Copyright 2002 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
April 10, 2002 Wednesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 6057 words
COMMITTEE:
SENATE FINANCE
HEADLINE: WELFARE
OVERHAUL
TESTIMONY-BY: STEVE SAVNER, SENIOR STAFF
ATTORNEY
AFFILIATION: CENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY
BODY: Testimony of
Steve Savner Senior
Staff Attorney Center for Law and Social Policy
Senate Finance Committee
April 10, 2002
Center for Law and Social Policy
o Create
a Career Ladders Fund to enable low-wage workers to upgrade skills and to
demonstrate and replicate effective practices for serving them.
o Modify
child support assignment and distribution rules so that families receive more
child support.
oAllow states to use federal
TANF funds
to provide ongoing assistance to lowearning working families, without needing to
apply a time limit against working families.
oImproving funding for
child care and for the basic
TANF block grant.
The
Administration's proposal would raise
TANF participation rates,
require 40 hours of participation to fully count toward participation rates, and
limit the activities that could count toward the first 24 hours of participation
to a set of "direct work" activities. This approach is unwise and unworkable for
several reasons:
oIt would significantly restrict state flexibility and
compel states to adopt a program model that no state has chosen to implement;
oThe proposal runs counter to what is known about what works;
oWhile the Administration has articulated an overarching goal of
improving child well-being, the proposal risks having the opposite effect;
oThe absence of any new funding would force states to cut other programs
supporting low-earning working families in order to meet the new costs imposed
by the proposal.
TANF Block Grant Emphasis on Employment
While much of the current political debate centers around participation
rates, the 1996 welfare law sought to promote work by a number of key features:
TANF block grant levels were frozen and states received
substantial flexibility in the use of both federal and state maintenance of
effort (MOE) funds that became available as cash assistance caseloads fell;
Child care funding was increased, and, in addition, states were allow to
transfer up to 30% of
TANF funds to the Child Care and
Development Block Grant;
Medicaid was "delinked" from
TANF ensuring that low-income families could receive Medicaid
without participating in welfare;
States received broad discretion to
create financial incentives for employment through earned income disregards, and
to impose sanctions, including full termination of cash assistance, for
noncooperation with work activities requirements;
Time limits were
imposed on the use of federal funds for assistance; and
States were
required to meet participation rates for families receiving assistance, backed
up by the threat of significant financial penalties.
In implementing
TANF, states continued a trend begun in the early 1990s of
fundamental change in the basic orientation of state systems, as the principal
focus shifted from providing income support to an emphasis on requiring and
supporting employment.
Employment Outcomes Since 1996
During the
1990s, there was a historically unprecedented increase in employment among
lowincome single mothers. Studies of families who have left welfare have
consistently found that about 60% of leavers are working. The share of adults
working while receiving
TANF assistance increased from 8% in
1994 to 28% in 1999." And, ample available evidence points to the dramatic
increase in employment among low-income single mothers in recent years. In
announcing its welfare reform proposal, the Administration reported that after a
decade in which the annual employment rate for single mothers hovered around
58%, the rate had increased every year through 2000, and reached over 73% of
mothers heading families in 2000. Moreover, employment rates for never-married
mothers increased from under 46% in 1995 to nearly 66% in 2000, an increase of
over 40% in just five years. The Administration observed: "These employment
increases by single mothers and former welfare mothers are unprecedented. By
2000, the percentage of single mothers with a job reached an all-time high.""'
TANF played an important role in the growth of employment among
single mothers, but was not the only factor. The "
TANF effect"
involved both additional requirements and federal block grant funds that became
available because of caseload declines, making it possible to increase services.
Beyond this overarching result, however, there are a number of ongoing
challenges that need to be addressed:'
Much of the employment has been
in low-wage jobs, often without employer-provided benefits.
There is
some earnings growth over time, but so far, earnings remain low for most of the
affected families.
Many exiting families have low earnings underscores
the importance of access to "work supports" - Food Stamps, Medicaid, child care
assistance, and child support services - for families leaving assistance.
However, participation in Food Stamps and Medicaid sharply declines after
families leave assistance, most working leavers do not receive child care
assistance, and most leavers do not receive child support.
Families
still receiving assistance often have serious and multiple barriers to
employment.
It is not yet clear how
TANF implementation
has affected children, but research on preTANF programs suggests that positive
effects may depend on improved family income, and that there may be negative
effects on adolescent children that result from increased maternal employment.
