Special Report: Welfare Reauthorization

• Congress Revisits Welfare "Reform" - House Will Vote Soon on Bush Plan
  
• Bills Do NOT Promote Self-Sufficiency
  
• Super-Waiver is a Stealth Attack on Rights, Protections
  
• Senate Welfare Legislation Being Readied
• Public Wants More Education, Training for Poor Families

Congress Revisits Welfare "Reform" - House Will Vote Soon on Bush Plan

The House of Representatives accelerated its schedule for reauthorizing the 1996 welfare "reform" act, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, by moving bills to full committee consideration this week. The conservative Republican House leadership is promoting George W. Bush's regressive plan for the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program — as embraced in companion legislation — with few changes. The proposal places even more emphasis on work, gives less opportunity for education and training, and provides insufficient funding for such important support services as subsidized child care.

NOW and many other national groups oppose that legislation and have been working to get it modified. The House Ways and Means Committee today approved in a 23-16 vote a TANF reauthorization bill, with Chair Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) promising a floor vote by May 15. Thomas said that he would propose that $2 billion be added for child care funding — although NOW and our allies believe that this additional amount is still far from adequate.

NOW had hoped that important provisions expanding opportunities for TANF recipients to move toward self-sufficiency would be adopted by the committees; many of those provisions were contained in a bill that NOW backs, H.R. 3113, the TANF Reauthorization Act of 2001, sponsored by Rep. Patsy Mink (D-Hawaii). Efforts in committee to amend the harsher bills with some of the features of H.R. 3113 were turned down in straight party line votes; however, there is still an opportunity for Democrats to push for improving amendments when the legislation comes to a floor vote. The Mink bill is summarized in a comparison of other related bills on NOW's website.

Rep. Mink is a strong advocate for the right kind of anti-poverty policies and has often spoken out about the plight of the five million poorest women and children in this richest nation in the world. In testimony presented to the Subcommittee on Human Resources, House Ways and Means Committee, April 11, Rep. Mink stressed that of the millions pushed off welfare rolls since 1996, "50 percent of former TANF recipients are still living in poverty and 30 percent have been unable to find jobs." H.R. 3113 would reward states for allowing more TANF recipients to pursue education vocational training, and for providing adequate support services in affordable housing, transportation assistance, child care subsidies, protection from family violence and other aids essential for a transition to self-sufficiency. NOW is working to get various provisions of the Mink bill incorporated into the Senate TANF reauthorization legislation.

Many welfare recipients lack basic skills necessary to secure jobs that pay living wages and offer such important benefits as health insurance and pensions. This is illustrated by several recent studies (as summarized by the Institute for Women's Policy Research, April 2002):

• According to an Urban Institute study, 66.7 percent of welfare recipients scored in the 20th percentile or lower on the Army Forces Qualifying Test, a test measuring basic skills.

• Seventy-six percent of TANF recipients test in the lowest two levels of literacy, with 35 percent scoring in the lowest level.

• Nationally, only 29 percent of welfare recipients who left welfare between 1995 and 1997 lacked a high school diploma, compared to 41 percent of those still receiving TANF.

Bills Do NOT Promote Self-Sufficiency

The Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2002 (H.R. 4090), sponsored by Rep. Wally Herger (R-Calif.), chair of the House Ways and Means Committee Human Resources Subcommittee and the Working Towards Independence Act (H.R. 4092), sponsored by Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-Calif.), chair of the 21 Century Competitiveness Subcommittee, Education and Workforce Committee, are the principal bills being finalized. Each embraces components of the Bush plan.

NOW opposes both because neither adequately addresses the root causes of poverty — they merely continue the pattern established in 1996 of reducing the number of families on public assistance without helping poor parents acquire the necessary skills and knowledge to become fully self-sufficient. In many instances, the Bush-Herger-McKeon bills are worse than the 1996 "reform" act. The most odious provisions limit the number of TANF recipients and the time allotted for poor women to gain further education or vocational skills.

