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: 2829 words

COMMITTEE: HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS

SUBCOMMITTEE: HUMAN RESOURCE

HEADLINE: WELFARE OVERHAUL PROPOSALS

BILL-NO:

 
H.R. 3113             Retrieve Bill Tracking Report
                      Retrieve Full Text of Bill
 
H.R. 3625             Retrieve Bill Tracking Report
                      Retrieve Full Text of Bill

TESTIMONY-BY: VALORA WASHINGTON, PH.D.,, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

AFFILIATION: UNIVERSALIST SERVICE COMMITTEE, CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS

BODY:
Statement of

Valora Washington, Ph.D., Executive Director, Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, Cambridge Massachusetts

Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the House

Committee on Ways and Means

Hearing on Welfare Reform Reauthorization Proposals

April 11, 2002

"Sarah," one of over 3,500 participants in a six-state study that examined the effects of welfare reform, reported: "Since my husband started working, we are no longer eligible for additional benefits." This resulted in the family's utilities being shut off and a growing fear of being evicted. The 32-year-old mother of four from Washington state sadly concluded, "the only thing that matters [to the government] is getting us off assistance, whether we can survive or not."

As Sarah's story tells us, the approaching deadline of September 30 for the reauthorization of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families presents us all with a challenging opportunity. The program has had many success stories, but we must examine the success of TANF more closely, address the unintended consequences of reform and then build on the strengths of the legislation so we can ensure that all American families can provide their children with a stable, nurturing home in which they can thrive.

I am Dr. Valora Washington, executive director of the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to join you today as you review proposals for the reauthorization of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). UUSC has worked to advance justice throughout the world for more than six decades. Founded by a small group of intrepid activists who risked their lives rescuing eastern European children and their families from Nazi oppression, we have applied that same passion to seeking ways to help families struggling to win against poverty in this country.

We come to this conversation with a wealth of information gathered from some people whose existence has been too seldom noted in all the talk of the success of TANF: the people we have come to call "America's forgotten families." Over a five-year period, UUSC's Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project (WHRMP) has engaged in more than 3,500 intensive interviews in six states with people struggling against poverty under the new TANF rules.

We review current proposals for TANF reauthorization in light of our findings and base our recommendations on that compelling empirical data.

In 1996 Congress decided to give states more flexibility and hold families more accountable. The families have done their part; now it's time to hold states accountable for reducing poverty and give families the flexibility they need to move toward an appropriate degree of self-sufficiency.

As President Bush has so appropriately said, the job of welfare reform is not yet done; we do not yet live in a poverty-free America. Our research shows that in order to move closer to that goal we need to re-shape the authorizing legislation for TANF to reflect that goal more clearly. As long as we reward states for reducing caseloads but not for reducing poverty, we can expect the "success" of the program to be dogged by the poignant stories of those left behind.

I am happy, of course, for those who are experiencing "success" -- finding a job, having a place to go every day where their services are valued, bringing home a paycheck, and being a model for their children. They are the "lucky leavers," and I rejoice in their courageous spirit and their newfound pride. We celebrate the ability of low-income families to survive against formidable odds.

Our research has put us in touch with thousands of people who tell us another part of the story:

the ones still on welfare facing multiple barriers to getting and keeping a job, and whose time is running out; the ones who have been dropped from the rolls before they could find a job; the ones who work full time all year at jobs with pay and benefits inadequate to sustain a family.

These stories correlate with the downside of the mixed statistical evidence about poverty in America. True enough, the Census Bureau has reported that in the year 2000 poverty levels were the lowest since 1979, and that all racial and ethnic groups had experienced improvements in their economic well-being. At the same time, the proportion of families below half the poverty level had increased, and the poverty rate was still three times as high among African-Americans as among Caucasians. International studies showed that child poverty remained higher in the United States than in any other developed country.[1] And that was while the economy was still booming.

