Aging Services (Older Americans Act)

The Administration on Aging and the programs authorized and funded by the Older Americans Act are extremely important to the states, their senior citizens and their families. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) strongly supports the Older Americans Act programs and believes that the services funded through this act should be both cost effective and responsive to the special needs of the elderly. NCSL appreciates the support of Congress and the Administration for the Older Americans Act (OAA) and the National Family Caregiver Support Program. 

State legislators believe that it is critical that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services implement P.L. 106-501, the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2000 in a manner consistent with the Congressional intent to give states the utmost flexibility in carrying out OAA programs.   NCSL trusts that this flexibility will be reflected in the regulations issued for these programs. 

Recognizing the challenges our country faces in providing services for the increasing number of elderly citizens, NCSL urges Congress to continue its support for the programs of the Older Americans Act by appropriating sufficient funding for them, especially the National Family Caregiver Support Program. 

NCSL continues to support the National Family Caregiver Support program.  The new program recognizes the need to support both those caring for older individuals and older individuals caring for children.  States must be given the flexibility to establish standards in this program and decide how program funds will be distributed.

Data suggests that low-income and minority senior citizens have not participated in Older American Act programs to the extent possible. NCSL supports increased efforts in the reauthorized Act to ensure that Older Americans Act programs do reach low-income, minority and rural elderly households and to inform them about services available to them under the Older Americans Act and other state and federal programs.  The authority of state government through designated State Units on Aging should be strengthened to ensure that service funds under the Act are targeted to the most vulnerable members of the older population -- the very old, the frail, the isolated and limited English speaking individuals, with particular attention to low-income minority persons. States must have the authority to distribute these funds based on their own criteria.

NCSL believes that states should continue to be afforded considerable flexibility in the administration of the Older Americans Act. NCSL supports permitting states to transfer funds between the nutrition program and the social services program according to a state's need.  We are pleased that the reauthorization includes the ability for states to transfer funds between congregate and home-delivered nutrition services.   States should also continue to be able to determine if Area Agencies on Aging (AAA)'s should directly provide services and to determine which services AAA's can provide. 

NCSL supports efforts to put additional resources into the ombudsman program. In addition, NCSL supports Congressional proposals to fund programs on elder abuse, home care and programs to provide special assistance to the elderly. Provisions should be developed which strengthen the capacity and expand the resources of State Units on Aging and Area Agencies on Aging.  This is critical on a wide range of elder rights issues: quality of long term care, elder abuse, consumer protection, guardianship, age discrimination and beneficiary rights in entitlement programs.  We believe that the OAA reauthorization is an important step in this direction.

The reauthorization gives states the flexibility to establish limited cost sharing requirements, for certain services.  We hope this flexibility is retained in regulations.  NCSL still believes that participants with incomes below 125 percent of poverty or the federally established level of poverty, which ever is higher, should not be subject to cost sharing. Fees collected through this mechanism should provide for expanded services and increased availability of services to those elderly with the greatest economic and social need. This will also enhance the coordination and equity between OAA, the Social Services Block Grant, and state-financed programs that are often funded on a sliding fee scale.

Finally, NCSL continues to support the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) and believes that Congress has established an enhanced state role by changing the proportion of funds distributed to state agencies if funds are increased above the FY2000 level.  We call for increased cooperation between the states and the national contractors. NCSL supports Congressional proposals to provide states and national contractors more flexibility on administrative costs while keeping these costs to a minimum.

Federal Policies on Aging

NCSL thanks Congress and the administration in its action to increase the earnings limit for Social Security recipients; a policy long supported by NCSL.  In addition, the current NCSL policy on Reforming Social Security details NCSL’s policy positions on changes to Social Security.  NCSL urges that the Congress: (1) preserve the financial integrity of the Social Security system; (2) eliminate all forms of age discrimination against older workers;  (3) continue the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid to include reimbursement for in-home health care, with the appropriate safeguards to protect against fraud and abuse in the program and urges HHS to continue to ensure state flexibility by allowing states the ability to serve the elderly through Home and Community Based waivers (additional NCSL policies detail NCSL's position); (4) provide funds for direct services for the elderly; (5) fund the development of integrated, coordinated, community-based continued care systems to help prevent the unnecessary institutionalization of the elderly; and (6) provide additional support for gerontological research, education and training; (7) and ensure the flexibility for states to use TANF funds to support programs that serve grandparents raising grandchildren during reauthorization.   

August 2010

---

Child Care

The shortage of affordable, quality child care services is one of the most critical human services problems today. These services can help enable low-and-moderate-income parents to pursue job training and employment opportunities and, ultimately, economic self-sufficiency. In addition, developmentally appropriate early childhood education programs contribute to the future success of children at risk for academic failure. Currently, sufficient child care and early childhood education alternatives are not available, and without the concerted effort of all levels of government and the private sector, this shortage is likely to worsen.

The passage of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWORA) created opportunities and challenges for state child care programs. The National Conference of State Legislatures strongly supported PRWORA's expansion of the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG), which provides states with new flexible funding for child care. The demand for child care has grown as increasing numbers of welfare recipients move from welfare to work. We believe that the demand will continue to grow due to increasing federal work participation rates in the TANF program and our continued success with welfare reform.

Congress reauthorized the TANF program in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, making policy changes that mean that more TANF parents will be working more hours.   States need additional resources, above the appreciated increase in the child care block grant,  in order to meet the new federal requirements.     If additional dollars are not forthcoming, states will struggle with providing child care to TANF families  while continuing to provide child care for low-income working families that have left the TANF program and are on the road to self-sufficiency. 

State legislators believe that federal child care funding should be consolidated into a more coherent funding stream. State legislators continue to examine the effects of their child care policies and use their legislative authority to appropriate CCDBG funds. States are spending more money than ever to provide for the increasing demand for child care. About half of the states appropriate more money than is required for federal matching funds. In addition to state's own funding and the federal Child Care Development Block Grant Fund, states are increasingly using a significant portion of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant funding to serve the needs of those on public assistance, those who have left public assistance and the working poor who may not have ever received cash assistance.

To address family needs for child care services, and to increase the supply of child care facilities, a wide range of affordable quality child care services must be made available including, but not limited to: center-based, family child care, work-site based care, and in-home care. In addition, these facilities must be prepared to provide a full range of services including: infant, pre-school and school-age child care; information and referral services; 24-hour care; sick care and respite care. State legislators have always been in the forefront of these creative approaches to child care. Federal efforts should assist our efforts and not be a barrier to state innovation.

Child Care Development Block Grant

The enactment of the Child Care Development Block Grant in 1990 and its expansion in 1996 were lauded by NCSL. CCDBG fills an important gap in federal support of child care for low-income and moderate-income working families. NCSL strongly supports full funding for this program. State legislators were pleased that the federal regulations for the CCDBG did not preempt state laws and/or restrict state flexibility in the usage of funds. Child care needs vary from state to state. NCSL believes that the CCDBG regulations must not unduly prevent states from directing funds to their particular needs, from inspections to development of providers to reimbursement. Each state's child care market is different. State legislators have the often difficult job of directing the CCDBG where the need is greatest. States balance the competing demands for high quality, affordable, available and accessible child care. Some states have waiting lists for current welfare recipients; others have trouble meeting the demands of those who have left welfare and are working. States want to ensure that former welfare recipients do not return to the welfare rolls because of a lack of child care. Also, state legislators are concerned about meeting the special needs of certain populations: children with disabilities, infants and older children in after-school care. We also struggle with how to meet the needs of children whose parents work off shift and non-traditional hours including nights and weekends. It is critical that states have the necessary flexibility to direct CCDBG funds. Earmarking the current CCDBG or earmarking further increases in funding would reduce that flexibility and may make the provision of child care more difficult in the states. NCSL urges Congress and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to maintain state flexibility when they examine and revise the CCDBG. Specific concerns include the following:

• States should be able at their option to pay differential payment rates for providers of higher quality service and/or providers who serve children with special needs;
• The current portion of the CCDBG that is not earmarked should remain consistent with Congressional intent to provide flexible funds for states to use as they see fit on a wide range of activities including services, resource and referral, training and regulatory areas;
• Rules on registration of unlicensed providers should be created at a state's discretion to include more than payment information;
• The federal government should not be able to withhold funds from a state with stricter standards;
• NCSL strongly believes that parents should be able to choose their providers within a state regulatory framework;
• If an administrative cap is enacted, it should be limited to a strict definition of administrative funds. Services such as inspections, licensing, automation, eligibility determination, resource and referral, case management, training, and rate setting are critical to the provision of quality services and should be defined as services;
• Proposed changes to the CCDBG must not include additional mandates;
• Quality and supply building activities must be included as acceptable expenditures in addition to reimbursement;
• NCSL applauds HHS for creating a separate agency to oversee all child care programs and to promulgate child care regulations;
• Child care services must be made available to all recipients required to participate in welfare to work programs, and adequate federal funding should be provided for these services; and
• The CCDBG must not have burdensome reporting requirements and should have outcome-based measurement.

