American Association of Community Colleges
Washington, DC 20036
March 8, 2002

The Honorable Wally Herger
Chairman
Subcommittee on Human Resources
   of the Committee on Ways and Means
B-317 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC  20515

Dear Chairman Herger:

The American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) represents more than 1,100 public and private, regionally accredited two-year institutions of higher education. On behalf of AACC, I hereby submit our statement for inclusion in the printed record for the March 7 hearing on the implementation of welfare reform work requirements and time limits.  We should say at the outset that we believe that the implementation of the welfare work requirements was flawed from the start, because the law provided most of its incentives for job placement and few for education and training.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), the 1996 welfare reform law, dramatically changed federal-state welfare programs designed to aid low-income American families. It replaced the entitlement to cash welfare benefits with a new state block grant, the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program, to provide flexible funding to states to operate welfare programs to achieve certain goals — the primary one being to end long-term dependency.  To that end, and with strong federal inducements, states dramatically reduced their welfare caseloads and met their work participation rates largely by placing recipients into readily available low-wage service-sector jobs. 

The federal law’s design effectively left states with few options to address their welfare caseloads. Allowing recipients to engage in educational activities, namely vocational education, was one method available under the law for states to meet the work participation requirement.  However, PRWORA restricted participation in this activity to 12 months and prevented states from using federal funds to support welfare recipients in this activity beyond that time.

Many responded to the spirit and letter of welfare reform by emphasizing work above all, in spite of other options permitted by law.  For instance, a study conducted by the Coalition for Independence through Education (CFITE) revealed that Michigan’s state welfare agencies discouraged education by stating it was “not a priority, or was not encouraged or supported by the state.” CFITE’s study noted that recipients often were not given information about allowable education activities and, after legislative changes to Michigan’s policy supposedly ensured they would, caseworkers continued to provide inaccurate information about the state’s policy. Another way the state discouraged education was through the withholding of child-care assistance to those in school.  The survey cited one recipient who was receiving childcare assistance while in school: “...my caseworker was switched.  Then they cut me off with no notification.  I had to call...to get a vague answer, ‘It was a mistake and you should have never received any kind of payment for child-care while attending college’.”  It is evident that TANF recipients viewed the loss of assistance as too high a price to pay for getting an education.  CFITE’s report clearly showed that Michigan, like many other states, felt it had little incentive to also promote education as a path to self-sufficiency although the law permitted participation in this activity. 

It is evident that the law’s stated limits on educational activity has caused states to adopt the work-first approach implicit in PRWORA.   Although states technically have significant flexibility in how they design their welfare reform programs, they share a common thread concerning limits to education and training activities.  By its design and threat of punitive action, i.e., the loss of federal funds, PRWORA dissuaded states from utilizing any other approach besides work first or, in many cases, work only.

AACC believes this situation can be corrected by lifting the disincentives on states that want to use education and training opportunities as a component of welfare reform.  The evidence abounds on the positive impact education has on future job and income prospects.  Therefore, it should be an option for TANF recipients who want to make a better life for themselves and their families.

Our association would welcome the opportunity to share these and other thoughts with you at length at an appropriate time.  We appreciate your engagement on these critical issues.

Thank you for extending us the opportunity to share our comments with the committee.

George R. Boggs
President and CEO