingness to follow the rules we have
established for receiving aid. The mission of welfare reform should be to reduce
poverty and help people achieve economic independence, not to engage in social
engineering or discrimination against families that don't meet a particular
ideal about family composition. Nor should welfare reform legislation be used as
a vehicle to punish families who fail to conform to our individual views of what
a family should or should not be. We should learn from our past welfare policy
that attempts to influence family formation can backfire. Legislation to
reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (
TANF)
program must be grounded in several, central guiding principles: all eligible
families in need who follow program rules must be treated fairly and have equal
access to assistance; welfare policies must help all types of families move out
of poverty; and welfare policies must be designed to provide a wide variety of
supports that can promote strong, healthy families. I. Welfare policies must be
designed with the goal of providing assistance to all eligible families in need.
It is essential that welfare policies are developed with a primary focus on
providing assistance and supports to all eligible families in need and not just
a favored few. Some have suggested that married couples should be given
preferential treatment in the distribution of scarce welfare benefits, under the
theory that this will encourage people to get married. Such a policy would be
misguided. First, there is no conclusive evidence that links increased marriage
rates to increased welfare benefits. Second, to give preference to families
solely because they are comprised of a married couple with children
discriminates against those who are not married, but are working hard and
playing by the rules. Consider the example of Elizabeth Jones in Katherine Boos'
recent article about moving from welfare to work in the New Yorker Magazine. (1)
Ms. Jones followed the rules of the 1996 welfare reform law. She left welfare
and got not one, but two jobs to care for her three children. She sleeps four
hours a night. Even with a day job as a D.C. police officer and a night job in
private security she still can't make ends meet. Meanwhile, because she can't
afford child care, her school-age children are left to care for themselves after
school in a rundown apartment in a dangerous D.C. neighborhood. And, while Ms.
Jones may be in the "success" column of welfare recipients who have moved into
financial independence, it is hard to understand how anyone after reading her
story could not agree that scarce welfare resources should be used to help her
get the kinds of supports that we know help families like the Joneses, such as
quality affordable childcare, health insurance and transportation. In
distributing our limited resources we must begin with the reality of who is
living in poverty and in need of assistance. The face of poverty in the United
States is diverse: Nearly 6.7 million families, consisting of 23.4 million
individuals, were living in poverty in 1999 - half were black or Hispanic
families; 53% were families headed by single female heads of households; 7% were
families headed by single male heads of households, and 40% were married
couples; 88% of single-headed households were headed by women; almost 62% of
these female- headed families with children living in poverty were headed by
black or Hispanic women. (2) While there has been important progress in reducing
poverty rates, there clearly is more work to do. There are a wide range of
strategies - from ensuring access to quality
education and
training, to job creation, to increasing Medicaid enrollment and providing
affordable health care, to expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit - that
collectively can and should be pursued to help more families achieve economic
security. Any serious efforts to develop sound, effective welfare policies must
have as their central goal a commitment to serving all eligible families in
need. It is particularly crucial to pay special attention to the needs of
families facing unique hurdles, such as families stuck at the bottom of the
economic ladder, welfare clients with limited English proficiency or
disabilities, and clients with multiple barriers to employment. Poverty has
deepened for the poorest 20% of female-headed families and many are worse off
today than they were six years ago. Recent data, for example, indicates that
between 1995 and 1999 the inflation-adjusted disposable income of female-headed
families with the lowest incomes actually declined by 4 percent. (3) Many
clients with limited English proficiency have been unable to get the services
they need because they cannot get accurate information about their program in
other languages. (4) Many clients with disabilities have been shut out of
training or job opportunities because their disability has not been assessed or
adequately accommodated. (5) Still other welfare clients face a combination of
employment barriers - limited opportunities to acquire
education or build skills, unreliable childcare, mental and
physical health problems, and lack of transportation - that together make it
even more difficult to leave welfare and achieve some level of economic
security. (6) A research study by the University of Michigan of welfare clients
in an urban Michigan county found that multiple employment barriers - such as
low
education, lack of job skills, lack of transportation,
health problems, perceived discrimination, and domestic violence - were common:
37% of clients reported having two or three different employment barriers, 24%
reported having four to six barriers, and 3% reported having 7 or more barriers.
(7) And increasingly many low- income fathers are struggling to acquire new
skills and find and retain jobs. All of these clients have unique needs that
require focused, targeted strategies - such as offering English as a Second
Language classes, or training programs for non- traditional, higher-paying
careers. Most importantly, it is critical that we do not create policies that
pit different groups against each other to compete for much-needed services.