State legislators are concerned about the equity of providing child care funds to low-income and moderate-income working families on the sole basis of their former attachment to welfare. As we succeed in reforming the welfare system, more parents will need access to child care to avoid recidivism. States should also have the option to provide assistance to both former welfare recipients and low-and moderate-income working families.

Funding

Often laws are passed on the federal level which require states to match program funds. States then are compelled to become the sole source of funding of these activities, once federal assistance has been expended.

Any child care programs which require the design and provision of an array of child care services, should be accompanied by adequate federal funding.

NCSL strongly supports expansion of the CCDBG to supplement ongoing state efforts to assist both welfare recipients and low- and moderate-income working families.

The preponderance of funds for the Child Care Development Block Grant must remain an entitlement to the states. This is especially critical because under the TANF program, welfare recipients cannot be required to work if they can prove they do not have access to child care. We continue to strongly support the portion of the CCDBG that is funded by discretionary dollars and subject to the Congressional appropriations process. However, any additional funds for the CCDBG must be an entitlement to the states.  NCSL requests that Congress not require a state match for any additional child care funding  for the first three years of implementation.   A state match may prevent some states from accessing badly needed child care funds.  Child care is critical to meet increased work participation rates. 

NCSL opposed the creation of specific earmarks for infant care and after school initiatives as reductions in state flexibility to use CCDBG. We would oppose initiatives to add additional earmarks as not providing the needed flexibility for states to address the condition in their own markets.

NCSL believes that states should have the flexibility to extend the age of eligible children beyond age 13, especially children with special needs, to give states more flexibility to use these funds for out of school time care for older adolescents.

State legislators strongly support the Social Services Block Grant. Many states use the SSBG to provide child care to low-income families who do not meet the criteria of TANF or the CCDBG. States also use the SSBG for related services, including child care for children with special needs and elder care.

NCSL supports increased funding for the Social Services Block Grant. NCSL does not support a specific child care set-aside in the Social Services Block Grant. The Social Services Block Grant must continue to be funded as new child care programs are phased-in;

NCSL believes that the federal government must provide technical assistance to states to improve the coordination and financing of child care programs.

TANF and Child Care
NCSL strongly believes that child care is a legitimate use of the Federal TANF block grant and state maintenance of effort funds. An increasing number of states are using TANF and MOE to supplement the child care they provide with the CCDBG and other state funds. Any reduction to the federal TANF block grant or limitation on the flexibility of the TANF block grant will put this spending at risk. Child care is a critical support to ensure long-term self-sufficiency of low-income families. Parents are not able to work if their children are not safely cared for. Child care is needed for recipients participating in education, training, subsidized employment and transitioning to permanent employment. It is critical that states continue to be allowed the flexibility to transfer up to 30% of TANF into the Child Care and Development Block Grant.

We urge the Administration and the Congress to eliminate the distinction between how child care is treated for working families based on funding stream. There are different rules for working family child care funded by TANF, non-working families funded by TANF and child care funded by CCDBG. NCSL appreciates that HHS signaled the importance of child care for working families by not considering it assistance, thus allowing families to have this vital service without having it count against their time-limited assistance. NCSL urges the federal government to reconsider the distinction in TANF regulations that counts child care and other work supports for the unemployed as assistance. Thus, child care provided to non-working families, including the recently unemployed, counts as assistance and starts the time clock for families not receiving cash assistance. This will be particularly important if more families, including families on welfare, find themselves in the UI system. We want these families to have a reliable source of child care support while they look for another job rather than offering an incentive for them to return to cash assistance. Having this child care support count toward the time limits also raises equity issues and confusion since different rules apply to different funding sources. Additionally, research suggests that having a consistent child care provider is important to children's early development.

Standards

State governments should retain the authority to regulate child care facilities, and the federal government should not intrude in this area. The federal government should provide financial and technical assistance, and develop model standards for state guidance. This assistance could be used for the training of providers, or to conduct a study on how to raise salaries for providers while maintaining affordability. States should continue to establish and enforce minimum health and safety standards and adequate child/adult ratios for all child care facilities. Should federal standards or requirements for states to establish additional standards be enacted, states should be afforded adequate time to carry out the requirements of any new child care policy.

Taxes and Benefits

Tax incentives can encourage creation of child care programs and help parents better afford child care services. NCSL supports:

• Tax credits for employers that establish and/or operate child care programs;
• Public or private incentives for a child's primary caregiver to have the option to stay at home during the child's early developing stages;
• Tax credits for taxpayers with dependents under compulsory school-age;
• Child care benefits as an option in employer-sponsored cafeteria plans, including pre-tax flexible spending accounts;
• Retention of the Dependent Care Tax Credit as it exists under current law; and
• Tax incentives to encourage individuals to establish and/or operate child care programs.

Insurance
NCSL supports federal funding for liability insurance pools, as long as the establishment of such pools is a state option. NCSL opposes any attempts to preempt state law in the area of insurance.

Coordination with Early Childhood Education

A greater attempt should be made to integrate and coordinate child care and early childhood education programs and policies. Special efforts should be made to provide culturally-sensitive and culturally-appropriate early childhood education programs for children at risk. NCSL supports congressional proposals which would provide grants to states to develop innovative programs which link child care to early childhood education for children in public assistance households. NCSL's current policy on Early Childhood Education and on Early Learning Funds address these concerns, including those specifically related to Head Start, in more detail.

August 2011

---

 

Child Support Enforcement

(Joint with the Law and Criminal Justice Committee)

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) expresses deep concern over the failure of personal responsibility that has caused many of our nation's children to live increasingly in poverty and economic uncertainty. A stable household with adequate financial resources to provide for basic needs of children should be the goal of every parent. The role of government should be to encourage individual parental responsibility in meeting that goal and to assist in providing support for children whose parents are unable to do so.

NCSL believes that enforcing parental support obligations is an integral part of a comprehensive income security program for our nation's families. The federal child support enforcement program, authorized under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act and the Family Support Act of 1988, was established to enforce support obligations owed by non-custodial parents to their children by: (1) establishing paternity; (2) locating non-custodial parents; and (3) obtaining support payments. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) made further significant changes to improve child support collections, especially interstate child support enforcement. However, some provisions of PRWORA preempt state authority and remain very troubling to state legislators.

NCSL believes states and the federal government should ensure that child support is fair, equitable, and timely. In reviewing the current system, NCSL concludes that child support enforcement can be enhanced through better coordination of purpose at the state and federal level, through a renewed commitment to interstate cooperation, and through the application of intellectual and financial resources to attack the problem with creativity, innovation, flexibility, and strength.

NCSL supports improved coordination of all programs and organizations working on child support enforcement, including but not limited to: state policy makers, state courts, local and state bar associations, district and state attorneys, local and state child support directors, local law enforcement officials, family and child support advocacy groups, tribes, and programs that work with both parents.

NCSL believes that the federal child support audit process would be improved by focusing on performance outcomes rather than administrative procedures and processes. A revision of the process, including the restoration of funds withheld, would allow for more innovation and adaptability to individual state needs, while still providing oversight.  NCSL also urges the federal government to allow states to reinvest their child support penalties in the child support system as a more effective way for states to come into compliance.  Similar penalty reinvestment practices are followed in other human services programs.  State investments in technology-related expenditures, which are necessary in order to come into compliance with federal requirements, should be taken into account in the penalty process. 

Program and System Improvements

The increasing effectiveness of state child support enforcement programs performs an important service for children. Federal financial participation has created the base for these effective and increasingly successful programs.  However, as more families leave welfare and go into the workforce, the program no longer provides the financial return to the state and federal government.  The states and federal government need to re-examine the financing of this program.

NCSL urges the federal government to continue to support technical assistance to the states with respect to exemplary practices, procedures, and legislation that has been effectively implemented.

States have responded quickly and forcefully to the federal mandates contained in P.L. 104-193, The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. New child support initiatives from the federal government should allow maximum flexibility among states, reward new initiatives and encourage state experimentation and innovation.

Several of the mandates of PRWORA are especially problematic for state legislators. States were given insufficient time in a single legislative session to pass numerous changes in state law. These mandates preempt state laws, violate state and federal constitutional provisions and raise concerns about violations of the 10th Amendment.

State efforts to facilitate custodial parents' timely receipt of child support and to increase collections should be the most important factor in determining compliance with the child support provisions of PRWORA; federal efforts should be responsive to each state's unique populations. NCSL is pleased with the progress OCSE has made in focusing on program outcomes and assistance to states to maximize the effectiveness of state child support systems and collections. NCSL encourages OCSE to regularly communicate with state legislators, particularly through the regional offices and relevant action transmittals.

NCSL believes that an increased federal commitment is critical to the success of the child support enforcement program. Federal assistance should be directed to improving and supplementing state programs and should be provided with sufficient flexibility to minimize interference with state improvements.

NCSL supports an incentive approach for a permanent enhanced federal administrative match for states that implement a minimum package of innovative procedures to increase program effectiveness.

NCSL realizes states need to make significant improvements in the number and timeliness of paternity establishments, as this is the cornerstone to an effective child support enforcement program.  Currently, states are rewarded for improving paternity establishment. Federal funds should accompany federal paternity mandates.

