Advocate Summary

Issue:  TANF reauthorization
Advocate:  Office of Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) - Johnette Hartnett
Date of Interview: 7/24/02

Basic Background
We are the only Senate office that had a bill. Before this, this issue was really not on the radar screen. I worked on disabled in welfare in Vermont. Vermont only finally implemented the reformed welfare, TANF program in January 2001 and a lot of states still haven’t fully implemented it. So the rules that go along with that like the five year maximum cap, those clocks haven’t even started in some states yet, so it is not like there will be a mass of people whose time is coming up. Studies are showing that the individuals left on the welfare rolls are by and large individuals with disabilities. It is clear that the population left has barriers, often multiple barriers to work. The most recent GAO study, released just last week, shows that forty percent or more of the women on TANF have one to three impairments and that 8 to 15 percent have severe disabilities. And one of the problems is that the states don’t have to report the characteristics of the recipients and if they aren’t reporting that information it makes it awfully difficult to make policy about it. I think in the next five years the debate is going to be centered on the disabled, that’s who is left on the roles. 

Prior Activity on the Issue 
I worked on disabled in welfare in Vermont, I’m trained in policy on the disabled. I think it was a serendipitous coupling of things, that I came here this year, that I’m trained in this policy area and this legislation provided an opportunity to try to address at least some of the problems of the disabled in welfare. It allowed for a dialogue to take place.  

Advocacy Activities Undertaken
So we started talking about what we could do. We looked at the administration’s legislation in the House and started formulating the legislation. I worked with someone for the Finance committee, the Finance has jurisdiction over TANF in the Senate. I started gathering information, there are a number of studies out there on TANF. I took all the studies and collapsed it into one page, bullet pointed sheets, and I did one for each, one on sanctions, one on child care etc. From being in academe I’m used to doing qualitative work, it’s all qualitative in education – if you want to get grants it has to be very applied, because there are a lot of problems with our schools so the studies are very hands on, in the school systems. But I am still used to doing large reports, that’s not what they want here, they want one page. So I called up and ask for the work hours data and the training program participation and services etc. So they have it to me the next morning with a memo, here are all the pieces you requested, but this is missing in this state and this wasn’t reported in this state – this is census data, so self reported data – and so the numbers are high, they’re questionable because this is self reported. But I know the problems with the methodology. It’s very interesting to be on the other side, they don’t want huge studies, there is no raw data collection, everyone is doing studies of other people’s data, it’s all collapsed and on a deadline. Everything is always happening so quickly, it is very exciting but a lot of work. I think I’ve worked harder this year then in my PhD program. It has been a great experience, some people are here for five years and never get to work on a bill, and this was getting started right when I got here, and I saw it go through the whole process, I even wrote two sections of the legislation. And so I condensed all that information with studies by universities and disabled rights groups like Arc into a more manageable format.  We also began meeting with CCD, the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, and asking them what would be the most important points to focus on. We met with them a number of times, it is a very broad coalition including poverty groups and disability groups. I think calls with them started back in February. So the history of the legislation, the path that it followed was, it began with S. 2052 which was sponsored by Senator Rockefeller and then that turned into a tri-partisan agreement with two Republicans, three Democrats and Senator Jeffords, an Independent. That was S. 4757 , that went through markup and the next step is that it will go to the floor in the Senate. If that passes it will be conferenced with the House bill in the Fall. 

There were three welfare committee hearings, we had two governors speak, a Democrat and Republican, and some state TANF directors. Then we also had several briefings, with the media a lot of people were there, and staffers each one focused on different aspects of the legislation, like there was one on child care and one on transition jobs and I don’t remember what all else. 

Future Advocacy Activities Planned
It is very unclear what will happen. If it doesn’t pass on the floor, it is likely that they will extend current law. It depends who you talk to if they think that is a good thing or not. There are problems with House bill, and there will be compromises if they go to conference, but I think there are still some improvements if this goes through that will be better than current law. We have to try to do something, even if it’s only minimal, it’s better than nothing. 

The Republicans are going with the administration but we’ll keep trying to get support and when we show them the numbers some people who might have gone with the administration are going to say this is just going to kill our state. I don’t think the administrations’ proposal was based on research, they just didn’t run the numbers. We ran the numbers and we can look at what the impact is going to be on a given state. The National Governors Association did a survey and APHSA and they asked states if we go for this – the administrations’ proposal – the forty hours a week, seventy percent participation – how will that effect your state? And a lot of the states have said this is really going to be tough. And obviously they need to be careful about how they say it, and they don’t want to look like they are going against the administration, but they just don’t know how they would be able to do it. With the deficit it’s just going to get tighter and tighter, all the states are running a deficit now. 