Low- income mothers and low-income fathers who are underemployed or unemployed
both need access to
education and training - and we should take
steps to make sure that both can have access to the services they need. II. We
must concentrate on developing policies that support and promote strong, healthy
families. A. Coercive policies that promote certain types of families ultimately
will do more harm than good. Coercive policies designed to promote certain types
of family structures at the expense of others, particularly children, will do
more to undermine families than strengthen them. We ought not to desecrate the
ideal of marriage by "paying people to get married," nor should we endorse
policies that penalize families that are most in need because they do not
conform to a preferred family structure. If marriage were only about economics,
and the road out of poverty were as simple as a walk down the aisle then
policies that provide financial incentives to people to get married would be
appropriate. But a successful marriage is a much more complicated equation, with
more than one variable, and a marriage license is not a winning lottery ticket.
Kathryn Edin's study of marriage among low-income women reveals that they look
for the same things the rest of us look for in a mate. (8) Yes, they want
someone with a stable income, but they also want kindness, partnership, respect,
emotional support, and a good father for their children. It should come as no
surprise that low- income women want the same kinds of marriages that we want
for ourselves and our children and that they prefer to remain single than enter
into an unstable, unsuitable, or abusive marriage. Rather than simply promoting
marriage as a "quick-fix" economic solution, we ought to be focused on helping
individuals make sound, reasonable, responsible decisions about their
relationships and their lives, so that if they do choose to get married the
marriage will be stable and will be less likely to end in divorce. Helping to
equip individuals to make the right choices ultimately can help strengthen both
marriages and families. If our sole focus is on making a family look the way we
want it to look, then we risk ignoring important pieces of the equation that can
impact whether families grow together and get stronger or fall apart. Most
importantly, marriage should not be used as a band-aid to cure other, more
complicated problems. Many clients have turned to
TANF as a
source of critical support as they try to address difficult problems such as
domestic violence or a family health crisis. Several different research studies
have found, for example, that significant percentages of welfare clients are
victims of domestic violence. A study of a scientific sampling of 734 female
welfare clients in Massachusetts found that 19.5% reported current physical
violence and 64% reported experiencing domestic violence at some point as an
adult. (9) Similar research involving 846 female welfare clients in Passaic
County, New Jersey found that nearly 14.6% reported current physical abuse, 25%
reported verbal or emotional abuse, and 57.3% reported physical abuse at some
point during adulthood. (10) Women who have been in abusive relationships and
who need
TANF assistance to be able to escape their abusers
should not be penalized for trying to take control of their lives and create a
safer and emotionally sound environment for their children. Forcing them to get
married will only exacerbate their problems. To promote policies that put women,
or any low-income individual, in the position of having to choose between
financial support for their children or remaining in an abusive or destructive
situation is wrong and not good policy. And it will do little to create the
strong, healthy families that we claim to support. In the long term, helping to
equip individuals with the skills and judgment needed to make the right
decisions about their families, and effectively manage their work and family
responsibilities is the best strategy for fostering strong/healthy families,
strong/healthy marriages, and strong/healthy relationships. In crafting
policies, there a number of factors to keep in mind: Protections for victims of
domestic violence, child abuse, or other forms of abuse. Clients should not be
forced or coerced into remaining in unhealthy, abusive relationships because
they are unable to receive
TANF assistance. Clients who face
these types of problems should be able to get
TANF assistance
and other supports, and they should not be excluded from certain types of
benefits because they are not married. Privacy protections are essential to
ensure that clients can share sensitive information without fear of putting
themselves and their families at risk, but also to ensure that clients are not
forced to navigate cumbersome requirements to establish that they are victims of
domestic violence or other forms of abuse.
Education and
counseling on responsible decision-making and sustaining healthy relationships.
Education programs, primarily targeted at youth, that focus on
making responsible choices, entering into healthy relationships, and
understanding the family situations that offer the best chance for children's
growth and success can help clients to be informed and thoughtful about the
choices they make and the consequences of those choices. Efforts to remove
penalties to marriage - individuals should not be paid to get married, but they
should not be penalized if they get married. Welfare policies should be neutral
on the subject of family formation and instead target resources where they are
most needed. Voluntary participants. Clients must not be forced to marry as a
condition to receive benefits; clients must not be coerced into special
"marriage incentive programs" by dangling the promise of basic benefits that are
critical to their family's survival. B. Providing Supports to Help Strengthen
Low-Income Families One priority in developing new welfare policies must be to
provide support and promote strong, healthy families in all their different
forms. Clearly, we should support strong marriages and married couples, and
remove impediments to marriage that discourage individuals who want to marry.