NCSL supports proposals that would put states on a phased-in schedule of improvement that would use current year levels of paternity establishments as the base and would require a reasonable schedule for improvement.

NCSL recommends that if any additional mandatory program requirements are adopted as amendments to the existing Child Support Enforcement program, Congress should provide for: (1) a reasonable transition period; (2) waivers to permit states to address state specific problems with program requirements; and (3) flexibility for states to implement innovative alternatives that still meet the goals of the program.

NCSL is concerned about the costs of the requirement of immediate income withholding from non-IV-D cases. NCSL believes that the federal government should fund a reasonable share of the administrative, enforcement and data collection costs for these cases. Any targets for paternity establishment should be reasonable and attainable.

NCSL supports the federal parent locator service but opposes a mandate that would charge states for the use of the service.

Nutrition Assistance and Child Support Enforcement

NCSL fully supports the rights of all children to be financially supported by both parents and the enforcement of parental support obligations owed by non-custodial parents to their children. The 1996 welfare reform law created a state option to withhold food stamps from custodial parents who do not cooperate and non-custodial parents who are delinquent in child support payments. However, NCSL is concerned about underfunded and burdensome mandates to states and does not support federal proposals to mandate child support enforcement cooperation as a condition of eligibility in the food stamp program.

Payment of Child Support in the TANF Program/Child Support Passthrough

NCSL supports the option for states to use a disregard as a minimum financial incentive for recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) to participate in the child support program and believes that states need flexibility to use disregards innovatively. NCSL also supports allowing states to permit families to keep more of the money collected on their behalf whether on or off public assistance.  However, NCSL insists that the federal government share in the cost of this forgone revenue.  NCSL opposes a federal mandate to pass through child support as a cost-shift to states.  Additionally, NCSL supports more efficient outreach efforts to include a greater number of recipients receiving child support enforcement assistance.  State innovations in this area are important to children and families, particularly those transitioning from welfare to work and ultimate self-sufficiency. States must have the flexibility necessary to continue these innovations to meet the need of children and families in each state.  NCSL applauds Congress for including new passthrough and distribution options in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. 

Noncustodial Parents

Historically, states have taken the lead in issues pertaining to family law. State legislators support innovative programs that reach more absent parents, especially young fathers. However, the issues of custody and visitation are under the purview of the states and NCSL would strongly oppose any effort to preempt state laws in this area. If the federal government establishes block grants to states to examine ways to involve noncustodial parents in the lives of their children, state legislatures must have the authority to appropriate these funds, as in the Brown amendment (Section 901) to PRWORA.  (The NCSL policy on Nurturing Responsible Families further details NCSL positions on fatherhood, child support distribution, and family formation.)  NCSL urges OCSE to encourage flexibility and creativity in addressing arrearages.  NCSL also urges that OCSE continue to work with policymakers to clarify the usage of current policy regarding arrearages.  While states cannot retroactively modify awards, it is possible for states to forgive arrearages for those noncustodial parents who are working to meet current obligations but are genuinely unable to pay arrearages. 

Child Support Assurance

Child Support Assurance provides a guaranteed level of child support payment. NCSL supports maintaining the option of states to develop pilot programs for the assurance concept that can be rigorously analyzed and evaluated.

Appropriate Federal and State Roles

Federal efforts should first be directed to helping states do a better job. The federal commitment to child support enforcement has been to elevate and strengthen the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement so that it will be a more effective partner with the states. This should include attempts to improve cooperation between IV-D agencies, state revenue agencies, and the state and local courts. Federal dollars should be used to create incentives to develop innovations, to replicate successes, and to provide improved training. Incentives should be structured in a manner that is supportive of and not coercive to states. State and local courts should retain power and discretion over establishing and modifying child support orders. The federal government should not create criminal sanctions.

Federalization

Several proposals to improve the child support system begin with a premise that centralizing the system should be the driving force for change. Federalization of the child support system, however, would disrupt state efforts to integrate family support services and further diminish the sense of community that is required for government to be responsive to the needs of its citizens. NCSL rejects the assumption that transferring the program to the federal government and funding, creating, and training a new bureaucracy at the national level will offer immediate improvement. Instead, NCSL supports sorting of responsibilities in a reasonable and rational fashion. Federal responsibilities should be expanded only where compelling reason to do so exists. Any other actions should be considered violations of the 10th amendment.

NCSL concurs with the conclusion of the U.S. Commission on Interstate Child Support that transferring responsibility to the federal government will not improve the system. Federalization raises problems for an uninitiated and overworked federal court system and poses great risk because of the absence of a national system or model. Proposals to use existing mechanisms within the Social Security System and the Internal Revenue Service, while intriguing, must be rigorously tested and evaluated before exposing the entire system to enormous cost and risk. Overlapping responsibilities would create new disorder with federal administrative law judges interfering with settled state authority in family law.

Child Support Incentive Program

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) strongly supports the current incentive system for child support enforcement. The current incentive system must rewards performance and recognizes our changing caseloads. As states succeed in their welfare reform efforts, the child support caseload is changing from mostly welfare recipients to include more working families.   Most states easily reached the maximum incentive for non-welfare cases and the system should be revised and updated.

NCSL strongly supports federal legislation to remove the provision in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005that prohibited states from using child support incentive funds to match federal funds for the program. This action, reversing existing law encouraging states to use funds in this manner, was identified by the Congressional Budget Office as an intergovernmental mandate that exceeded the threshold of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act.    The federal funds states matched with incentive funds were used for integral parts of the child support enforcement program, such as establishing and enforcing child support obligations, obtaining health care coverage for children, and linking  low-income fathers to job programs.  Reduction of child support funding inevitably leads to lower child support collections, leaving families less able to achieve self-sufficiency.  States are put in the unenviable position of reducing services or finding state funds to make up for this federal cost-shift.

Concerns about the incentive system have been a long-standing component of NCSL policy. NCSL continues to believe that the increasing effectiveness of state child support programs provides a financial return to both states and the federal government, while performing an important service for children and families. Federal financial participation has created the base for these effective and increasingly successful programs.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 required the Department of Health and Human Services to report to Congress with suggested revisions to the current incentive system. In response to the Administration's proposal and pending Congressional action, state legislators:

• Support a base matching rate of no less than 66 percent. This is critical in light of the extensive federal mandates in the welfare law;
• Support enhanced funding for automated data systems required by federal law;
• Support the development of clear, understandable criteria for a new incentive system;
• Believe that these criteria should be based on performance outcomes rather than administrative procedures and processes;
• Oppose efforts to require that incentives received by the state be reinvested in the child support program. This ignores state priorities and preempts state authority over these funds, and
• Support a more flexible approach to reinvestment. NCSL supports state flexibility to reinvest in programs that serve children and families.

Medical Child Support Enforcement

The federal government regulates health insurance covered by self-insured companies under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA); state laws do not apply to these companies. NCSL continues to urge Congress to close a loophole in ERISA that allows self-insured companies to refuse to acknowledge state medical child support orders and effectively block access to medical child support for thousands of children. As ERISA companies refuse to acknowledge transferred orders, states must return to court and get a new order if a noncustodial parent changes jobs. ERISA companies also set highly individualized criteria which, absent a standardized medical support notice, are barriers to the Congressional goal of a uniform and efficient enforcement system. A change in ERISA is needed so that these companies will comply with state medical child support orders and children of the fathers employed by these companies will no longer remain on Medicaid.

To effectively manage welfare costs, states must have access to the necessary tools. Absent a change in ERISA clarifying that there is no preemption of state laws and procedures for medical child support, state medical costs will continue to rise. Particularly given the rigid child support mandates of PRWORA, the federal government should take efforts to remedy these problems in ERISA so that states can effectively manage costs and insure that children of noncustodial parents working for ERISA companies have adequate health insurance. NCSL also urges OCSE to continue to discuss the linkages between medical child support and the use of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

A number of recent changes have strengthened medical child support enforcement and removed some of the impediments to providing children with health care coverage. For example, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) included a provision for health care coverage in all child support orders and directed the child support enforcement agency to notify an employer of the noncustodial parent's medical child support coverage. However, ensuring that children get the health care coverage that they need remains complicated.  The Medical Child Support Working Group, created as part of the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, brought together the stakeholders in this issue to address topics including the National Medical Support Notice, coordination of medical child support with CHIP, and evaluating the standard for "reasonable cost" in federal law and issued a final rule on the National Medical Support Notice (NMSM) in January of 2001.    We urge the federal government to continue such collaborative efforts and to consider the cost to states of any policy changes.  Continuing discussion is especially needed regarding state flexibility to determine the “reasonable cost” of insurance.  The current federal definition is very problematic because of changes in insurance coverage available through employers.

