• Mission & Governance
• Services Overview
• How to Get Involved
• Standing Committees
• NCSL Foundation

• Issue Areas: A-Z
• State-Federal Relations
• NCSL Standing Committees
• News from D.C. and the States

• About State Legislatures
• Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory
• Web Sites

• Online Guide to NCSL Services
• Staff Sections and Networks
• Meetings & Professional Development
• Staff Directories

• Meetings Calendar
• Online Registration
• Meetings Home Page
• Legislative Summit

• Bookstore
• State Legislatures Magazine
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory

HUMAN SERVICES FEDERAL ISSUES

HUMAN SERVICES AND WELFARE COMMITTEE

 

March 20, 2007

The Honorable Jim McDermott                          The Honorable Jerry Weller
United States House of Representatives            United States House of Representatives 
Washington, D.C. 20515                                  Washington, D.C. 20515

 

TESTIMONY FOR THE RECORD
HEARING OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON INCOME SECURITY AND FAMILY SUPPORT
Change In Programs Serving Low-Income Families

Dear Chairman McDermott and Ranking Member Weller:

NCSL appreciates the opportunity to submit our positions on recent changes to programs assisting low-income families.  NCSL is very concerned about aspects of the Deficit Reduction Act  (P.L. 109-171) that represented a shift away from real state/federal partnerships in serving our nation’s struggling families and vulnerable children.  

Reauthorization of TANF

The Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) accomplished a long-sought reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program.  However, the types of changes made to TANF in the DRA could easily compromise very successful state programs.   Since its creation in 1996, the TANF program has moved families from welfare dependency to self-sufficiency.   The 1996 law, which NCSL supported, established a model bipartisan state-federal partnership, the hallmark of which was flexibility that enabled each state to design a welfare program tailored to the needs of its TANF recipients and local conditions.   State legislators were involved with reforming welfare even before the passage of the original 1996 law, and they share your commitment to seeing all recipients fully engaged in productive activities that will help them achieve self-sufficiency.  However, states need the flexibility to decide which services will help the families on its caseload become self-sufficient.   Unfortunately, the DRA and the subsequent Interim Final Rule made the TANF program less flexible. 

Work Requirements

Two Parent Families
One of the biggest concerns of states was not addressed in reauthorization, despite the fact that it was included in congressional and administration proposals.  This is a technical fix that Congress must make.   Ninety percent of the two parent families on a state’s caseload must be working, as compared to 50 percent of families headed by single parents.  HHS officials have stated that they do not believe this is a reasonable standard.  Two parent families on welfare are typically families with multiple barriers to self-sufficiency—for example, refugee families, or a parent caring for a disabled family member.   A legislative change to the work requirements for two parent families is the only way to ensure that these requirements are not counterproductive to our efforts to strengthen families.   NCSL would strongly support such action. 

What Counts As Work
The way that work activities are defined in the Interim Final Rule directly affects the ability of states to offer services that are tailored to help each family or recipient on the TANF program.   NCSL is very concerned that mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment, and rehabilitation activities are countable only under the six weeks of job search/job readiness.   Given that these barriers to work are so prevalent in the welfare population, recipients need to have adequate time to deal with them.  Such activities represent an important part of an effective engagement strategy for recipients.  Hours spent in such activities beyond the narrow time frame of job search and job readiness should also count, and should be allowed in other categories such as community service, job skills training related to employment or education directly related to employment.  If such activities are counted under the job search and job readiness category, given the strict limitations on job search and job readiness, states should not have to consider a few hours or day of such activity as an entire week.   

Education
Despite successful state programs that allow TANF recipients to work towards a B.A., HHS chose to use a very limited definition of education that would not allow states to count recipients in such programs in the work rate.  We are pleased to hear that HHS may reconsider the definition of education leading to employment.  Many states have successfully used a very focused post-secondary education in a programs focused on employment that lead to degrees that allowed recipients to access high paying jobs.   Education is already limited to 12 months, and there is no reason to further restrict state flexibility in this manner.  

Basic Skills Education
The definitions in the regulations limit basic skills education and English as a Second Language (ESL) to tightly integrated components of on-the-job and vocational education, making it very difficult for states to offer such programs in combination with other activities or on a stand alone basis.  Many participants require substantial basic education or ESL participation if they are to prepare adequately for employment and have a chance to move toward self-sufficiency  through work.  For example, better English skills might make a recipient employable in a trade he or she is otherwise qualified to pursue.  In such cases, it makes sense for that training to be available to the recipient—and it should be a countable activity.  Work place basic skills, computer training, and ESL should be part of on the job training where they are deemed necessary to prepare the participation for the job. 