Future Directions to Better Meet the Need for Financial Security
These results suggest that, in reauthorization, Congress should continue
TANF's strong focus on work but should also communicate to
states the importance of.
helping low-income families get better jobs;
helping those with serious barriers to employment prepare for and secure
stable employment; and
helping low-income families, including those
leaving welfare, gain improved access to work supports, such as child care,
child support, Food Stamps, Medicaid.
The following proposals would
advance these goals:
States should have the option of using employment
outcome measures in lieu of the participation rate process measures in
TANF. It is widely agreed that the principal goal of
TANF is to increase employment among low-income parents, yet
there is no evidence that simply maximizing "participation" is the best way to
improve employment outcomes. Participation rates are process measures, and many
administrators would greatly prefer to manage programs focusing on desired
outcomes. Accordingly, we recommend that states should have the ability to elect
to be accountable for meeting a set of employment outcome measures, e.g.,
employment entries, initial wages, employment retention, earnings gains, rather
than participation rates.
Assuming participation rates are maintained in
some form, there are four important modifications to the current structure that
should be made:
Replace the "caseload reduction credit " with a new
employment credit that rewards states when families leave welfare for
employment. Give extra credit to states that help families obtain higher paying
jobs.
We recommend phasing out the caseload reduction credit and
replacing it with a credit based on the extent to which families leaving welfare
include a working adult. The participation rate structure should not reward
states for caseload reduction whether or not the caseload reduction is
attributable to employment. Replacing the caseload reduction credit with an
employment credit would reward states for helping families find work, an outcome
that is consistent with current
TANF goals. Giving states extra
credit for placing families in higher-paying jobs would be an important step in
reorienting
TANF toward the additional goals of poverty
reduction and financial security.
Eliminate current limits on vocational
educational
training. Since
TANF was
adopted, new research findings have made it increasingly clear that the most
effective welfare-to-work programs have offered a mix of job search, education,
job
training, and work activities. Some of these mixed-strategy
programs have not only increased employment but have also helped welfare
recipients find better jobs than they would have on their own. The best example
is Portland's Steps to Success program in the National Evaluation of
Welfare-toWork Strategies, (NEWWS.)v' Portland provided a mix of services,
including job search, life skills, work-focused basic education, and
occupational
training. Among the eleven NEWWS sites, Portland
increased employment and earnings more than the three "work first" programs
while also increasing receipt of occupational licenses or certificates and GEDs
by as much as the seven education-focused sites." This research suggests that
there is ample basis for states so make greater use of education and
training, and under the
TANF structure states
have no incentive to allow such activities unless they are thought to be
effective. States should have the flexibility to make these choices without
federal limitations.
States should be allowed to have broader discretion
to count "barrier removal activities" toward participation rates.
As
states have begun working with families with multiple barriers (e.g., health,
mental health, disability, substance abuse, domestic violence, lack of English
language proficiency), they have typically been unable to count involvement in
individualized, barrier removal activities toward the rates. Again, a state has
no incentive to allow or pay for such activities unless the state believes it
will be an effective means to help a family move toward employment.
The
separate two parent participation rate should be eliminated.
The current
90% participation rate for two-parent families has created a strong disincentive
against assisting two-parent families in state
TANF programs,
because a state subjects itself to a greater risk of penalties by assisting such
families. There is no need for a separately-calculated rate for two-parent
families.
A new Transitional Jobs Block Grant should be created to
provide funding to states and localities that want to develop and expand these
innovative programs.Since 1997, several states (including Washington,
Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Georgia) and more than 30 cities have implemented
transitional jobs programs to help increase employment and earnings of
TANF recipients who have been unable to find stable,
unsubsidized employment. Such programs generally combine wage-paying jobs with
skill development activities and related support services. CLASP has worked
extensively with a number of these programs and has provided intensive technical
assistance in their development and implementation since 1997. Over 30 programs
responding to a CLASP survey reported promising results, two of the largest
programs in Washington State and Philadelphia reporting that individuals who
complete the program have employment rates in excess of 75%. However,
transitional jobs are typically not used in state
TANF
programs, in part because they are more expensive than other alternatives. While
we do not recommend requiring states to adopt such programs, we do recommend
providing additional funding to encourage their replication and expansion.
Create a Career Ladders Fund to enable low-wage workers to upgrade
skills and to demonstrate and replicate effective practices for serving them. As
described earlier, those leaving welfare for work have typically found jobs at
below-poverty wages, and the majority of them are not receiving key benefits,
such as health care, through their employers. Like other low-wage workers,
however, many welfare recipients cannot qualify for higher-quality jobs without
intensive services to upgrade their skills and address barriers to employment.