Automation

The child support enforcement system relies on accurate, working information systems. Unfortunately, implementation of these computer systems has been difficult and fraught with problems and delays. States made good faith efforts to meet the October 1, 1997 certification deadline for implementing statewide child support information systems. Unfortunately, some states did not meet this deadline on which the national system is based. Similarly, many states are concerned that they will have difficulty with the deadlines for systems improvements in the welfare law. NCSL encourages Congress to convene state elected officials, welfare commissioners, vendors and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to review child support automation services and to develop realistic recommendations for the next phase of implementation. NCSL supports efforts to allow for corrective action plans for states in the disallowance process.

August 2010

---

 

Child Welfare and Family Services

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) is concerned about the welfare of our nation's families and the safety of their children. NCSL supports strengthening families through coordinated early intervention and prevention services so that they can protect and nurture their children. Flexible federal funding, including decategorized funding, is essential to address the changing needs of families and leverage state program funding.

Child Welfare Principles

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) supports the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-272) as modified by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA). These Acts establish coordinated child welfare, foster care, and adoption assistance programs in all states. The purpose of these laws is to:

• promote the goals of safety, permanence and the well-being of children;
• increase family support services in order to maintain children safely with their families and decrease the number of children unnecessarily entering the foster care system;
• ensure that children placed in foster care are placed in the least restrictive, most home-like environment, including placement with family members;
• facilitate the timely and safe return of children to their functional families with supportive services and promote the timely adoption or other permanent placement of children who cannot return home; and
• promote educational stability for foster care children.

NCSL supports the development of family-based child welfare services as exemplified in the goals of P.L. 96-272 and ASFA. NCSL supports policy and practice which promotes a system of services that promote safety and permanence for children and support families. This system of services must: (1) protect children and support families and reduce unnecessary placement of children outside the home; (2) reunite children safely with their families when placement becomes necessary (3), ensure a range of foster care alternatives; (4) promote timely adoption and other permanency options when it is not appropriate for a child to return home, and (5) consider extended family placements.  Child welfare services should be family-based, providing support to keep children safely in their homes with their families, limiting the need for long-term family intervention. When short-term intervention is necessary, out-of-home placements provide a safe therapeutic environment essential for healthy child development. When family reunification is impossible, permanent alternatives, particularly adoption, kinship care and subsidized guardianship as well as independent living arrangements are available to provide stable, nurturing environments for children who cannot return home.  NCSL is concerned about the number of children who enter the foster care system that are victims of neglect.

NCSL believes that the provision of support services, including in-home family services to at-risk families, is key to reducing the number of children in the foster care system. NCSL encourages the federal government to continue to seek cost effective alternatives to foster care. The efforts of the states have been hampered by inadequate funding, confused federal guidelines, and tardiness for reimbursement to the states for mandated program expenditures. NCSL urges Congress to provide states with additional federal financial support and technical assistance in their efforts to implement a comprehensive service system that helps institute more effective child welfare and adoption policies and practice to promote the safety, permanence and well-being of children.

Families and children in the child welfare system often face complex problems such as homelessness, substance abuse, and HIV infection that require interdisciplinary and interagency solutions. To combat service fragmentation, the federal government should provide increased flexibility enabling states to better coordinate service delivery among the public and private child welfare systems, child mental health, and juvenile justice systems as well as TANF, education and health agencies. Interagency collaboration including public/private partnerships should be encouraged to further integrate and coordinate services.   NCSL supports special efforts by the federal government to work with courts to improve their processes in child welfare cases and better collaborate for improved outcomes for children.  State flexibility must be maintained in these programs to provide interagency training, budgeting, planning and conflict resolution as well as integrated data systems.

P.L. 96-272 requires states to make reasonable efforts to keep children safely with their families or to reunify them by providing early intervention services, including intensive in-home programs wherever possible. The Adoption and Safe Families Act reinforces the importance of keeping children's safety paramount when discussions of reasonable efforts are being made. However, federal funding provisions have actually created disincentives to the provision of reasonable and safe alternatives to foster care such as subsidized guardianship. NCSL applauds Congress and the Administration for enacting the Family Preservation and Support Services Program in 1993 and reauthorizing the program as in 1997 the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program.

Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program (Title IVB, Subpart 2)

The Promoting Safe and Stable Families entitlement program, which NCSL strongly supports, is a critical step toward changing the inequity between funding for out-of-home placement and funding for protecting children by strengthening families. This guaranteed level of federal funding, while modest, will enhance state efforts to develop additional family preservation, family reunification and family support programs.   NCSL supports efforts to create a continuum of care for families from prevention of abuse and neglect through family support programs to intervention for families in crisis through family preservation. State legislators have long been the innovators of these programs, using predominantly state, local and private funds. NCSL has also supported family support programs as an early childhood development program. Family support can also promote screening programs, hospital and home visiting, parenting programs, early childhood education and programs that would promote a child's well-being and strengthen the family unit. NCSL believes that family support programs also can play an important role in preserving adoptive families.

This program should be considered as leverage for wider children's service reform, including community partnerships. However, there must be respect for the enormous variation between states in implementing family preservation and family support programs. States should be given maximum flexibility in designing their programs, without preemption of existing state laws. The federal government should provide state legislatures with technical assistance that includes peer to peer discussion. Intensive staff training will be needed in order to deliver these services as well as broader training of relevant agencies. Training should not be limited to an administrative expense.

HHS should communicate directly with legislators.  Regional offices must reach out to legislators. We urge HHS to coordinate the guidance given to states from different regions.

NCSL is strongly opposed to efforts to limit state flexibility in the distribution of entitlement funds. The federal law calls for significant portions of the funds to be divided between family preservation and family support programs. NCSL is strongly opposed to efforts to earmark these funds and urges HHS to recognize that states should determine where these funds can best be spent in the community. NCSL's concerns were heightened when the law was changed to require "significant" portions must be used to promote time limited family reunification and adoption promotion and support services.

NCSL supports reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program and retaining  and preserving the increase in mandatory funding for the program.  

Child Welfare Services (Title IVB Subpart I)

The child welfare services program authorized under Title IVB of the Social Security Act provides for federal matching grants to states for three types of services relating to child welfare: direct services, training, and research and demonstration grants. NCSL urges and encourages full funding of Title IVB and expansion of funds for child welfare services. This will encourage the provision of services aimed at supporting families, rather than out of home placements. NCSL supports reforms to help states address the growing problems that substance abuse has placed on the child welfare system, reforms that include extensive outreach, education, early intervention to pregnant women, and specialized early education programs.

NCSL has concerns about provisions regarding Title IV-B, Part 1 that are being discussed as part of reauthorization of the Safe and Stable Families program, Part 2 of Title IV-B.  In particular, any cap on administrative funding must be carefully constructed so that vital work done by caseworkers is not considered administrative.  NCSL is opposed to possible restrictions on states’ ability to use Title IV-B, Part 1 funding on child care necessary for parental employment, foster care and adoption assistance and states’ ability to use such expenditures as match.

Family Unification Program

Homelessness and other housing problems are often barriers to family stability and children are unnecessarily separated from their families due to these problems. Congress enacted the Family Unification program in 1990 to allow certain states to provide housing assistance through the Section 8 program to families who meet the regular Section 8 eligibility criteria and whose children are at-risk of placement in out-of-home care or delayed in returning from care because of homelessness or severe housing problems. NCSL urges the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to fund programs and inform state legislatures of the availability of funds and the results of this program.

Foster Care

The federal Foster Care program, an open-ended entitlement program that is permanently authorized under Title IVE of the Social Security Act, provides payments to states to reimburse a substantial portion of the maintenance costs of licensed or approved out-of-home care, administrative costs, and training for state agency staff and adoptive and foster care parents. Expenditures in this program have grown dramatically, reflecting both the significant problems faced by families as well as a significant growth in state efforts to provide better services to IVE recipients through better case management, improved systems for tracking and reporting on children, and support for family maintenance. While these latter provisions of foster care are nominally classified as "administration," in reality, they constitute activities in support of children and their families and are necessary to meet the mandates in federal law. NCSL strongly opposes efforts to cap these Title IVE expenditures. These open-ended funds are needed to ensure that children who have been abused and neglected are treated. NCSL is concerned about the lack of uniform interpretation of federal law and regulations by federal regional offices. Further technical assistance efforts are needed to help states understand the complicated reporting system, find effective ways to maximize federal dollars and enhance revenues for innovative service techniques.