While states reported dramatic caseload reductions in a time of prosperity, the recent downward dip in the economy has been accompanied by caseload increases in many states. Caseload reduction actually began about two years before passage of the new law, so there is good reason to ask how much should be attributed to the law and how much to the economy. A recent study in Connecticut showed a control group still living under the AFDC rules -- no time limits, no work requirements - performed just as well in the job market as those living under the TANF rules.[2]

Listening to the Voices

The welfare monitoring program, begun as a pilot project in Massachusetts in 1996, compiled more than 3,500 case studies in six states: Washington, Massachusetts, California, and New Jersey, Connecticut, and Alabama. The testimonials many of these stakeholders were analyzed and summarized in a report called America's Forgotten Families: Voices of Welfare Reform, released in 2001.[3]They reflect remarkably common themes and experiences. Welfare recipients representing extremely diverse backgrounds, education levels, communities and goals all report similar problems that are intensifying over time.

Most of the collected testimonials are the voices of single mothers who anticipate moving themselves and their children off of welfare and out of poverty. Other voices describe the day-to- day struggle of providing care for a child with a physical or mental disability. And some report struggles with their own mental or physical limitations. Those who shared their lives with UUSC's monitors have presented candid insights into a world prescribed by poverty. The generosity of those who participated in the study calls each of us -- policy makers, advocates and voters -- to review welfare reform policies in light of this information.

The Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project focused on state welfare practices through the lens of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which sets international human rights standards. UUSC monitors conducted interviews with adult welfare recipients and direct service providers mindful of those articles of the declaration that address equality, discrimination, privacy, social security, standard of living, work and education. The resulting data are qualitative and do not represent a statistical analysis. Nevertheless, these voices from within the welfare community in the United States tell us more than statistics can about the human impact of recent welfare changes in several states.

A father of three in the state of Washington, struck by a car, incurred a broken collar bone and fractured ribs. For a while he could not even tie his own shoes, much less bathe, dress, cook for three children, and go to work. Accused by the state welfare agency of not complying with work requirements, he was deprived of child care assistance just when he and his children needed it most. A California woman, was sanctioned for "noncompliance" with the work rules after her education plan was denied. Using her rent money for child care while fighting to get retroactive payments, she faced eviction. The mother of a child with special needs faced job penalties, and then sanctions, for missing work because she could find nobody else to care for her sick child. As one family support worker said, "the overall outcome is the sanctioning of the child, not just the adult."

Families need more than "incentives," and states need different ones

The Administration's proposal, "Working Toward Independence," assumes that tough work rules account for the success of TANF, and that tougher rules will work even better. But our research gives voice to a wide range of people to whom those assumptions do not apply. They know we live in a tough world and that work is essential to their ability to survive and thrive. Their troubles come not from a lack of incentive to work but from a combination of factors beyond their control, including a shortage of high quality child care and confusing and contradictory rules governing their eligibility for funding.

Because states have had much stronger incentives to reduce the TANF rolls than to reduce poverty itself, families have often been confronted by conflicting expectations and requirements, including some elements of policy and implementation that have impeded their ability to move toward self-sufficiency. Instead of moving from the notorious "trap" of "welfare dependency" to a life of "independence," too often families too often find themselves in a different kind of trap, dependent on jobs that cannot sustain their families.

Unintended consequences of TANF rules

Rules intended to enhance the stability of family connections sometimes disrupt whatever stable supports a family already has. "Diane,"a high school senior and mother of a newborn, was homeless but not without resources or incentive. Despite her troubled life, she was an honor student and had child care available through the school she had always attended in a North Shore Massachusetts community. Due to contradictory support regulations under TANF, she was told by her caseworker that she had to move to a structured teen shelter in a different community. The move would leave her without child care, and to take care of her child she would have had to drop out of school. She explained this and showed that she met all of the criteria for a waiver of this policy, but she was denied benefits for not moving on demand. Thanks to the intervention of an advocate, Diane won reconsideration of her case and the reinstatement of benefits. What if the state had a multi-million-dollar incentive to help Diane build on her resources and continue the education she needs for her family to thrive? How would the caseworker have behaved differently?

Rules requiring disclosure of an absent parent's identity can compound the problems of families with a history of domestic violence. "Kathy," the mother of two young children, sought protection from her batterer for herself and her family in a Los Angeles shelter. Welfare officials insisted that she reveal the identity of her children's father or lose all benefits. When they learned that the father had gang connections, the officials contacted the police. By enabling the batterer ultimately to locate the shelter, this action put Kathy and her children in danger again, and she felt it necessary to leave the shelter for her safety and that of the other families. What if states were expected to screen aid applicants for evidence of domestic violence and rewarded for helping them find safety and needed services? Might not Kathy then have a better chance of finding sustainable employment?