Legislation should include additional, dedicated funding directed at research,
evaluation, and replication of best practices to improve employment outcomes for
families with the most serious employment barriers, as well as to support
employment retention and advancement initiatives. Funding should be focused on
programs that operate in partnership with employers, especially those in which
services are provided at or near the worksite.
Federal funding for child
care should be increased. Child care assistance is important to help parents
sustain employment, pay for basic needs, and ensure that children are in
environments promoting education and healthy development while their parents are
working. While the number of families receiving subsidy assistance has grown
since 1996, so has the number of lowincome working families. As a result, there
remains a tremendous gulf between the number of families eligible for and the
number actually receiving subsidy assistance: the federal government estimates
that, in 1999, only 12% of potentially eligible families were receiving
assistance through the federal Child Care and Development Fund. The share of
eligible families receiving help has probably grown since that time, but not
enough to change the basic picture: the great majority of potentially eligible
low- income families do not receive child care assistance. Since 1996, the
principal source of growth in child care funding has come from
TANF, as states were able to redirect
TANF
funds freed up as welfare caseloads fell. However, it seems clear that states
will not be able to rely on continued rapid
TANF caseload
decline as a funding source for child care in the coming years. Accordingly, we
believe that Congress should significantly expand the dedicated funding for
child care available through the Child Care and Development Fund, with an
ultimate goal of making subsidy help available to all eligible lowincome
families."'
Child support assignment and distribution rules should be
changed so that families receive more child support. Consistent and reliable
receipt of child support can be an important work support, as well as play a key
role in strengthening the relationship between a noncustodial parent and child.
However, when families apply for
TANF assistance, they are
required to assign (or turn over) to the government their rights to child
support. The child support is used by the government to reimburse assistance
costs. The basic rule established by the 1996 law is that the government keeps
child support owed while a family receives assistance, while the family keeps
child support owed when the family does not receive assistance. Congress should
eliminate the two exceptions to this basic rule: the tax offset exception and
assignment of preassistance arrears. In addition, states that decide to pass
through support to families receiving assistance should not have to repay the
federal share of the support. States should be given assistance in converting
their distribution rules so that program fiscal stability is maintained, for
example, by enacting an appropriate effective date, providing systems funding,
and allowing use of
TANF funds and credit toward
TANF maintenance of effort requirements.
States should
be allowed to use federal
TANF funds to provide ongoing
assistance to lowearning working families, without needing to apply a time limit
against working families. Under current law, work policies and time limits
policies work at cross- purposes with each other. On the one hand, states are
often seeking to encourage families to take any available job, and want to
provide help to families who are working in low-wage jobs. But, if federal
TANF funds are used to provide that assistance, the month
counts against the federal time limit and potentially disadvantages the family
in the long run. States should not be restricted in their ability to use
TANF funds to help working families.
The
Administration's Proposal
A common theme of our work-related proposals
is that states have made progress on an employment agenda in many areas, but
that there are several important challenges that lie ahead. By and large, the
specific proposals we make call for changing signals, incentives, and resources
to help move state activities in directions that seem most likely to affect more
positive outcomes for individuals with barriers to employment and for those who
have moved into the low-wage labor market, including those who continue to
receive aid, and those who do not. At the same time, our proposals reflect an
appreciation of the critical role of allowing state flexibility in determining
the most appropriate strategies to accomplish national goals in the
TANF structure.
By contrast, the Administration's
recently announced framework for reauthorization takes as its starting point
that states have failed to implement policies and procedures consonant with the
goals and provisions of the 1996 law. Notwithstanding the employment outcomes
achieved during the past five years, the Administration apparently has focused
on the fact that, according to current federal reporting, a significant number
of families are not "engaged" in work-related activities while receiving
assistance: according to FY 2000 participation data, 42 percent of adults are
reported to have some hours of participation in work-related activities in an
average month. And, despite the strong state employment outcomes, the
Administration is apparently concerned that most states have generally not opted
to operate large-scale unpaid work experience programs.
The 42 percent
figure is, at best, incomplete for two reasons. First, states have been required
to report engagement in activities counting toward federal participation rates
but were not required to report engagement in other activities, and at least
half of states clearly have not done so; accordingly, the true number of engaged
individuals was surely higher. Second, in any given month, states would never
reach 100 percent engagement because some number of families are newly entering
or leaving assistance, some are awaiting assessment or assignment to or the
start of an activity, some families are under sanction for failing to
participate, and some are unable or not expected to participate because, for
instance, they have an infant, or illness, or a severe disability restricting
participation.