Specifically, NCSL urges the federal government to:

• Promptly appropriate and pay prior year state claims and eliminate the system that creates them;
• Oppose more stringent time limitations for the collection and submission of state claims;
• Continue a monitoring and review system that fairly assesses state performance and gives states tools for improvement;
• Continue to emphasize family support services, family preservation services, family reunification services, preplacement services and other programs designed to help children at risk of foster care placement remain with their families when safe and timely reunification is appropriate, and those in foster care to return to their families, when safe and timely reunification is appropriate. These services should continue to receive "entitlement" funding;
• Define and separate foster care administration from child placement activities, and support the separate reporting by states of such amounts. Eligibility determination and redetermination, preparation and participation in judicial hearings, child placement, case management (plan development, reviews and supervision), recruitment of foster homes and institutions, rate setting and training costs are critical child placement activities that are essential to the provision of quality services and must continue under the IVE entitlement;
• Reinstate and expand federal waiver authority so that states can test the results of increased state funding flexibility on the development of service alternatives in particular as well as the overall delivery of child welfare services.
• Support the concept that grandparents, or other immediate family members, who are caring for children who cannot safely remain with their parents, should be given priority for such custody and placement over placement in a foster home with a non-relative, unless the court determines that placement with any of these relatives is not in the best interest of the child or children. Additionally, kinship foster care placement and/or subsidies should not be contingent on physical removal of a child from his or her relatives. Subsidized guardianship with relatives may be an appropriate permanency option for children who cannot safely return home. Federal funds should be made available for this option and for support services for caretaker relatives.  NCSL opposes efforts either by legislation or by regulation that would eliminate federal reimbursement  for relative foster care that is non-licensed.  If a state chooses to allow a relative to care for these children, the state should be able to receive federal funds for their care.
• Expand the federal financial participation for states that choose to provide assistance to youths age 18-21 who are preparing to transition from foster care to self-sufficiency;
• Increase recruitment of and training and respite care for foster care and special needs adoption providers;
• Provide quality, appropriate health, mental health, drug and alcohol abuse treatment and services, education, and job training services and coordinate with existing programs for children and families who come to the attention of the child welfare system; and
• Promote policies that keep children in their own communities and schools.

State legislators are very concerned about the child welfare workforce.  Child welfare agencies face daunting challenges recruiting, retaining and supporting caseworkers and supervisors. NCSL supports federal efforts to help the workforce meet these challenges, including student loan forgiveness, funding to expand and improve staff training, and financial assistance to states to reduce caseloads.  NCSL is concerned about the denial of plans where states have used Medicaid for targeted case management. and Deficit Reduction Act changes to targeted case management. 

Information Services

NCSL supports the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services efforts to develop a national information system to track data on families in the child welfare system in order to solicit critical child welfare data particularly with respect to outcomes for children and the impact of particular problems such as substance abuse and the effectiveness of treatment options.

Independent Living

Congress authorized and increased the capped entitlement funding to assist older youth in the foster care system to aid their transition to life as an adult outside of the foster care system. NCSL urges the Congress to fully fund the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, and to appropriate funds for education and training vouchers for youth aging out of foster care.  NCSL thanks Congress for the Medicaid option to serve these youth aging out of foster care.  

Adoption Assistance

Adoption subsidies are a valuable resource in finding permanent homes for children with special needs as defined by the states. Special needs children include those who are: physically, mentally, or emotionally disabled; members of minority groups; older; or siblings needing to be placed together. Adoption assistance increases the number of homes available to these children by subsidizing their medical and other special expenses and by easing the costs of child-rearing in general. NCSL urges the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to reimburse states immediately for program expenditures in a timely fashion and to pay claims currently owed to states.

However, NCSL continues to oppose federal efforts to restrict state authority to determine the criteria for termination of parental rights. Post-legal adoptive services are critically needed for families who adopt these children, many of whom may have health and mental health problems as they mature. Respite services are critically needed, as well.

In some cases, interstate adoption may present the only opportunity to place a child. Differences in state law and policy create special concerns with respect to the apportionment of legal and financial responsibilities. For adoption subsidies to be effective, adoptive parents must be assured that coverage will be provided, regardless of their state of residence. The Interstate Compact on Adoption and Medical Assistance helps facilitate the provision of medical and other support services for these adoptions and incentives should be provided for states that join the compact.

Adoption incentive funds have provided states the ability to build on their success in increasing adoptions. Adoption incentive funds have been very important to states for implementing a range of programs including support for foster and adoptive parent and other child welfare services.  Any discussion of changing incentive criteria must keep in mind that special needs children cannot be defined in terms of age alone.   NCSL urges Congress and the Administration to avoid any unintended consequences in any changes to how funds are apportioned. States should be permitted to use such adoption incentives toward the matching rate for Title IVE, especially for the use of post adoption services

Social Services Block Grant

The Social Services Block Grant, authorized under Title XX of the Social Security Act, consolidated spending for state social services. States may use these monies to fund child welfare services, including protective services. The flexibility of SSBG funds, distributed at state discretion, is critical to the success of these programs. NCSL opposes proposals to earmark this block grant for child welfare services. Earmarking undercuts the commitment to the diverse local needs of the elderly, handicapped and children, undermines state authority, and creates the potential for further carving up a program into incremental components that could limit benefits. Unfortunately, Title XX has fared poorly in the federal budget environment. For several years, Congress has abandoned its commitment to the current authorized level of $2.3 billion as agreed to in the 1996 welfare law.   NCSL strongly opposes attempts to cut the SSBG, and urges Congress to increase funding for this critical program.

NCSL strongly supports the ability of states to transfer Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Block Grant (TANF) funds to Title XX at the 10% level agreed to in the 1996 welfare law.

Flexible Funding for Children's Services

When states have attempted to reform service systems serving children and families, they are often unable to meet local service needs because of the inflexibility of the major federal funding streams and the wasteful administrative structure they require. To meet the challenges facing the children and families in our communities it will take more creativity and flexibility at the state and local level, not greater restriction at the federal level. The use of funds are sometimes so restricted that states cannot use these funds to meet locally-determined needs. States attempting major service reform often face regulatory barriers that impede their efforts, require creative financing and contradict service priorities.

In order to better meet the new priorities of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, states need the option of using a portion of their funding for foster care maintenance payments for child welfare and family services, especially when utilization of foster care funds is reduced. States adopting this option would develop a statewide plan for the use of these funds and to conduct broad-based community planning incorporated into its submission. The federal government would (1) eliminate the requirement that funds go to a single state agency payee, (2) identify specific quantifiable outcomes the plan must address, (3) and develop basic procedural regulations including timelines, formats and procedures for approval of the plan based on meeting outcome goals. NCSL continues to oppose reduction or limitation of the funding including capping of Title IVE for these programs as a condition of any such children's services proposal. We urge Congress to consider delinking foster care eligibility from AFDC eligibility as of July 16, 1996 for all states and move toward reimbursement for all children in care, as the states determine.

NCSL applauds the Administration for recognizing the importance of flexibility in child welfare financing and welcomes the discussion of more options in Title IV E funding.  Proposals are currently being developed in Congress under which states could choose to accept a fixed amount of Title IVE Foster care funding in return for the ability to use these funds more flexibly, including using these funds for prevention activities in addition to maintenance payments.  The details of such proposals are not yet final.  NCSL notes that such an option would not be the solution for all states. The NCSL urges Congress to not mandate a child welfare block grant. However, should a child welfare option be considered, there are a number of issues that must be dealt with before any state, at their option, could feel comfortable accepting a fixed amount of funding for IVE in return for the ability to use these funds on prevention activities and flexibility in determining eligibility for federal reimbursement including the elimination of the lookback requirement.  The issues include: establishing the baseline on which the fixed amount of funding would be based, clarifying what expenditures would fall under an MOE requirement, and including state legislators in decisionmaking about applying for and accepting such an option.   A state’s decision to accept fixed funding for a number years is both a fiscal and a policy decision which state legislators must approve. Any block grant should be subject to state legislative appropriation.  States would need to be assured, when choosing to cap an open ended entitlement, that such a capped program would not be cut by the federal government.  Any state coordinating or advisory body required by federal statute must include, at a minimum, a representative of each chamber of the state legislature selected by the presiding officer.  In addition, NCSL commends Pew Charitable Trusts for creating a national commission to examine the issue of child welfare financing and including a state legislator on the panel.  While we welcome the discussion of child welfare financing, NCSL continues to oppose any mandate to block grant open-ended funds for foster care and adoption for all states.

Child Abuse and Neglect

NCSL supports early identification, intervention and treatment of victims of child abuse and neglect. We encourage integration of federal and state policy and practice in the areas of child abuse and neglect, child welfare, and juvenile justice. Recognizing the relationship between child abuse and neglect, juvenile delinquency, and adult crime, NCSL believes that it is important to make every effort to reduce the incidence of child abuse including, but not limited to, physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and any neglect relative to a child's health or welfare.

NCSL strongly supports the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act and urges that it be fully funded at the levels authorized by Congress in order to assist states to respond to increased incidents of abuse and neglect.

Drugs and Alcohol

Approximately 8.3 million children live with one parent who is dependent on alcohol and/or in need of treatment for illicit drugs. An estimated 40-80% of children in the child welfare system have families with alcohol and drug problems.  In addition, many states have seen large increases in methamphetamine manufacture and abuse, which leaves many children vulnerable to abuse and neglect and negative health effects. These substance abuse problems put pressure on the child welfare system. 

In particular, widespread addiction by women has been a hidden problem which has led to policies which ignore rehabilitation and family assistance while supporting criminal sanctions. Many women who abuse drugs and alcohol are pregnant but current treatment programs have been designed almost exclusively to serve male addicts. The Adoption and Safe Families Act has strict timelines for state decision making. Significant federal support is needed to meet the treatment needs of families who come to the attention of the system. This is critical to keeping children safe and in permanent families.

