Statement of Martha F. Davis, Vice President and Legal
Director,
NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York, New York
Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources
of the House Committee on Ways and Means
Hearing on Welfare Reform Reauthorization Proposals
April 11, 2002
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
By way of introduction, my name is Martha F. Davis and I am the Vice President and Legal Director of NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. I also teach welfare law at New York University School of Law. For more than thirty years, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund has used the power of the law to define and defend women’s rights. Working in Congress, the courts and the media, NOW Legal Defense acts strategically to secure equality for women across the country. We currently chair a large coalition of groups – called the Building Opportunities Beyond Welfare Reform coalition – that is committed to shaping the welfare system to improve women’s lives and opportunities.
As this House approaches welfare reform reauthorization, we believe that there are five specific proposals that must be incorporated if welfare is to going to truly move women and their families out of poverty. There are also three proposals on the table, described below, that we believe would be harmful to the goals that we all share of assisting those in poverty to improve their lives.
First, any TANF reauthorization bill should expand opportunities for education and training. This is particularly important precisely because federal welfare primarily assists single female-headed families. Women can compete in the marketplace only if they have access to education and training. Consider these remarkable statistics: according to the National Committee on Pay Equity, a woman with a high school degree makes an average of $9000 a year less than a man with the same modest qualifications. Without additional education, women’s wages lag behind men’s; for example, in 1999 median weekly earnings for full-time wage and salary workers were $473 for women and $618 for men.[1] This gap is even more significant for women of color; African-American women are paid 65% of the salaries averaged by white men, while Latinas receive a mere 52%.[2] Significantly, however, 44% of adults (read women) on welfare report education less than high school.[3] In short, education and training are key to women’s economic security.
The Bush Administration proposes to thwart additional educational opportunities while instead using precious TANF dollars to promote marriage – a combination that gives women no choice but dependency, while intruding on one of their most private decisions. In contrast, our specific proposals for reform would promote women’s opportunities and abilities to compete for good jobs. Proposed legislative language is attached as Appendix A. In particular, TANF Reauthorization should expand the definition of work activity to include: elementary and secondary education, literacy, ESL, GED and higher education; participation in a work-study program; and 6 hours per week of study time. The arbitrary 12-month limit on training should be removed and individuals should be allowed access to a full range of training for jobs with living wages. Finally, the 30% cap on the percentage of a state’s caseload that can be counted toward federal work participation rates for individuals participating in vocational training or teens pursuing a high school diploma should be removed.
Second, civil rights laws must apply to TANF recipients. This is something that we at NOW Legal Defense have first hand experience with, since we represent two women who are suing New York City because they were sexually harassed in their welfare-to-work placements. Indeed, one of them was stalked by her City supervisor. Another plaintiff in the case was racially harassed when she found a noose hanging above her desk along with racist caricatures. New York City has taken the position that these women have no protections and no recourse, a position that has been upheld by a federal district court but that will almost certainly be appealed. This is plainly inconsistent with our national values. It undermines the legal and human rights of all workers when TANF recipients are denied basic protections. TANF Reauthorization should require evaluation of the extent to which states have complied with civil rights protections as related to TANF and recommendations for improving such compliance. Further, TANF Reauthorization should ensure application of workplace protections such as the Fair Labor Standards Act, OSHA, Titles VII and IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the ADA to TANF recipients in the same manner as such laws apply to other workers. Proposed legislative language is attached hereto as Appendix B.
Third, TANF Reauthorization should recognize that welfare recipients face multiple work/life barriers to economic security. Forty-four percent of TANF recipients face more than one barrier to employment.[4] As many as 60% of women receiving welfare have been victims of domestic violence as adults and as many as 30% report abuse within the last year.[5] Long-term welfare recipients are 75% more likely than those on welfare for less than two years to have extremely low basic skills. Long-term recipients are also 39% more likely to have a mental health problem, 69% more likely to have abused alcohol, and 56% more likely to have a medical problem.[6] To address this, TANF Reauthorization must ensure that trained caseworkers screen individuals for barriers to economic security, refer those in need to qualified professionals for assessment and service provision, and recognize participation in counseling or other activities that address these barriers as work activities. Further, the Family Violence Option, the groundbreaking initiative from the 1996 law that has been adopted by 43 states, should be mandatory in every state. NOW Legal Defense worked closely with members of Congress in crafting the option. Proposed legislative language to extend the Family Violence Option to all states is attached as Appendix C.