It is certainly true that most states have not elected to
run large-scale unpaid work experience programs under
TANF.
This was their choice, and it reflected their best judgment about the most
effective ways to accomplish the work goals of
TANF. Given
states' success in increasing employment participation, it is hard to see any
basis for second-guessing this choice. While we believe that a different mix of
program activities with more emphasis on job quality might have helped families
attain better jobs, there is no basis for saying that states have not been
extraordinarily successful in increasing employment.
The premise that
the principal lesson since 1996 is that the states have not taken seriously the
challenge of transforming welfare is simply not borne out by the results that
have been achieved to date (as described above), and the directions in which the
Administration's specific proposals will push states are both unwise and
unworkable.
The Administration has proposed an extensive set of new
requirements, and the full details are not yet available. However, key
provisions would:
Increase the monthly participation rate from 50% to
70% by 2007, while phasing out the caseload reduction credit. Instead, states
could count individuals who left assistance due to employment for up to three
months.
Increase weekly participation requirement from 20 hours for
single parents with children under 6 and 30 hours for other parents to 40 hours
for all families with children age 1 or older.
Provide that in meeting
the 40-hour requirement, at least 24 hours must be in "direct" work activities -
unsubsidized or subsidized employment, supervised work experience or community
service programs, on-the-job
training, and school completion
for teen parents. Vocational
training and barrier removal
activities would generally not be countable toward the first 24 hours each week.
For up to 3 months in a 24-month period, states could count participation in
short-term substance abuse treatment, rehabilitation, and work-related
training toward meeting the 24- hour direct work requirement.
The Administration's proposed approach is troubling for a number of
reasons:
The proposal would force all states to adopt a program model
that no state has chosen to implement.
It is widely acknowledged that
states have been successful in refocusing the welfare system on work and in
increasing employment among single parents. States have done so with a range of
approaches, but no state has elected to operate a program that looks like the
model the Administration now seeks to impose on all states.
The
Administration's approach reflects a particular program model, and every state
has been free to adopt that model under
TANF, but no state has
elected to do so. In structuring
TANF programs, some states
have placed strong emphasis on job search efforts aimed at connecting families
with employment as rapidly as possible. Some have greatly liberalized their
policies to broaden support to families who enter low-wage jobs. Most states
significantly reduced the role of education and
training in
their programs (at least in part due to federal participation rate rules), but
education and
training remains a significant component in some
states. Generally, most states have made only limited use of unpaid work
experience and community service programs, and even more limited use of
subsidized employment and on-the-job
training. The
proposal runs counter to what is known about what works.
The clearest
finding from two decades of research is that the most effective welfare-to-work
strategy is to provide a range of work-focused employment and
training services tailored to individual needs, not a
one-size-fits-all model. In these "mixed- strategy" programs, the range of
services provided typically included assessment, job search, life skills,
work-focused basic education, work experience, and job
training, with recipients generally participating in only one
activity at a time.'x Many other programs that have been studied relied
primarily on either job search or basic education and were much less effective.'
None of the successful, mixed-strategy programs described earlier had large work
experience components.
As discussed above, the most successful site by
far in the NEWWS evaluation - Portland, Oregon - stressed moving individuals
into the workforce quickly, but it also emphasized finding good jobs and allowed
the first activity for each person to vary depending on skills, work history,
and other factors. Portland's impacts on employment and earnings are among the
largest ever observed in welfare-to-work programs,"' yet states would not be
able to adopt the Portland model under the Bush plan. Most of the activities
provided by Portland and other such mixedstrategy programs would not count
toward work requirements after the first three months. Yet nearly half (49.5%)
of recipients in Portland participated longer than three months; about ten
percent (9.9%) participated longer than 12 months. Further, there was no
standard hourly participation requirement; while staff worked intensively with
recipients to help them participate as much as possible, expectations for
participation were tailored to each individual.
Moreover, there is no
research base for compelling all states to implement large-scale work experience
programs, or restricting the use of stand-alone barrier removal activities or
vocational
training to only three months. The rationale for
work experience programs has traditionally been that when the principal barrier
to employment faced by an individual is lack of work place experience, an
opportunity to gain such experience can affect subsequent employment and
earnings. However, research to date has not revealed that these programs have
the expected effects.
