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