NCSL supports:

• Federal approaches to substance abuse among women, including pregnant women, that recognize that drug and alcohol addiction must be considered as a major public health problem;
• Financial appropriations by the federal government to support the design and implementation of comprehensive programs for women and children and other family members;
• Rehabilitation programs that include appropriate child care for children and addicted mothers and federally funded programs that do not deny access to drug and alcohol programs on the basis of pregnancy;
• Federal incentives for partnerships between substance abuse and child welfare agencies including cross system training of staff, improved screening and assessment procedures, comprehensive treatment and prevention programs, after care services and improved data collection;
• Federally funded programs that recognize that women avoid seeking essential prenatal care when public policy utilizes criminal penalties regarding their substance abuse rather than rehabilitation and collaborative efforts of schools and community providers. These necessary interventions must be properly funded and implemented to prevent the use of harmful substances by women before they become pregnant; and
• The use of Employee Assistance Professionals at the worksite to help impaired employees become more productive in the workforce and in society.

Family Violence

Family violence is a barrier to safety and permanence for children. Unfortunately it is not uncommon for child abuse and domestic violence to occur in the same families. NCSL is particularly supportive of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Program which is designed to assist states in their efforts to prevent family violence and to provide immediate shelter and related services to victims of family violence. It also provides for training and technical assistance to state and local agencies on family violence program administration. NCSL supports federal incentives for coordination between child welfare systems, domestic violence agencies, and juvenile courts.

Finally, it is important to provide a variety of support services to at-risk households. Such services include, but are not limited to, emergency crisis services, 24-hour services, in-home services, parent and family counseling, child care services, parent education, and employment assistance. NCSL supports federal efforts to provide demonstration grants to increase the number of supervised visitation centers as a neutral location for protective temporary transfers of custody and on-site supervised visits of children.

August 2009

---

Community Services Block Grant

In 1964, The Economic Opportunity Act established the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) and Community Action Agencies (CAAs) as part of the historic "war on poverty."  CAAs deliver a number of important programs including Head Start, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), low income weatherization, homeless programs under the Stewart M. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act and Meals on Wheels.

The National Conference of State Legislatures supports full funding and reauthorization of the Community Services Block Grant Act.  State lawmakers oppose any reduction in present funding, which, in turn, provides funding for CAAs.  CAAs are a valuable resource to state and local governments’ participation federally funded human resource programs, particularly in rural areas isolated from information, and their ability to provide adequate means of service delivery.

State legislators support programmatic increases but are disturbed by proposals to fund programmatic increases at the expense of adequate administrative funding.  Furthermore, state legislators find it contradictory to fund certain programs that the CAAs deliver while reducing the funding of the CSBG as a whole. The CAAs provide numerous administrative services for these programs. Congress must pay vigilant attention to continue to find ways to adequately fund this program. The CSBG Act should reaffirm coordination with state and local government. In addition, NCSL asks Congress to include "isolated rural" to the demographic designation for eligibility for receiving federal funds. The traditional designations of "urban" and "rural" do not allow appropriate delivery of services in 23 states with long distances between small population clusters.

August 2011

---

Early Childhood Education

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) supports early childhood education and its benefits, especially in lessening the developmental deficiencies of childhood poverty. Studies dramatically demonstrate that participation in preschool programs can increase the percentages of young adults who are literate, employed, and enrolled in postsecondary education. Early childhood education can also reduce the number of youths who drop out of school, are incarcerated, become pregnant and use welfare. In the short-term, evidence shows that, for those at-risk, these programs can help improve children's intellectual and social performance in school and ultimately can help children achieve greater school success and possibly greater socioeconomic success and social responsibility.

NCSL recognizes that the success of such programs is contingent on the establishment and application of clear, challenging standards for curricula and assessments, on the selection of appropriately trained teachers, on adequate facilities, appropriate teacher-to-student ratios, and active parent involvement. Such programs are relatively expensive, but show promise of a high return on investment.

To establish such programs on a broader basis than is currently available through Head Start or other state and locally initiated programs may require an enhanced partnership with the federal government.

NCSL's current policy, "Improving Opportunities for Early Learning," expands this partnership to include a pool of federal funds for early learning programs that is flexible enough to meet local needs and would allow states to supplement existing programs. Such a partnership is in keeping with established policy that good education is in the national interest, but primarily a state responsibility and a local function. NCSL also would emphasize that any state-federal partnership in this area would primarily be for the expansion of service to low-income children, not the alteration of existing programs.

If the federal government expands its involvement in prekindergarten education, these are the tenets on which such an effort should be built:

1. Preservation of state flexibility, including maintaining the states' authority to determine how the program is administered, evaluated and what population is served;
2. Promotion of early learning;
3. Requirement for federal funding to meet the expectation of the state;
4. Preservation of state authority in these matters and
5. Avoidance of unfunded mandates.

 Head Start

The federally supported Head Start program has been successful, despite only being funded to serve three out of five of the eligible children. With the numbers of children in poverty increasing and the need for more child development/child care services for low-income families increasing, it is essential that Head Start be fully-funded to assure school readiness for all eligible children. NCSL urges federal policymakers to consider the importance of greater coordination among Head Start, early childhood and child care programs and elementary schools to improve educational opportunities for disadvantaged populations. It should be emphasized that parental involvement, which benefits both parents and children, is the critical component of Head Start.

NCSL commends the Congress on its legislative activity in recent years that allows states more program choice and fewer mandates in early education. NCSL would expect that any proposed legislation in early childhood education would do the same. States should be able to establish a flexible plan of action within federal parameters and to designate how the program will be operated and administered in keeping with state laws. Since state legislatures have ultimate responsibility for the establishment of state education policies and appropriation of state education funds, any new funding option should be part of state appropriations processes.  A state coordinating or advisory body required by federal statute must include, at a minimum, a representative of each chamber of the state legislature selected by the presiding officer.

Better coordination between Head Start, prekindergarten, and child care providers would strengthen the quality of early childhood education.  Such coordination is the responsibility of the state, which can best define and determine its needs. NCSL's child care policy further details this coordination.

NCSL supports a state option to have more control over Head Start and the authority to coordinate Head Start with other state early childhood education efforts.     NCSL welcomes a more complete discussion about such an option, and notes that the following issues must be addressed in such a proposal:

• There should be language in the proposal describing and limiting the expenditures that are part of an MOE requirement, and child care expenditures should not be included;
• Head Start teachers in a state controlled program should meet state, not federal certifications;
• State policy processes must govern the approval of a decision to participate or not participate;
• Funds for a Head Start program run under this option must be integrated into the state budgeting process and appropriated by state legislators;
• States must be able to set accountability measures and performance expectations; and
• States must be able to determine which state agency will administer the program.

Family Support and Parenting

NCSL further recognizes that we cannot continue to treat family conditions as a matter separate from education and that such a focus is particularly important for younger children. Staff development and training is critical for quality Head Start programs. Funds should be allocated for training staff and enriching program curricula. Programs to support parents and family members as the first teachers of their children should be promoted and strengthened in both public and private sectors.

August 2009

---

Federalism Issues Raised by Faith Based Initiatives

(Joint with the Law and Justice Committee)

NCSL recognizes the importance of religious organizations that provide vital social services to individuals who require them. For example, the charitable choice provisions of the NCSL-endorsed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), PL 104-193, which includes the TANF block grant, provides states with options to contract with religious organizations for various family assistance services. NCSL believes that charitable choice initiatives that permit states to establish their partnerships with religious organizations within the boundaries of state and local laws are preferable if the federal government intends to act in this area. NCSL believes that a strong state/federal partnership avoids federal mandates and preemption of state law. NCSL continues to support all civil rights laws in force in this country.

NCSL does not support any charitable choice legislation that preempts state and local laws, is retroactive in its application, undermines existing state-federal grant programs and partnerships by offsetting their funding, creates new rights for states to be sued in federal court, and mandates participation on the states according to federal guidelines. NCSL does not support charitable choice legislation that creates an individual entitlement to services in programs where such entitlement does not exist, especially where additional funding is not provided.

August 2010

---

Financial Policies That Reward Work: Earned Income Tax Credit and Individual Development Accounts

(Joint policy with the Budget and Revenue Committee)

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) supports financial mechanisms that reward work. We encourage the federal government to enact financial policies that reward work. Two current tools are the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Individual Development Accounts (IDAs). These valuable programs complement each other.

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)

Congress created the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in 1974. In 1986, the Tax Reform Act expanded the value of the EITC and indexed the credit for inflation. In 1993, Congress further increased the value of the credit, adjusting it for family size and expanding coverage to include very poor childless workers. An increasing number of states have enacted their own EITC as an incentive for low-income families to work and earn income. Many states have enacted their own refundable credit or non-refundable credit. NCSL supports the federal EITC as a means of reducing poverty among working poor families, and ensuring that the benefits of work surpass the benefits of public assistance.