There is only limited recent research on unpaid
work experience programs, because states have generally not opted to implement
large-scale programs, so work experience tends to be, at most, a component
within a larger program. However, in a review of research conducted in the
1980s, the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC) concluded, "there
is little evidence that unpaid work experience leads to consistent employment or
earnings effects. More recently, researchers in Washington state,"' were able to
isolate the employment and earnings impacts of six different work activities in
Washington's "WorkFirst" (
TANF) program, including unpaid work
experience.""' The study assessed the impact of these components on employment
and on earnings. Work experience (together with Job Skills
Training and Community Jobs, a Transitional Jobs program
offering subsidized employment) was one of three components serving recipients
who were relatively less job-ready. The study determined that work experience
increased employment among participants but the impacts were substantially less
than either of Job Skills
Training or Community Jobs. The work
experience program had no earnings effects, whereas both of the other two
programs serving less job-ready participants had significant positive earnings
effects, with the Community Jobs program being the strongest of the three on
both measures. Based on the weak performance of the work experience component,
in the current budget for the WorkFirst programs, the
$
3,000,000 allocated for the program was cut, and the program
eliminated.
None of this is to say that work experience cannot
contribute in important ways to improving the employability of individuals with
little labor market experience. The research suggests that when appropriate
skill development and barrier removal activities are added to paid work
experience, there can be significant impacts. However, there is simply no basis
for saying that all states should be compelled to use unpaid work experience
programs in instances in which they believe that other program approaches would
be more effective.
Further, many of the families still receiving
assistance face barriers that make employment more difficult, and programs aimed
at reducing these barriers to work will frequently not fit within the three
months allowed under the Administration plan for alternatives to "direct work"
activities. For example, recent non- experimental findings from a substudy of
three NEWWS sites found that, among recipients without a high school diploma,
those who participate in adult education and go on to job
training or college see a substantially greater increase in
their longer-term earnings, earning an additional $
1,542 in the
third year of follow-up compared to those who participate in basic education
only. Similarly, Portland's strong results in increasing earnings of those
without high school diplomas are likely connected to its substantially
increasing the percentage of high school nongraduate sample members who attained
both a GED certificate or a high school diploma and a second education or
training credential (such as a trade license or college degree)
over the follow-up period." Yet for those who begin the program without even a
high school diploma, it is unlikely that they can complete both basic education
and job
training within the space of three months.
Similarly, a review of model substance abuse programs found that 14 of
20 typically involved participation for longer than three months.' Further, some
individuals will need to move in small, incremental steps toward fuller
participation in combinations of activities to reduce barriers and to work. This
strategy has proven successful in a rigorous evaluation of the National
Supported Work Demonstration, which provided a year of subsidized, structured
employment (with gradually increasing levels of hours and responsibility)
together with on-the-job
training and intensive supportive
services. The program resulted in large increases in earnings, which persisted
even eight years later. And Supported Work was most successful with the most
disadvantaged recipients - those who had received welfare the longest, lacked a
high school diploma/GED, or had never worked."" Recent reports on best practices
for serving those with barriers highlight the importance of combining work with
other activities in flexible ways.""' In contrast, no research suggests that the
Administration's formula of 24 hours of work and 16 hours of other activities
would be effective for most individuals with barriers.
While the
Administration has articulated an overarching goal of improving child
well-being, the proposal risks having the opposite effect.
The
Administration has proposed modifying
TANF's goals to
articulate an overarching purpose of improving child well-being. And, the
Administration has suggested that under its work proposal, a state would be free
to treat structured activities that promote child well-being as countable toward
meeting the 40- hour requirement, so long as the 24-hour requirement in direct
work activities is satisfied.
In many ways, imposing a 40-hour
requirement and then allowing activities related to child wellbeing to count as
participation seems unresponsive to the central issues that states must address
in efforts to simultaneously promote work and advance child well- being. There
is a broad consensus that a central goal of
TANF is to expect
work by those parents capable of engaging in employment. At the same time, much
recent evidence indicates that parents are often entering into jobs with low
wages, limited advancement, and lacking key benefits such as health care
coverage or paid sick and vacation leave. Moreover, working leavers are
frequently in jobs with night or weekend schedules or with varying, irregular
schedules. And, research evidence suggests that simply going to work or
substituting earnings for welfare income does not, in itself, enhance child
well-being; rather, it is important for the work to translate to increased
family income. Accordingly, one key way to advance the well-being of children
should be to help parents get jobs with better wages, health care benefits, and
greater potential for advancement; with schedules that allow parents to be at
home at night and on weekends; and with paid sick leave and vacation leave and
sufficient flexibility to respond to children's needs. Moreover. as parents move
into work, it is essential that they have access to a broad range of child care
choices, including access to early education programs that can promote the
development of younger children and appropriate after-school activities for
older children. Therefore, another key aspect of advancing a child well- being
agenda ought to include efforts to ensure that
TANF recipients
and other low-income working families have access to needed child care
assistance.