Fourth, safe, quality child care must be a key component of welfare reform. Only 12% of eligible families are currently receiving federal child care assistance.[7] TANF Reauthorization must ensure access to child care to TANF recipients who are engaged in a work activity, and increase CCDBG funding to meet that goal. Further, TANF Reauthorization should strengthen protections from sanctions for parents who cannot find child care. Although current law includes sanction protection for single parents with a child under age 6, there are no protections for parents with children over age 6 who cannot find appropriate or affordable after school care or for parents of children who may need specialized care. I think we can all agree that a 7-year-old is not ready to stay home alone. TANF Reauthorization must recognize that older children need care, and if such care is not available, families should not lose basic subsistence benefits as a result. Proposed legislative language that would address this issue is attached as Appendix D.
Fifth, TANF Reauthorization should be fair to those families that are playing by the rules and, because of larger economic factors, continue to need welfare. As the economy has soured, the need for cash assistance has increased. Thirty-three states reported higher caseloads in September 2002 than in March 2001. Some states have shown continuous caseload growth in recent months, including substantial growth over the past year in Nevada (38%), Indiana (25%) and West Virginia (22%).[8] To address these issues, TANF Reauthorization must ensure that the clock is stopped while individuals are in compliance with program rules (for instance, engaged in a work activity). The arbitrary 20% cap on hardship exemptions should be repealed. Finally, the time clock should be stopped by a recession, when the state unemployment rate is 5.5% or higher, or has increased by the lesser of 50% or 1.5 percentage points. The legislative language in Appendix A would address these concerns.
If these five proposals were adopted as part of TANF Reauthorization, it would go a long way to improving the system and addressing the needs of poor women and families on welfare.
While there are many components of the Bush Administration’s TANF Reauthorization Proposal about which we have grave concerns, there are three components that we believe would significantly harm women on welfare and their families.
First, the Bush Administration has proposed continuing federal TANF funding at the 1996 level through 2007, despite the clear need for a major increase. This funding level is tens of billions less than the amount that is needed to address family poverty and support parental employment, and represents a substantial cut in funding after inflation.
Second, the Bush Administration’s plan would further divert TANF funds away from cash assistance and job training by setting aside $300 million for highly speculative and faddish marriage promotion and family formation projects. Particularly when juxtaposed with the Administration’s failure to expand educational opportunities for welfare recipients – an already proven route out of poverty – the Administration’s plan seems intended to return us to a day when women were expected to sacrifice their individual potentials and opportunities at the altar. Many – in fact, polls say the majority of the public – are skeptical of any government role in promoting marriage. Certainly, if public funds are to be used for this purpose, they should not be taken from funds needed to provide basic cash assistance, training and child care. Similarly, while there is a need for more funding for “responsible parenthood” programs which provide services to low income non-custodial parents, this should be new funding, not a diversion from existing capped amounts. And these programs should serve all non-custodial parents, not just non-custodial fathers, as the Bush plan seems to propose.
Finally, the Bush plan would increase to 40 the number of hours required for work to count; increase the participation rate standard to 70%; and eliminate the case load reduction adjustment to the participation rate standard. To meet these new requirements, states would almost inevitably have to assign most recipients to workfare programs, where they would work from 24-40 hours a week without compensation beyond their welfare check. This is counterproductive. Studies have consistently shown that education and training are critical components of moving toward self-sufficiency. Further, welfare families are by definition families with children. We have already seen disturbing evidence that onerous work requirements are harmful to these families – increasing delinquency, for example. Increasing the required hours will only further undermine these families.
In sum, TANF Reauthorization provides an opportunity to assess the successes and failures of the past six years, and improve upon the current system. To do that, Congress must pay careful attention to the data that demonstrates that welfare reform cannot be done “on the cheap” and that education, training and child care are critical components of successful poverty reduction. We look forward to working with you to improve the lives of low income women as this legislation moves forward.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
WORK REQUIREMENTS FOR TANF RECIPIENTS
The Problem: States and recipients should be able to choose from a variety of work activities for placement under the TANF program. In addition, if a recipient is complying with all work requirements, the time clock should not be running against her.