Increasing public awareness is essential to the success of this program. Too few working poor individuals know how to apply and even fewer employers are aware of the program and the ability employees have to receive the credit through their paycheck. The federal government should provide technical assistance to the public and private sector as part of the effort to assist eligible employees. Employers need to know that the EITC does not add costs to their businesses and helps them retain employees. NCSL strongly urges the federal government to work with states as partners to develop new and creative methods to inform eligible families about the following:

• They must file a federal return even if they pay no federal taxes in order to receive the refundable credit;
• They can use the toll-free IRS hotline;
• They can receive free tax preparation assistance through the VITA (Volunteer Income Tax Assistance) program; and
• They can file a W5 form with their employers to receive their credit benefit throughout the year.

Because an expanded EITC supplements the wages of low-income working families without decreasing work incentives, NCSL supports federal efforts to increase the value of the credit, adjust it for family size, and eliminate the marriage penalty. Research has shown that the EITC increased labor force participation and employment rates among low-skilled single mothers.  NCSL supports expanding the EITC to single workers, especially noncustodial parents, to have the same impact on low-skilled fathers.  However, NCSL objects to increases to the credit that result in cost shifts to the states. NCSL urges Congress to continue to use the EITC as part of federal efforts to reform welfare. NCSL supports continuation of federal practice that allows states to use TANF and MOE funds for the state EITC. Such support should not count as "assistance" under the welfare law nor should federal data reporting for "assistance" programs apply. Such a requirement for a state EITC program is overly burdensome. Further, NCSL encourages the Administration to provide states the maximum flexibility to administer their own EITC programs. NCSL urges the federal government to simplify the application for the federal EITC and reduce the paperwork burden on filers. NCSL believes that such an effort will reduce errors.

Congress and the administration have implemented several error-reducing measures supported by NCSL:

• IRS access to the Federal Child Support Case Registry which will allow the IRS to reduce filing errors on the part of non-custodial parents who are ineligible to receive the EITC;
• Linking of Social Security numbers of parents to new numbers established for children in the Social Security database, enabling the IRS to verify parentage and thereby eligibility for the credit; and
• Providing additional funds to the IRS, which allow the IRS to substantially intensify efforts to curb EITC errors through screening and other means.

NCSL supports continued efforts to reduce errors but opposes proposals that would limit eligibility and reduce benefits. Such proposals would hamper state welfare reform efforts. Further, NCSL opposes efforts to reduce errors that would be overly burdensome to states.  NCSL also supports bipartisan efforts to increase the availability of the child tax credit to low-income families by revising the income threshold.

Individual Development Account (IDA)

Individual development accounts (IDAs) are another tool to promote financial self-sufficiency. At least half of the states have enacted state IDA programs to encourage the accumulation of assets by the working poor through matched savings accounts. NCSL supports federal efforts to provide incentives for the creation of IDAs as a complement to state efforts to reform welfare and to support working families' efforts to move out of poverty. NCSL urges the federal government to continue to allow states to have the flexibility to use TANF funds for IDA programs. Further, NCSL supports changes in the federal tax code that would expand opportunities for IDAs including a tax credit for financial institutions that participate with matching funds and for private entities that invest in nonprofits that administer IDAs. NCSL also urges the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to examine and eliminate barriers in the TANF program, including those associated with the Cash Management Improvement Act, to simply administration of IDAs.

August 2010

---

General Guiding Principles: State-Federal Relations in the Human Services Program

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) supports a continued partnership between the states and the federal government to provide human services assistance to children, families and individuals who need it.  State flexibility, in addition to being an effective tool for curbing costs, provides an opportunity for state legislators to shape the way programs are run and to integrate federal, state, and local programs into a coordinated system. This flexibility is not intended to provide the opportunity for states and the federal government to absolve themselves of the responsibility to meet those human service needs and is an integral component of the state-federal partnership.

State discretion to establish and administer human services should not be replaced by inflexible federal mandates and restrictions.  Unless a clear and compelling case for national uniformity exists, every effort should be made to permit state and local governments to respond to local conditions.  Since many legislatures meet part-time or biennially, NCSL urges Congress and the Administration to provide adequate time for state legislatures to make necessary changes to state law to implement federal initiatives.

Cost Shifting

NCSL opposes federal initiatives that would shift costs to states by: (1) imposing unfunded mandates on states; (2) requiring states to adhere to existing requirements while reducing the level of federal assistance; (3) reducing the level of federal financial participation for services or administration in state administered programs; or (4) placing an arbitrary spending ceiling on entitlement programs.

Program Consolidation

Congressional or Administration proposals to consolidate categorical social service programs into block grants to states, should:

• provide maximum flexibility to states with respect to program implementation and administration;
• include legislative language stating that block grant funding should be expended "according to state law”;
• authorize states to determine the branch of state government responsible for carrying out public participation requirements;
• make explicit that the kinds of activities funded in the past under categorical programs need not function as limits or requirements on the kinds of activities funded under the corresponding block grant;
• direct federal agencies to continue to provide technical assistance to states and to facilitate information exchange among the states;
• eliminate requirements which have the effect of creating categorical programs within block grants;
• insist that federal reporting requirements not be burdensome or require the use of funds that would otherwise be used for service delivery; and
• provide adequate federal funding to assure the continuation of service.

Capping Entitlement Programs

NCSL opposes the imposition of arbitrary spending caps on funding provided to states for services, provider reimbursement, or state administration of entitlement programs.  If federal funds to state and local governments for means-tested entitlement programs are capped, included in a program consolidation of categorical programs, or if growth in federal funds is substantially reduced, states must be authorized to reduce or limit services, eligibility and/or payments to beneficiaries and service providers. If statutory and regulatory changes are not made, state and local governments must be absolved from the legal obligation to provide services to entitled individuals.

August 2010

---

The Homeless

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) recognizes the need for a comprehensive approach to the problem of homelessness. At least 2.3 million adults and children (nearly 1% of the U.S. population) are likely to be homeless at least once in a year. This estimate grows to 6.3% if one considers only people living in poverty. The most significant causes of homelessness are the extreme shortage of decent and affordable housing, unemployment and the lack of community based support systems. Mental health, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, domestic violence, low wages, and catastrophic illness also play a significant role in homelessness. The solution of the problem of homelessness must stress prevention, emergency shelter, support services, transitional housing, permanent housing, and case management.

Coordination is critical among existing programs, because the homeless population may come in contact with different social service programs at different times. The federal government has a critical role to play in facilitating such coordination. There also needs to be more attention to the differences inside the homeless population. Strategies to serve the long-term homeless differ from those of families with more short-term needs. We urge that the federal government among other solutions include homeless prevention as an allowable expenditure under the Family Preservation and Family Support Services program to prevent out-of-home placement. The flexibility of TANF funds provides another opportunity for states to serve this population.

The plight of homeless families with children are of special concern to state legislatures. These families are the fastest growing portion of the homeless population. Forty percent of the homeless are children. For many of these children, a homeless shelter or welfare hotel is the only home they have known. The children face multiple barriers to becoming productive and self-sufficient adults. They often do not attend school regularly, may suffer inadequate health care and poor nutrition, and can too easily become involved in crime and drug and alcohol abuse.

In a land of tremendous wealth and opportunity, homeless people, especially homeless families with children, represent a national disgrace. Homelessness is not only an urban issue; the problem is increasingly shared by our suburban and rural areas as well. The homeless population is not a monolithic group. It is comprised of poor working families, veterans, unemployed families and their children, runaways, the mentally and physically disabled, victims of domestic violence, and alcoholics and drug abusers. A significant number of homeless adolescents are youths aging out of foster care, incest survivors, or those in conflict with their families over issues of sexual orientation or gender identity.

States have played a leading role in responding to the needs of the homeless, often investing substantial state resources to address the problem. An effective strategy to address homelessness will require a partnership among all levels of government, the private sector, and private non-profits. The federal government, in cooperation with state efforts, must assume a leading role.

The McKinney Homeless Assistance Act

The federal government began to supplement state and local efforts to aid the homeless by implementing the Omnibus Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. The McKinney Act addresses the needs of homeless people by providing for emergency shelter, food, health care, mental health care, housing, educational programs, job training, and other community services. While any comprehensive homelessness strategy includes addressing permanent housing solutions, the McKinney Act provides a necessary emergency response. Unfortunately, McKinney programs have never been funded at their authorized levels. Given the extent of the current homeless crisis, NCSL urges full funding and more effective implementation of the McKinney Act.

McKinney Act funds should be used to augment existing state programs and to address individual state needs. States need more flexibility in both the use of funds and administration of McKinney Act programs to use limited resources in the most cost-effective and efficient way. The state role in the coordination of McKinney Act funds with current state and local efforts should be enhanced to ensure that scarce federal resources can be used effectively. States need increased predictability regarding when the various grants will be awarded to assist in their planning efforts for the homeless. A small set-aside for state administration of McKinney Act funds would greatly assist states in their coordination role.

NCSL has found that states have often been unable to implement the McKinney Act Programs or use McKinney allotted funds. Unfortunately, state efforts to implement McKinney Act programs have been disadvantaged due to a lack of information from the administration on the availability of programs including application procedures and deadlines. The Administration must take a more aggressive role in disseminating information concerning the availability of McKinney funds, providing technical assistance to states and coordinating federal program initiatives.

