|
The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) appreciates the opportunity to offer comments on the reauthorization of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), which established the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant. We applaud the Administration's efforts to hear from state and local governments, current and former clients, as well as the public, prior to creating your proposal for TANF reauthorization. The recent listening sessions around the country presented opportunities for some state legislators to share their experiences with welfare reform and raise issues regarding reauthorization.
States have used the flexibility in the TANF program to move large numbers of former welfare recipients from dependency on a welfare check to self-sufficiency, and to fund services such as expanded child care, substance abuse treatment, pre-kindergarten classes, training to help parents get better jobs and afterschool programs aimed at reducing teen pregnancy. The caseload for cash assistance has declined nearly 60% nationally since passage of PRWORA. However, the total caseload has increased, and this is why states are asking for continued full funding. The upcoming reauthorization of TANF program presents an incredible opportunity to continue the progress that has been possible under PRWORA.
State legislators are responsible for writing and implementing laws governing the TANF program in their states, for overseeing the programs in their states, and for appropriating TANF and Maintenance of Effort (MOE) funds. Their choices and successes offer the federal government a chance to learn what really works to help struggling families, just as the federal government drew on state efforts to reform welfare in crafting the 1996 law. We urge you to keep in mind the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act as you develop policies and proposals in this area and request that HHS schedule additional meetings with representatives of state and local government organizations to get state input as work on reauthorization continues. As you know, NCSL has established a task force on welfare reform reauthorization. The task force is currently meeting to develop NCSL policy on specific issues. However, NCSL offers the following comments based on our current policy guidelines at this stage in the process.
Given the declining economy and the impact of the tragic events of September 11th on industries that have traditionally hired former welfare recipients, we urge you to pay special attention to ensure that there are no adverse unintended consequences in your reform proposals.
DEVOLUTION
The 1996 law should be seen in the context of devolution. States accepted a block grant and assumed the risks that caseloads might increase in return for the freedom to try new approaches to providing welfare. The devolution process has continued, as some states have devolved considerable authority for the welfare program to the county level. States have appreciated the ability to target their programs to meet the specific needs of their populations. However, because of the differences in the ways states have implemented programs, any changes in the TANF program made at the federal level must be carefully crafted so as not impede the progress made by innovative state and county programs. A key feature of the 1996 law was flexibility. The law set out goals for the program and gave states the authority to determine how to best accomplish the goals. We urge you to avoid earmarks, preemption of state authority or mandates on the states as they compromise the spirit of state/federal partnership critical to our success.
Devolution of responsibility to the states was such a fundamental part of the 1996 effort that the law clearly limited the authority of HHS to promulgate TANF regulations. The law states that unless such authority is granted for specific provisions, HHS may not regulate them. To honor the spirit of the law, HHS should keep welfare regulations to a minimum and work with states to preserve the law's flexibility to the maximum extent possible. For regulations in the other titles of the legislation, from child care to child support enforcement to Medicaid, we urge the federal government to provide the states with maximum flexibility.
FUNDING
TANF Block Grant
The TANF block grant must not be reduced. Its is true that the cash assistance has declined, but the overall caseload receiving TANF and MOE funded services has not. With TANF and MOE funds, states can serve families who receive welfare, who formerly received cash welfare, as well as families who have never received cash welfare. Providing critical services to families who are working, but at low wage jobs, ensures that those families do not turn to welfare or return to welfare. This ensures the best possible outcomes for the children in those families and breaks the cycle of welfare dependency. The comments below address funding issues around the TANF block grant; comments on child care funding and the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) are covered in other sections.
TANF Supplemental
The 1996 law provided grants to states with historically low levels of welfare spending and with high population growth, ensuring that they were not disadvantaged by the block grant formula. These grants expired at the end of FY 2001. Without the restoration of the grants, states that received them will be hard pressed to continue innovative programs and a divisive formula fight will ensue.
State Legislative Authority ("The Brown Amendment")
Language in the 1996 law gives state legislatures the specific authority to appropriate state TANF funds. This authority invests states legislators fully in the TANF program and increases state oversight of TANF funds. This is a critical point of the 1996 law that must be maintained.
Funds Carried Over From One Fiscal Year to the Next
According to the April 1999 regulations, funds carried over from one fiscal year to the next can only be spent on assistance-- cash, food, and housing. This severely impacts state flexibility to provide services that might keep someone from needing cash assistance. We urge you to revisit these regulations. Carried-over TANF funds should be as flexible as current year TANF funds.
Economic Downturn/Contingency Funds
The present economic recession, the effects of which were compounded by the tragic events of September 11th, has hit state budgets hard. NCSL has reported that 44 states reported revenues below projections in the opening months of their new fiscal years, and 28 states are making or considering budget cuts or postponing expenditures. State funds will not be available to continue effective programs if federal TANF funds are reduced. If the present recession continues, and welfare caseloads increase, states will have to spend a greater percentage of their funds on cash assistance, and there will less money available for supports such as child care and transportation that help low-wage workers keep their jobs.