But we ought to create these types of policies with our eyes open and not shut
to the realities facing many families. Rather than focusing merely on getting
individuals married regardless of whether there is a solid foundation, our focus
ought to be on what it takes to make marriages work. To the extent that we want
to assist low-income married couples who receive welfare, or are recent welfare
leavers, we should concentrate on addressing the real problems that they face,
such as removing
TANF provisions that place additional burdens
on married couples, and increasing the availability of transitional childcare,
family and medical leave, affordable health care, and affordable housing. But we
cannot limit our support only to married couple families who represent only a
portion of all families. We have to promote strong, healthy families in whatever
way they are constructed. Very few would disagree that having two parents in the
home working together to provide a healthy and nurturing environment can be an
ideal setting for children. But it is not the reality for many children. And,
given that, we cannot conclude that it is the only environment in which children
can prosper and grow. We must be willing to take a variety of steps to support
low-income families headed by single parents to give their children the best
chance to succeed. In addition, there are many families where grandparents,
other relatives, and family friends are struggling to keep families together. We
ought to do everything we can to strengthen those bonds and help those families
stay intact and survive. III. Welfare policies must be designed to address the
problems of families as they are and not only as we would like them to be. As we
craft new welfare policies, we ought not to operate in a vacuum. Targeting
benefits only at married couples will leave millions of hard-working
single-parent families without adequate resources, exacerbating their already
difficult circumstances. The stark reality is that married couple families are
on the decline. If the Congress wants to try to reverse this trend through
non-punitive, non-discriminatory policies, it should do so. But those policies
should not be a substitute for providing supports to the families who have
immediate needs that must be met. The most recent Census Bureau statistics
reveal significant shifts in the different types of families in our country.
(11) Less than a quarter of American households - 23.5% - are composed of
traditional, "nuclear" families with two married parents living at home with
children. The number of single-parent families is growing at a faster rate than
married couple families. These numbers only confirm that family arrangements are
becoming increasingly complex and the concept of what constitutes a family is
changing. It is in this context that we must develop welfare policies that are
responsive to the needs of different types of families living in poverty. Our
efforts should be informed by an accurate, comprehensive understanding of the
families being served, and by what we have learned about policies that work and
policies that do not work. We already know from history that we have to exercise
care in constructing policies that may impact how families compose themselves.
Some have criticized the prior Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
system because there were marriage disincentives. To the extent that the old
AFDC law may have had incentives that discouraged certain types of families, we
ought not to repeat those same mistakes. Nor should we penalize families now
because they followed the old rules by changing those rules in the middle of the
game. One lesson that we should have learned from the past is that we must
proceed with caution when crafting policies that affect families when they are
at their most vulnerable. If we want to move families out of poverty, then we
first have to be willing to understand the reality of their lives and develop
policies that enable them to become economically secure, whatever their
structure. We ought not to have disincentives to marriage, but we ought not to
coerce individuals into getting married either. Equally important, we must not
endorse policies that discriminate against certain types of families, nor should
we oversimplify the problems of families living in poverty. The vast majority of
single-parent families receiving
TANF are headed by women, and
they would be affected disproportionately by any policy that relegates them to
"second-class family" status. Adopting policies that have the effect of
discriminating against female-headed families in favor of married couples is
unfair, unwise, and unnecessary. Denying supports to the families who often are
most in need not only hurts families, but also ultimately will lead to more
long-term costs as these families struggle to survive. More fundamentally, we
cannot assume that the problems facing single-headed households living in
poverty - whether headed by women or by men - will be solved simply by getting
married. Marriage is not a panacea: there are a multitude of factors that lead
to poverty in this country, we ought not to oversimplify them or ignore their
complexities. If two parents are unemployed and have limited job skills,
marriage alone may do little to solve that problem. In fact, such a marriage
will undergo significant stress and is much more likely to dissolve. If we are
committed to the goal of helping families move out of poverty, then first and
foremost we have to be willing to provide concrete supports that can help make
that dream a reality. A report released by the National Campaign for Jobs and
Income, for example, revealed that many states have significant
TANF surpluses even though many welfare clients cannot access
much- needed supports like childcare. (12) It is critical that states provide
basic supports to low-income families, and make investments in important
strategies like the creation of livable wage jobs, so that families can have a
realistic chance of achieving economic independence. And these basic supports
should not be ignored in favor of largely unproven policies - such as paying
clients to get married - that may not even scratch the surface of the underlying
problems that clients confront on a daily basis. Conclusion These cautionary
words about marriage formation policies in the context of welfare reform are not
a condemnation of marriage, or an effort to discourage individuals who want to
get married. It is precisely out of respect for what the institution of marriage
should be that I reject outdated notions about which people are more deserving
of support, and resist efforts to use marriage as the solution to other, more
complicated problems. But most importantly, I urge you not to allow a discussion
about marriage to divert attention from the task at hand - adopting concrete,
comprehensive policies to provide all families in need with the supports they
need to make a permanent transition from welfare to economic security.
LOAD-DATE: May 24, 2001, Thursday