Here are just a few of the very harsh and inflexible provisions that the Republicans are proposing:

*MORE POOR MOMS TO WORK LONGER HOURS — A majority of TANF recipients would have to find employment within 60 days and would have to work 40 hours a week (although there is some disagreement about whether the 40 hours includes 16 hours of other "allowable" work activities that might permit education, caring for young children or some other approved activity). With about 60 percent of TANF recipients having a child under age 6 (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2001), this is a serious hardship, particularly when child care assistance is so limited.

*LESS OPPORTUNITY FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING — The definition of "work" activity would be narrowed and TANF recipients would have to participate in subsidized or unsubsidized work, on-the-job training or community work experience. One clear result: fewer poor women would be able to fit in going to school with increased work hours. (Forty-four percent of adult TANF recipients report less than a high school education according to the Urban Institute, 2001.) Thus, many would be destined to work at minimum wage jobs with few or no benefits and little chance for promotion, and still would not receive enough income to sustain their families.

*MORE PRESSURE ON FINANCIALLY STRAPPED STATES — States would be required to put 70% of their TANF recipients in "work" activities which do not include getting the education or training needed for a self-sustaining job (currently only 50% must be in "work" activities 30 hours/wk). This places considerably more pressure on states to develop and pay for make-work job programs for TANF recipients; nearly all states are in fiscal trouble from the economic down-turn and would have to come up with funding on their own. Reportedly, both Republican and Democratic governors are unhappy with the Bush proposal and a few small changes have been made to the legislation in response, but the administration is pressuring Republican governors to keep quiet and support the Bush plan.

*FREEZES ALL FUNDING — The Bush plan freezes TANF and child care funding over the next five years — which effectively means less funding because appropriations have not been adjusted for inflation since 1997. By 2007, TANF funding will be down by more than one-fifth. States will be forced to re-work their TANF programs and expenditures such as those for child care to meet the needs of parents working longer hours. The question is "where is the money going to come from?"

*RISKS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BY PUSHING MARRIAGE — The Bush-Herger plan would allocate $300 million per year for states to implement marriage promotion programs that offer grants to private or religious organizations to advocate marriage for TANF recipients. Related activities would advise recipients about sexual abstinence-unless- married and promote the reduction of non-marital pregnancies. Coercion and invasion of personal privacy are obvious consequences of such efforts. But far more threatening is the explicit risk to women and their children as more than 30% of TANF recipients are fleeing abusive partners (Tolman and Raphael, Journal of Social Issues, 2000).

*CONTINUES BAN ON IMMIGRANT AID — The five year ban on most welfare benefits for legal immigrants and their children is retained in the Bush-Herger bill, but the permanent ban on food stamps has been reduced to five years. This is certainly not an improvement for hungry children or elderly and disabled immigrants.

*CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE WOEFULLY INADEQUATE — The McKeon bill claims to maintain "historically high funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) program, authorizing $2.1 billion annually in discretionary funds." The problem is that CCDBG has never been funded to a level that even begins to meet the need: only 12% of eligible families are able to participate in the subsidy program. An adequate amount should be about $16 billion annually. Lack of access to good quality and safe child care is a major barrier to self-sufficiency for poor families; without a subsidy many poor mothers have to pay up to 40% of their monthly income for care, place the children in unregulated and potentially unsafe care or leave school-age children to care for themselves after school and all summer long.

Super-Waiver is a Stealth Attack on Rights, Protections

In addition to all these bad elements, the legislation contains a bombshell that threatens many important protections vital to the civil rights, health and privacy of workers. The bills propose a "super-waiver" authority that would allow states to apply to the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Labor for permission to waive a wide range of protective federal laws and regulations. For the ostensible reason that such waivers would grant more flexibility, states would now be empowered to pay TANF recipients in community work service programs less than the federal minimum wage, to avoid compliance with workplace safety regulations, to ignore instances of race and sex discrimination and many other abusive or dangerous practices. Coverage for workers under Unemployment Insurance programs could be dropped as well.

Additionally, the super-waiver would allow the states to exempt their TANF programs from federal health requirements (except Medicaid) in ways that could violate minors privacy rights, deny health care services to indigent patients, divert funds to fake pregnancy "crisis" centers and limit what is now required under Title X family planning programs as a full range of reproductive health information and services. They could also transfer funding from various programs that support federal-government mandated services to other types of activities.