Work is essential to the survival of families, and stable families are vital to a healthy economy, but sometimes the rewards of work and marriage are outweighed by the penalties. "Sarah," a 32-year-old mother of four, also from Washington, reported: "Since my husband started working, our benefits have been reduced greatly. After buying equipment for his job, we are further in debt than before he started working. Since he does work, we are no longer eligible for additional benefits." Even though her husband was working, they family still did not have enough money to keep the power on. To the government, she concluded, "the only thing that matters . . . is getting us off assistance, whether we can survive or not." What if states helped families set reasonable goals for an appropriate level of self-sufficiency, while providing the work supports for moving toward those goals? Would not Sarah and her husband have a better hope of becoming a healthy and economically sustainable family?

Even for those with the education and skills to emerge from poverty, temporary assistance comes with a message of disrespect that is more a hindrance than a help. "Donna," a Washington state woman, who needed cash assistance after her marriage ended, was able to move from welfare to work in 1999. She had received a good education before her divorce and was able to support her family successfully after her youngest was old enough for day care. But her ability to escape poverty came in spite of TANF, not because of it; and she saw the "work first" rules depriving others of the educational opportunity that had made the difference for her. "I have learned," she said, "that motherhood and education are no longer respected, at least not for welfare mothers." What if states were rewarded for reducing poverty? Would not caseworkers have more incentive to treat families with respect and help them plan realistically to move toward an appropriate level of self-sufficiency?

On the basis of our the findings and recommendations in our WHRMP report, UUSC has worked with colleague organizations for several years to prepare for the debate about the key decisions you are called upon to make. As part of the Coalition on Human Needs, we helped develop and have endorsed their statement of principles for TANF reauthorization. And as part of the Inter-religious Working Group on Domestic Human Need / Justice for Women and Families, we helped formulate and have endorsed the "Call to Poverty Reduction in the Context of TANF Reauthorization." Now that the Bush Administration and several members of Congress have begun introducing their proposals, we are prepared to make some preliminary recommendations.

Recommendations

As the debate continues in the next few months, additional concerns will surface. But at this point, here is how we apply them to the emerging issues in the debate:

Reauthorize TANF with a renewed focus on helping families move toward an appropriate level of self-sufficiency.

Include poverty reduction as one of the purposes of TANF, and reward states through a poverty reduction bonus. (See the Mink bill, H.R. 3113, which includes provisions of Rep. Stark's Child Poverty Reduction Act.)

Require states to use a measure of relative self-sufficiency to guide TANF recipients in choosing realistic strategies for achieving it.[4]

Continue to provide appropriate work supports for TANF "leavers" as they continue to work toward their goals.

Increase TANF block grant to offset the effects of inflation and give the states the resources they need to do the unfinished business of welfare reform.

Poverty reduction cannot succeed as an "unfunded mandate."

Purchasing power of the $16.5 billion annual TANF block grant had declined by 14% to the end of 2001. The Cardin bill (H.R. 3625) adjusts funding to $18.7 billion by 2007.

When he was Governor of Wisconsin, Tommy Thompson correctly emphasized that doing welfare reform effectively would require more money, not less. Now that he is Secretary of Health and Human Services, it is still true.

Those remaining on the rolls often face more significant barriers to getting and keeping a job than those who have already left.

Increase child care funding in accordance with work requirements and unmet need.

Work requirements and child care are linked: If there's not enough money for needed child care, increased work requirements are unsustainable.

Studies show states provide only 25% to 35% of the child care subsidies needed to enable families to work.

Cardin bill increases Child Care and Development Block Grant by 11.25 billion over 5 years.

Welfare as we used to know it is gone. Now it is time to end poverty as we know it.

Some will say we cannot afford to do what needs to be done. However, the financial decisions we face about children and families are every bit as important as the ones you face on military spending.

In recommending the expenditure of an additional $15 billion on foreign aid, President Bush recently declared the restoration of hope a national priority as part of the struggle against terrorism. In a world where hopelessness and alienation lie at the root of violence and insecurity at home as abroad, ending poverty is not an option but a necessity, for the health of our economy, for our security as a nation, and for our global role in the advancement of human rights. It is part of our destiny as a nation blessed with riches that we have an obligation to be a beacon of hope to the world.



LOAD-DATE: May 1, 2002