There is no longer any TANF mechanism to assist states in times of an economic downturn. A contingency fund should be part of any reauthorization proposal. It must be a contingency fund with a less restrictive trigger mechanism and with less complicated requirements for state participation. NCSL urges the federal government to construct the reconciliation and maintenance of effort provisions of the contingency fund so that needy states can have greater access to it.
In addition, states are discouraged from maintaining their own contingency funds because such funds remain in the federal treasury and are considered unobligated, thus making it appear that those funds are not needed or not allocated for any purpose. This issue that should also be addressed in reauthorization and an example of the unfortunate interactions between the block grant and the federal Cash Management Improvement Act. We have attached our comments to the Department of the Treasury on the Cash Management Improvement Act (CMIA) which lay out issues involving CMIA and the TANF block grant. We urge HHS to resolve these problems
FLEXIBILITY
Flexibility is an issue that must be discussed in tandem with funding. The flexibility in the law and the April 1999 TANF regulations has allowed states to target resources to meet state needs, as long as expenditures meet one of the four goals of the TANF program. The purposes provide a flexible source of accountability, telling states they are responsible for using TANF funds in a certain way, but does not tie the hands of the states by earmarking funds or mandating specific activities. We urge you to make flexibility for state policymaking a key theme in all aspects of reauthorization, including TANF, MOE, child care, child welfare and child support.
CHILD CARE
NCSL congratulates the Administration for its proposal to expand funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant. Full funding of TANF is important for children, as is the ability to transfer up to 30% of the block grant into the CCDBG. In fact, more than 20% of TANF spending and transfers go to child care. However, we continue to oppose further earmarking of the block grant. State legislators are concerned about meeting the special needs of certain populations: disabled children, infants and older children in after-school care. 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 the flexibility to direct these funds and make the provision of child care more difficult. NCSL urges HHS to lift the age restriction on CCDBG funds.
Child care is a critical component of long-term family self-sufficiency. 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. NCSL appreciates that ACF 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 you to re-consider the distinction in TANF regulations that counts child care and other work supports for the unemployed as assistance. This will be particularly important if the recession continues and 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.
SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT
Social Services Block Grant (SSBG or Title XX) funds are a vital part of the delivery of community and home-based services to the most vulnerable segments of society including the disabled, elderly, and children in need of protective services. These services often allow individuals to receive services in their homes and communities, not in more expensive residential settings. NCSL urges you to fund the SSBG at the level agreed to as part of the enactment of the 1996 welfare reform act. In addition, it is critical that the amount states can transfer from their TANF grants to the SSBG remains at 10% and is not reduced. SSBG funds programs that complement TANF's goal of self-sufficiency. States use their SSBG funds to provide protective services for children and adults, adult day care, meal preparation and delivery for the elderly, counseling services, and serve the disabled in their homes, rather than in institutions. Further reductions in funding for this grant would mean programmatic losses and service reductions.
FOOD STAMPS
Federal food stamp provisions are in conflict with state welfare reform efforts and are extremely complex. Complexity leads to quality control errors and penalties. The Quality Control (Q.C.) system that evaluates state performance in the food stamp program focuses on strict compliance with detailed payment accuracy requirements. States that exceed the national average of payment errors are subject to substantial financial penalties. The program was designed to function in a time when most food stamp recipients also received cash payments through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. Few recipients worked and recipients' monthly budgets were predictable. States that have large numbers of former welfare recipients entering the workforce have an increased risk of quality control errors simply because of the composition of their population. In effect, they are penalized for their success in welfare reform.
IMMIGRATION
NCSL continues to urge the Congress and the Administration to reconsider the extent of the denials of eligibility for SSI and food stamps for legal immigrants and most refugees. P.L. 104-193 eliminated most of the federal safety net that serves legal immigrants and consequently shifted these costs to states. We believe these provisions violate the spirit of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The law further required states to implement costly administrative eligibility determinations without providing any federal resources to do so. While some benefits have been restored to some immigrants, much more should be done. State governments find that the complexity of determining eligibility for programs is a great burden because of the treatment of immigrants. The 1996 federal welfare law not only restricted immigrants' eligibility for critical services, but also deterred eligible U.S. citizen and immigrant family members from securing services. Restrictions on immigrants' directly affect citizens: 85 percent of immigrant families include at least one U.S. citizen family member. Provisions in TANF and related programs concerning immigrants are confusing for caseworkers and policymakers alike, and should be reexamined.
NCSL looks forward to working with you on welfare reform reauthorization. We know that you understand the importance of states being involved in reauthorizing welfare reform. If you have questions, please contact Sheri Steisel, Federal Affairs Counsel and Senior Committee Director for Human Services at (202) 624-8693 or contact her by e-mail at sheri.steisel@ncsl.org. |