Notably, the Republican legislation would allow the super-waiver applications to be automatically granted within 90 days if there is no response from the HHS and Labor officials. Some modifications of the waiver authority, however, were being reviewed and a number of Democrats have vowed to offer amendments on the House floor to remove or limit the super-waiver.

The super-waiver is in actuality an attack on Congressional authority and the democratic process in requiring of government programs certain social service functions, health care provision and workplace protections. It should be firmly opposed by members of Congress.

Details Available on Websites

A comparison of the various House bills appears on the NOW website and on the website for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Additionally, a detailed set of recommendations on how to aid poor women in reaching self-sufficiency appears on the NOW website under the National Council of Women's Organizations' TANF Reauthorization Statement to the Subcommittee on Human Resources, House Committee on Ways and Means (April 11, 2002).

Senate Welfare Legislation Being Readied

Unfortunately, the news coming from the Senate is not much better. Several appallingly harsh Democratic bills are being readied in what appears to be an election year competition as to who can be tougher on the poor. The Work and Family Act, sponsored by Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and Thomas Carper (D-Del.), features conservative Republican-style strict work requirements, little additional funding and flexibility. The Carper-Bayh bill advances a number of dubious "fatherhood" provisions that divert scarce TANF funds from custodial parents (mothers, usually) to non-custodial parents (fathers, usually). NOW and allies believe that a substantial amount of federal TANF funds will be funneled to so-called fathers' rights organizations that have been instrumental in aiding abusive ex-spouses gain custody of minor children.

Despite pressure from NOW and other anti-poverty activists, other Democratic senators have signed on to this regressive legislation; the list includes Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), John Rockfeller IV (W. Va.), Zell Miller (Ga.), and John Breaux (La.). Sen. Clinton is reported to have at first withdrawn her support, but relented when promises were made to increase funding for child care, Medicaid, immigrants' benefits and education/vocational training programs. A number of other objectionable elements of the legislation are described on the NOW website "Welfare - Real Reform Needed" page, where you can also link to a formatted email message on Carper-Bayh that can be sent to your senators.

A second Senate bill, this one bipartisan, has been drafted in the Finance Committee which has principal jurisdiction over welfare legislation. Democratic Sens. Breaux, Rockefeller and Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), together with Republicans Orrin Hatch (Utah) and Olympia Snowe (Maine) and Independent Jim Jeffords (Vt.), helped develop the bill. It, too, would require that by 2007 at least 70 percent of adult TANF recipients in each state be engaged in 40 hours of "work" or allowable activities. Sens. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) and John Corzine (D-N.J.) are reported to be working on a more moderate alternative. Several hearings on the various bills are scheduled for mid-May and the leadership has indicated that it would like to have a bill on the floor before the Memorial Day recess, although observers doubt that the Senate will act that speedily.

Public Wants More Education, Training for Poor Families

Several recent national polls (Peter D. Hart Research Associates and Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates, January and April, 2002) show that an overwhelming majority of the public favors expansion of education and training, child care and other services over increased work requirements for TANF recipients. The Hart survey showed that 62% want work supports as the most important priority in welfare reform, while only 15% think that there should be tougher work requirements. Only 5% think that promotion of marriage should be a priority. Eighty-four to 88 percent, respectively, say that TANF recipients should be allowed to fulfill work requirements by taking job training or getting more education; the same proportion support workplace protections such as the minimum wage and health and safety protections.

In the Lake, Snell, Perry survey conducted for the Ms. Foundation, 86 percent say that the federal government has a responsibility to do away with poverty and almost as many said that the government should provide a safety net for people. Notably, only two percent of respondents said that they believed the goal of welfare should be to promote marriage and discourage out-of-wedlock births.

ACTIONS NEEDED:

Even though both Republican and Democratic bills contain many punishing provisions, there is still a chance that these can be modified. Democrats and moderate Republicans need to hear from their constituents as soon as possible.

It is very important that you call, fax or email your representative before a floor vote that is expected to occur around May 15. You can phone House members by calling the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and asking for your member's office. Or you can look up her/his direct phone and fax numbers and personal web page by checking the website for Congress at http://thomas.loc.gov. In addition, the NOW website (http://www.now.org/congress) makes it easy for activists to send an email message to any member of their Congressional delegation. While the schedule in the Senate appears less certain (although, the leadership is hoping for a floor vote before Memorial Day recess), it is nonetheless a good idea to communicate with both your senators using the same suggested messages from below.