The Solution: The list of potential work activities should be expanded. A bonus should be created to reward states for high performance in moving recipients into employment that will move families out of poverty, removing employment barriers and providing work supports. The statute should be amended as follows:
Expansion of work activities:
Section 407(d) (42 USC 607(d)) is amended as follows:
(1) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
(4) transitional work experience leading to jobs that provide an income of not less than 250% of the poverty line;”
(2) by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following:
(7) voluntary participation in a community service program;”
(3) in paragraph (8) by striking “(not to exceed 12 months with respect to any individual)”;
(4) by striking paragraph (9) and inserting the following:
(9) job skills training directly related to employment, including participation in training for technical, professional, or nontraditional occupations for women.
(5) by striking paragraphs (10) through (12) and inserting the following:
(10) participation in a State or Federal work-study program under part C of titile IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965;
(11) education, including but not more than 6 hours of home study per week, in the case of a recipient who is enrolled –
(A) at an elementary or secondary school (as defined in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965);
(B) in a course of study leading to adult literacy, English as a second language, or a certificate of high school equivalency; or
(C) at an institution of higher education (as defined in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965), regardless of the content of the course of study;
(12) the provision of appropriate care to a child who has a disability or a serious health condition (as defined in section 101(11) of the Family Medical Leave Act) or has not attained 6 years of age, by a recipient who is a parent or caretaker relative of the child; and
(13) participation in treatment or an educational activity designed to address a mental health problem, disability, substance abuse, or domestic or sexual violence.
Removal of limitation on educational activities:
Section 407(c) (42 USC 607(c)) is amended to strike paragraph (D).
Time limit exception:
Section 408(a)(7); 42 USC 608(a)(7) is amended by adding at the end the following:
(H) EXCEPTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH WORK ACTIVITIES. – In determining the number of months for which an individual has received assistance under the State program funded under this part, the State shall disregard any month throughout which the individual is in compliance with all applicable work requirements of the State program.
Bonus:
Amend Section 403(a)(4) (42 USC 603(a)(4)) to read as follows:
(4) BONUS TO REWARD HIGH PERFORMANCE STATES –
(A) IN GENERAL – The Secretary shall make a grant pursuant to this paragraph for each bonus year for which the State is a high performing State with respect to a category described in subparagraph (C).
(B) AMOUNT OF GRANT –
(i) Subject to clause (ii) of this paragraph, the Secretary shall determine the amount of the grant payable under this paragraph to a high performing State under each of the three categories described in subparagraph (C) which shall be based on the score assigned to the State under subparagraph (D)(i) for the fiscal year that immediately precedes the bonus year.
(ii) The total of the amounts payable to a State under the paragraph for a bonus year shall not exceed 5 percent of the State family assistance grant.
(C) FORMULA FOR MEASURING STATE PERFORMANCE – Not later than October 1, 2003, the Secretary in consultation with affected groups, including recipient groups and State governors, shall issue regulations implementing criteria for awarding bonuses under this paragraph in each of the three following categories:
(i) PREPARATION AND PLACEMENT OF RECIPIENTS IN EMPLOYMENT THAT WILL MOVE FAMILIES OUT OF POVERTY -- The degree of success in implementing employment-related measures, including job entry, job retention and earnings gain rates, improvement in each of such measures, and the success of States in –
(I) meeting self-sufficiency needs for welfare leavers;
(II) training, placing and retaining welfare leavers in higher-waged jobs identified in an assessment done by the State;
(III) training, placing and retaining welfare leavers in technical, professional or non-traditional employment occupations for women;
(IV) providing career development assistance related to higher-waged jobs including reliable, up-to-date career counseling services, employability assessments on available employment that pays a sustainable wage, nontraditional training and education options and employment opportunities;
(V) encouraging participation in post-secondary educational programs;
(VI) encouraging use of effective literacy programs that strengthen basic skills in the context of employment; and
(VII) encouraging participation in vocational education programs for occupations identified in an assessment of available jobs that pay a sustainable wage.
(ii) REMOVAL OF BARRIERS TO SELF SUFFICIENCY – The degree of success in removing mental health, substance abuse, disability or domestic or sexual violence barriers to escaping poverty;
(iii) PROVISION OF WORK SUPPORTS – The extent to which the State has increased the percentages of eligible families receiving (I) Food Stamps; (II) Medicaid and SCHIP; and (III) Child Care Subsidies.