There should be opportunities for state and federal government to develop properties that are vacant, under-utilized or foreclosed. NCSL urges the Federal government to actively make available to states, localities and non-profit agencies under-utilized or vacant federal properties that could be used for shelter and other services. Few eligible and suitable properties have been leased for homelessness services.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services also administers a wide range of programs for the homeless, programs that are critical because they address important needs of the homeless population, including mental health needs. NCSL urges a coordination of these efforts with the McKinney Act Programs and state and local programs.

August 2009

---

Improving Opportunities for Early Learning

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) strongly believes in the importance of early learning opportunities for young children. Brain research has shown that the neural connections that allow children to learn are made very early in life. The early years are a critical window of opportunity. Children without the proper stimulation and environment are at a deficit that is extremely difficult to overcome. Children in low-income families are especially at risk.

State legislators have been in the forefront of efforts to create and improve opportunities for children. States have maximized the use of the state and federally funded Child Care Development Block Grant and used even more of their own funds to increase the supply, quality and safety of child care. States have voluntarily supplemented the federal Head Start program. States have created their own pre-kindergarten programs. States have encouraged parental involvement to enhance children's early learning experience. Several states have special initiatives to improve the training and compensation of early learning teachers, as well as other programs to enhance early learning.

NCSL supports federal efforts to improve early learning opportunities for young children. Efforts to support early learning must provide states with the flexibility to meet local needs. However, any federal legislation must take into account current state fiscal conditions. Maintenance of effort requirements may make it difficult for states to take advantage of new federal funds when they face difficult decisions about how to fund all human services programs.

Any proposal to create a pool of federal funds for early learning programs must:

• Give states the opportunity to provide assistance to a range of early learning programs;
• Give states the opportunity to support initiatives to train and adequately compensate early learning providers;
• Allow states to supplement existing programs which already are improving children's early learning;
• Ensure state legislative authority to appropriate the funds;
• Use state-selected administrative structures;
• Ensure that state legislators are included in all aspects of these programs including advisory panels;
• Give states the opportunity to use a wide range of existing resources including, but not limited to, state and local funds that are not used to match another federal program, private funds, and in-kind contributions (plants, equipment, and services) to match the federal funds;
• Set eligibility requirements at the state level, and
• Be flexible to allow states to meet the increased demand for early learning services.

It is especially important that efforts to support early learning programs complement but are not at the expense of efforts to expand the Child Care and Development Block Grant Fund. Affordable child care is critical, especially if states are to continue their success at moving families from welfare to work and if new federal mandates are enacted to increase the hours and overall number of welfare recipients participating in work or work activities.

August 2011

---

Keeping the Federal Commitment To Welfare Reform And Human Services Programs

In 1996, Congress enacted and the President signed welfare reform legislation based on a partnership between the states and the federal government, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWORA). The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) strongly believes that the federal government must not depart from the historic welfare agreement made with the states and must maintain its commitment to welfare reform.

Congress reauthorized PRWORA in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA), making changes to the TANF program that will make federal work requirements more difficult to meet.  State legislators agree on the need for accountability in the program, but believe that the DRA provisions must be reexamined and revised, especially the work rate provisions, and that during that process, implementation of penalties for not complying with the new provisions should be delayed. 

In 1996, state and federal policymakers agreed to forego the sixty-year old AFDC entitlement program in exchange for greater authority and a capped, guaranteed funding stream for five years, the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Block Grant (TANF). The welfare reform agreement also included changes to Title XX, the Social Services Block Grant. Under PRWORA, funds for Title XX were reduced with the understanding that no further reductions would be made and states were allowed to transfer up to 10% of TANF to Title XX. It also included supplemental grants to states with high rates of population growth and historically low welfare spending and a contingency fund in case of economic decline.

Given the current budget environment, NCSL is concerned that Congress might dismantle this agreement either by reducing funding for TANF and related programs and the Social Services Block Grant (Title XX), or by not changing unworkable TANF provisions in current law or the subsequent preliminary rules issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. These actions strike at the very heart of devolution and represent a federal departure from the welfare reform agreement forged five years ago. We urge the Congress to maintain its commitment to existing welfare and related programs, such as Title XX, child care and LIHEAP. 

States have and continue to uphold their part of the welfare reform agreement. States expect no less from the federal government. The National Conference of State Legislatures urges Congress and the Administration to resist all efforts to cut the welfare block grant (TANF), the social services block grant, child care, LIHEAP or any related welfare program, to maintain TANF supplemental grant and contingency fund, and preserve the full integrity of the historic welfare agreement.

State and federal policymakers agreed to forego the sixty-year old AFDC entitlement program in exchange for greater authority and a capped, guaranteed funding stream for five years, the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Block Grant (TANF).  The welfare reform agreement also included changes to Title XX, the Social Service Block Grant.  Under PRWORA, funds for Title XX were reduced with the understanding that no further reductions would be made and states were allowed to transfer up to 10% of TANF to Title XX.  It also included supplemental grants to states with high rates of population growth and historically low welfare spending and a contingency fund in case of economic decline.

Given the current budget environment, NCSL is concerned that Congress might dismantle this agreement by reducing funding for TANF and related programs and the Social Services Block Grant (Title XX).  These actions strike at the very heart of devolution and represent a federal departure from the welfare reform agreement forged five years ago.  We urge the Congress to maintain its commitment to existing welfare and related programs, such as Title XX, child care and LIHEAP.

August 2011

---

Low Income Energy Assistance

The cost of energy fuels makes it difficult for low income households to adequately heat or cool their homes without assistance from federal, state, and local governments. NCSL believes that the development of an efficient and effective energy assistance program is dependent upon coordination and cooperation on the part of all levels of government and the private sector.

The federal energy assistance program should have two major components: a cash assistance program to help low income households meet their immediate financial obligations to their energy supplier and a weatherization assistance and conservation education program to help low income households lower energy consumption and costs. In addition, NCSL supports the use of interest subsidized loans to assist households to weatherize their homes.

NCSL believes that the low income energy assistance programs should: (1) include all states in the funding allocation formula; (2) afford states the flexibility to shape the program in a way which best suits the needs of its citizens and maintains strong state oversight of such programs; (3) target assistance to households with the lowest incomes and to households with infant, elderly, and/or disabled members; (4) authorize states to draw down program funds on an as needed basis; (5) prohibit counting energy assistance payments as income for the purpose of determining eligibility and/or benefit levels in the public assistance programs. NCSL supports funding at the highest authorized level for this program.

August 2009

---

Maintaining the Solvency of Social Security

(Joint policy with Labor and Economic Development Committee)

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) strongly believes that the federal government must preserve the financial integrity of the Social Security system and assure the long-term solvency of the program.  State legislatures believe that Social Security must ensure a safety net for low-income older retirees as well as provide survivor benefits and disability insurance.  It is critical that all workers paying into the system have confidence that Social Security will continue to be available to them at retirement or to provide for their survivors after their death.  NCSL believes that efforts to assure solvency should strengthen the existing program upon which so many beneficiaries and their families rely. Social Security reform should continue to encourage private savings and employer-provided pension plans as important components of retirement savings.

While Social Security currently has a surplus, the Social Security Board of Trustees report of 2008 predicts that in 2020 2017 trust fund expenditures will begin to exceed payroll tax revenues and interest on accumulated assets will need to be drawn down to pay benefits.  By 2041, the trust funds will be exhausted.

The Administration and Congress face difficult choices in maintaining the solvency of Social Security.  As Congress considers alternatives to maintain Social Security solvency, it must analyze and understand the impact of these proposals on states, taxpayers, state budgets, and state laws. Social Security reform will have major impacts on state employees, teachers, local government, private employers and taxpayers. State legislators oppose reform proposals that finance this shortfall by shifting federal costs to state budgets. If Social Security does not continue to provide a stable form of assistance to the elderly, state low-income programs and state budgets would be severely impacted. NCSL strongly opposes any efforts to reform Social Security that create unfunded mandates for the states or preempt state laws and authority.

NCSL encourages federal policymakers to consider the following concerns when deliberating Social Security reform proposals:

Mandatory Social Security Coverage of State and Local Government Employees

NCSL has long opposed further involvement of the federal government in the administration of public retirement plans including the expansion of mandated Social Security coverage to state and local employees not currently covered under the system. NCSL maintains that state and local governments should be allowed to affiliate their retirement plans voluntarily with Social Security, as was the case before passage of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. The imposition of mandatory coverage on state and local employees who are not currently required to contribute to the system constitutes a direct cost shift to states and will have a detrimental effect on state budgets, state retirement plans and the retirement savings of state and local employees. The extension of mandatory coverage to new categories of state and local employees does not solve the insolvency problem and creates new obligations for the system. NCSL's policy, "Mandatory Social Security Coverage of State and Local Government Employees," continues to oppose this mandate.

Increasing the Return on Social Security Investments

States and local retirement system choices provide models for federal reform of Social Security. We encourage Congress and the Administration to r