Based on the TANF reauthorization recommendations that NOW and its partners in the National Council of Women's Organizations have made to Congress, here are some talking points:

THE PURPOSE OF WELFARE is to move families out of poverty and into self-sufficiency. That takes three key ingredients: (1) education and training; (2) fair job opportunities; and (3) critical programs that support work, such as child care, health insurance, housing, and transportation.

GOAL SHOULD BE TO REDUCE POVERTY — NOT JUST WELFARE ROLLS — The goal of the TANF program should be to reduce child and family poverty by ensuring that all families have adequate resources to meet their basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare. The goal of TANF should NOT be to reduce caseloads.

INCREASE TANF FUNDING; ENSURE MINIMUM BENEFITS — The funds allocated to the TANF block grant should be increased to reflect inflation and individual state's unemployment and poverty levels. Also, uniform minimum benefits across the states should be ensured.

BROADEN DEFINITION OF WORK REQUIREMENTS — Work requirements under TANF should be broadened to include any activity that improves a families' economic and social well-being, including: full-time care for young children, education, training, and activities designed to address domestic or sexual violence, mental illness, substance abuse, disability or serious health condition. Additionally, efforts should be made to help families acquire good jobs that pay a living wage and provide benefits.

PROHIBIT FULL FAMILY SANCTIONS — Sanctioned families are shown to have greater and/or multiple barriers to employment, i.e. lack of education, limited work experience, a greater incidence of domestic violence, disabilities and other physical and mental health problems. In Utah, 72% of sanctioned families had 3 or more barriers which may affect their ability to understand, and thus comply, with restrictions. Full family sanctions should be prohibited and conditions set up whereby the time limit clock is stopped while families are playing by the rules.

EMPHASIZE EDUCATION, TRAINING — NOT DEAD-END JOBS — 80-90% of parents who complete college degrees get jobs upon graduation and earn average wages of $25,000-30,000/yr; enough to exit the welfare rolls. In the following year 80-90% continue to be employed. In contrast, only 40-50% of parents who complete "work- first" programs get jobs with the average wage being $6.50/hr. In the following year 40- 50% are unemployed and back on welfare. The research speaks for itself, education and training make people self-sufficient, work programs do not.

PASS THROUGH ALL CHILD SUPPORT — When poor families receive child support, the support represents 26% of the family's income. However, about 1/2 of support collected is not paid to the family but retained by the government to recover prior assistance costs. Children should benefit directly from child support payments made on their behalf. These much-needed payments should not be used to fund cash assistance for other TANF families.

STOP DISCRIMINATION AGAINST IMMIGRANTS — All families, regardless of immigration status, should have equal access to assistance. Both legal immigrants and citizens support public programs with their tax dollars but immigrants are considered ineligible for assistance. More than 1 in 5 low-income children now live in non-citizen families. Many of these children are citizens and yet are not receiving benefits for which they are eligible, therefore leaving these families socially and economically vulnerable.

GREATLY INCREASE CHILD CARE FUNDING — 60% of low-income women report that the unavailability of child care kept them from participating in work programs. Currently, the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), the government subsidy program, is funded to only 12% of need despite the fact that child care is a crucial work support. Without access to publicly supported programs, low-income families are seriously impeded in their path to economic stability and the safety of their children is placed at risk.

EXPAND HOUSING SUBSIDY FUNDING — Only 30% of TANF recipients receive housing subsidies, even though a typical family that leaves welfare must pay 57% of its total income for decent, modest housing. Stable housing significantly increases the chances of successful employment.

STOP SOCIAL ENGINEERING — SUPPORT PROVEN INITIATIVES — Family formation policies including marriage promotion provisions, abstinence-only education, and family cap policies have no place in TANF. These invasive policies have not been proven to be effective, nor should religious morals be dictated by the government in the first place. Funds for these programs would reduce poverty significantly if they were allocated for proven work supports such as child care, housing, or transportation subsidies rather than for ultra-conservative, ineffective dictates.