Key Congressional Contact(s)/Champions
Senator Rockefeller has worked with Harkin and Kennedy, but in all this has really not been on the radar screen. 

Targets of Direct Lobbying
None mentioned. 

Targets of Grassroots Lobbying
Not applicable. 

Coalition Partners: Names/Participants
CCD – the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities

Other Participants in the Issue Debate
None mentioned.

Ubiquitous Argument(s) and Evidence
We worked for a pre-sanction review and we go that, that was good. This is new research, it’s just coming out now but it’s showing people are just getting thrown off the roles and they don’t know why and they don’t know training can count. States can exempt twenty percent of their roles from work requirements. Some states, even though federal law says every individual is guaranteed 5 years of assistance throughout their lifetimes, some states only guarantee two, it’s different in different states. But so people are just being thrown off and we are saying that they should undergo a full review to determine why they weren’t meeting their requirements.

We also worked very hard on a childcare and care giving piece. With this language the states can count as work, a mother staying home with a disabled child or parent. The administration is saying we want to go from 30 to 40 hours a week. Well you can’t ask them to work 40 hours if you aren’t going to give them child care. Our society used to value staying home with a child, now it has flip-flopped and it is looked down on. Now they want the mother to go to work and have someone else take care of the child. We had pensions since before the turn of the century; we just stopped pensions all together for the first time during the welfare overhaul. 

We tried to expand how services, such as substance abuse treatment and work training programs can count as work participation. We only got six months, the administration’s proposal has 90 days, six months is still grossly inadequate, every study will tell you six months of rehab isn’t going to do it. But getting six months was hard enough, it was like pulling teeth. 

There was no conversation at all about stopping the clock – the administration wants to be tough on work, and everybody wants to be tough on work, but we have to recognize why some people can’t work and that some people need additional help to overcome their barriers to work. 

Secondary Argument(s) and Evidence
None mentioned.

Targeted Arguments, Targets, and Evidence
None mentioned.

Nature of the Opposition
There is opposition, you can see it by looking at the roll call votes, by looking at the voting records. I think the administration is sympathetic to the needs of the disabled in welfare but I think it is a matter of their philosophy being different. They want to help these people too but they think it should be done in some other way. There are different perceptions of how to go about it. 

[Impediment]
And we’re talking about poor people. Poor people aren’t well represented, they don’t have lobbyists. And they don’t vote. It is important to register and vote and then you have a voice. These people don’t have a voice and so members don’t see any political impact from not voting in their favor.

Ubiquitous Argument(s) and Evidence Articulated by the Opposition 
The administration keeps pointing to how the welfare roles have been cut by fifty percent. And they are saying there are all these people that are no longer on welfare so why do we need more money – there aren’t all these people getting checks anymore. But just because these people aren’t getting checks, the are getting services. The are getting Medicare, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax credit, and all these services because yes, they are working but they are not making enough money, they are making minimum wage and they still need the services. We worked for that – for the earned income tax credit. 

Secondary Argument(s) and Evidence Articulated by the Opposition
None mentioned.

Targeted Argument(s) and Evidence Articulated by the Opposition (and Targets)
None mentioned.

Described as a Partisan Issue
Yes.

Venue(s) of Activity
Senate Finance Committee

Action Pending or Taken by Relevant Decision Makers
The Senate bill will go to the floor most likely after the August recess. 

Policy Objective(s) and Support for/Opposition to the Status Quo
[Working to have the special needs of the disabled recognized within TANF regulations; their specific barriers to work and how to change current law to facilitate their participation in the workforce.]

Advocate’s Experience: Tenure in Current Job/Previous Experience
[She is a Joseph P. Kennedy Congressional Fellow for a year, she has been with Senator Rockefeller’s office since January. She is an Assistant Research Professor and the University of Vermont in the SESS Department . She has a PhD from Vermont. She just completed a large study of disabled students and state school policy in Vermont before coming to the Capitol. She is trained in disabled policy.]

Reliance on Research: In-House/External (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Number of Individuals Involved in Advocacy (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Units in Organization Involved in Public Affairs/Policy (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Advocate’s Outstanding Skills/Assets (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Type of Membership: None, Institutions, Individuals, Both (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Membership Size (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Organizational Age (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Miscellaneous