To be clear, we think it would be a positive development if
all parents were better able to volunteer at their children's schools or
participate in structured activities with their children. But, we also think
that it is particularly important that working parents be able to see their
children at night, or be able to take time off when a young child is ill, and
that allowing parents to count structured activities as work participation is no
substitute for helping parents find jobs responsive to family needs.
Moreover, one of the most troubling findings in the recent research is
that increased participation in work-related programs by low-income parents
appears correlated with adverse impacts on teens' behavior and school
performance. At this point, it is unclear whether this adverse impact is
principally a function of decreased supervision, increased stress on parents, or
increased responsibilities for teens with working parents. This should not be an
argument against work requirements and expectations, but, at a minimum, it would
counsel for the importance of helping parents find jobs that are consistent with
family responsibilities, and against simply mandating 40 hours of out-of- home
participation.
The absence of any new funding would force states to cut
other programs supporting low-earning working families in order to meet the new
costs imposed by the proposal.
It seems clear that the combination of
increased numbers of participants and 40-hour participation requirements would
result in billions of dollars of increased costs for state efforts, but the
Administration is seeking no new funding. Without additional funds, states would
face pressure to cut child care and other benefits for low-income working
families in order to meet the requirements. Adding new funds won't solve the
problems of the basic design, but, without new funding, states would be forced
to dismantle many of the innovative initiatives that they've developed in the
last five years.
Apparently, the rationale for seeking no additional
funding is that
TANF caseloads have fallen significantly since
1996, so there is "enough" money to pay for these and other new initiatives
within existing funding. However, making such an assertion essentially dismisses
the choices that states have made in committing
TANF funds as
their cash assistance caseloads fell. Nationwide, as cash assistance spending
fell, states increasingly redirected their
TANF funds to
services and supports for low- income families outside the traditional welfare
system. The single biggest redirection of
TANF funds has been
to child care for low-income working families, but the funds have also been used
for a broad array of initiatives, such as transportation assistance, state
earned income tax credits, employment retention and advancement programs,
services for families at risk of entering the child welfare system, help for
homeless families and victims of domestic violence, assistance to immigrants
ineligible for federal benefits, and others. By FY 2001, states were spending
TANF funds at a rate higher than their basic block grant
allocations: such allocations are about $
16.5 billion, and
state
TANF spending in FY 2001 reached $
18.6
billion.
Since states are currently spending
TANF funds
in excess of their annualized block grant levels, it seems fundamental that, if
one is asking states to do more things with the same amount of money, one must
be prepared to articulate what they should stop doing. Yet the Administration
has not identified a single area in which it asserts that states are misspending
TANF funds. To the contrary, the argument is also being made
about the importance of doing more to address marriage and family formation and
child well-being. However, any given dollar can only be spent once, and it would
literally be impossible for states to redirect existing
TANF
funds without cutting other low-income benefits and services. And, since many of
those benefits are playing an integral role in helping working families sustain
work and avoid welfare, cutting such benefits would be both harmful and counter-
productive.
Similarly, there are no "extra" child care funds that could
simply be redirected to meet the welfare work requirements. It is certainly true
that child care funding has grown substantially since 1996, with states'
redirection of
TANF funds playing a key role in that growth.
However, most federally eligible children still do not receive child care
subsidy assistance. The precise percentages may be in dispute, but it is clear
that, at current funding levels, only a fraction of eligible families are
receiving help, and it surely follows that it would be impossible to redirect
existing child care funding to meet welfare work requirements without cutting
back current funding that is being used to help low-income working families
outside the welfare system. Moreover, the Administration has proposed to provide
no new federal child care funding in reauthorization. So, even if there were no
changes in
TANF work requirements, states would still face the
specter of needing to cut existing child care slots for low-income working
families in order to manage with funding that would remain frozen despite
inflationary pressures.
Thank you for providing me with this opportunity
to testify.
LOAD-DATE: April 12, 2002