Individuals With Disabilities
Even when states work hard to engage people with disabilities in productive activities and employment, the effort of these participants may not count under the rules of the TANF program. States receive no credit for the work effort of these recipients.  Because of  Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) concerns and because a state may have determined either through state statute or the federal SSI or SSDI application process that a recipient is disabled, a state may not want to sanction that recipient.  States need the option, on a case by case basis, to exclude adults from the work rate they have determined to be disabled or who are awaiting determination of their SSI or SSDI claim.  And those recipients who are pending SSI/SSDI cases should be taken into consideration as a factor in the “degree of noncompliance” determination by HHS when states are penalized for not meeting the work rate.  In addition, while we appreciate the provision that if an SSI applicant is approved a state can retroactively remove them from the rolls up until December 31^st, NCSL has asked  HHS to either extend that retroactivity to the final determination of the state’s work participation rates by HHS to allow for the lengthy SSI application and decision-making process, or extend retroactivity for two quarters, until March 31^st, to better align with wage data released at the beginning of the new year.  We urge Congress to ensure that states have flexibility to work with individuals with disabilities.     

State Legislative Calendars

NCSL urges Congress to delay the effective date of new TANF requirements.  States need to have time to carefully consider changes to their programs in order to comply with the law, including reallocating funding and changing state statutes.   Making changes to increase work participation rates is not a straightforward matter of implementing administrative changes.  Instead, it requires state policymakers to reconsider state TANF goals and fit continued achievement of these goals with the new federal requirements.  State officials can then make statutory, budget and administrative changes that would enable them to meet the federal requirements.  For example, Vermont’s TANF program is in state statute.  Vermont must modify its Reach Up program by modifying that statute (33 V.S.A. section 1101 et seq), which specifies the work hours required, deferments from participation, and separate state programs.  Ohio also has a fairly specific TANF statute that includes some definitions of work activities, as does North Dakota.    In several states, two parent families cannot be moved into programs supported by state general funds without legislative action.  When the Interim Final Rule was released in August, only 11 state legislatures were still in session, and most of those legislatures had already completed work on their budgets.  They were unable to immediately address changes to their program that require legislative actions.   Even though states are now in their 2007 legislative session, almost all of them will again be out of session in September, when the Final Rule is expected.  And additional guidance on the work plans is not expected until next month, when states legislatures are well on the path toward adjournment.    States are faced with having to make changes in their program that may not reflect final requirements.   NCSL urges Congress to delay date for implementation of new requirements for a year after the publication of final regulations. 

Child Support Incentive Funding

NCSL strongly supports legislation introduced in the House and the Senate repealing the provision in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 that prohibits states from using child support incentive funds to match federal funds for the program.   When this action was taken, the Congressional Budget Office identified the cut as an intergovernmental mandate that exceeds the threshold of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act.   

States have used incentive funds to draw down federal funds used for integral parts of the child support enforcement program.  The funds have allowed states to establish and enforce child support obligations, obtain health care coverage for children, and link low-income fathers to job programs.  The cut ignored the fact that funds for child support enforcement are used effectively and responsibly.  In fact, the child support enforcement program received a Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) rating of “effective,” and continues to be one of the highest rated block or formula grants of all federal programs.  

Consistent child support helps save children from being raised in poverty.  Reductions in child support administrative funds inevitably lead to lower child support collections, leaving families less able to achieve self-sufficiency.  We urge you to undo this  ill-considered action.

Conclusion
NCSL urges you to take steps to preserve state flexibility in the critically needed programs that serve low-income children and families.  State legislators believe that states have made good use of federal child support and TANF funding, and that states will continue to work to help families escape poverty.  A copy of our letter supporting repealing the DRA provision that prohibits states from using child support incentive funds to match federal funds is attached.  If you wish to discuss NCSL’s comments, please contact Sheri Steisel (sheri.steisel@ncsl.org) or  Lee Posey (lee.posey@ncsl.org), or call NCSL’s D.C. office at (202) 624-8196.

Sincerely,

Senator Leticia Van de Putte
Texas
President, NCSL