(D) SCORING OF STATE PERFORMANCE; SETTING OF PERFORMANCE THRESHOLDS – For each bonus year, the Secretary shall – (i) use the performance measure developed under each of the three criteria in subparagraph (C) for a measure to assign a score to each eligible State with respect to the measure for the fiscal year that immediately precedes the bonus year; and (ii) prescribe a performance threshold for each such measure in such a manner so as to ensure that – (I) the average total amount of grants under this paragraph for each bonus year is $200 million; (II) each measure described in subparagraph (C) is assigned a bonus reward of not less than $60 million; and (III) the total amount of grants to be made under this paragraph for all bonus years equals $1,000,000,000.
(E) DEFINITIONS. – In this paragraph:
(i) BONUS YEAR – The term “bonus year” means fiscal years 2002 through 2008.
(ii) HIGH PERFORMING STATE – The term “high performing State” means with respect to a measure and a bonus year, an eligible State whose score assigned pursuant to subparagraph (D)(i) with respect to one of the measures under subparagraph (C) for the fiscal year immediately preceding the bonus year equals or exceeds the performance threshold prescribed by the Secretary.
APPENDIX B
CIVIL RIGHTS
The Problem: Just like other employees, welfare recipients in work experience programs, welfare-to-work placements, and job training programs have the right to a discrimination-free workplace. From the beginning of the TANF program, the federal executive branch has consistently said that federal employment protection laws, such as the minimum wage law and the employment discrimination laws, apply to workers in TANF workfare programs in the same way they apply to other workers. The statute should be amended to clarify this and to codify the position of the federal executive branch.
The Solution:
Amend Section 407(d) (42 U.S.C. 607(d)) as follows:
(1) by adding a new subsection (e) as follows:
(e) Application of workplace laws to welfare recipients.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, workplace laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), shall apply to an individual who is a recipient of assistance under the temporary assistance to needy families program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) in the same manner as such laws apply to other workers. The fact that an individual who is a recipient of assistance under the temporary assistance to needy families program is participating in, or seeking to participate in work activities under that program in satisfaction of the work activity requirements of the program, shall not deprive the individual of the protection of any Federal, State, or local workplace law.
Section 408(d) (42 U.S.C. 608(d)) is amended as follows:
(1) by adding at the end the following –
(5) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681)
APPENDIX C
FAMILY VIOLENCE OPTION
The Problem: Federal law permits each state to choose whether to adopt the Family Violence Option, or “FVO,” in their administration of TANF. Adoption permits the state to waive welfare applicants and recipients, from some or all welfare program requirements if they are victims of domestic or sexual abuse or violence (definitions of these terms vary from state to state). Among welfare requirements that states may waive are participation in work activities, time limits on benefits, and cooperation with child support collection. Since 1996, a majority of states (32) and the District of Columbia have adopted the FVO as part of their welfare law. Twelve other states have equivalent policies that enable abuse and violence victims in some cases to seek temporary or indefinite waivers from some or all TANF requirements. However, five states have no FVO policies.
The Solution: Amend the Family Violence Option, requiring states to certify that they have established standards and procedures to ensure that trained caseworkers will screen individuals for domestic or sexual violence, and extend the federal definition of work to include participation in counseling or other activities designed to address domestic or sexual violence.
A BILL TO ENSURE THAT ALL STATES ADDRESS DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN THEIR TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE TO NEEDY FAMILIES PROGRAM.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘SAFETY AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY Act of 2001’’.
SECTION 2. ADDRESSING DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN TANF PROGRAM
Section 402(a)(7) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(7)) is amended—
(1) by striking the heading and subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting the following—
‘‘(7) CERTIFICATIONS REGARDING DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE –
‘‘(A) GENERAL PROVISIONS –A certification by the chief executive officer of the State that the State has established and is enforcing standards and procedures to ensure domestic and sexual violence is comprehensively addressed, and a written document outlining how the State will do the following:
‘‘(i) Address the needs of a recipient who is or has been subjected to domestic or sexual violence, including how the State will—
‘‘(I) have trained caseworkers screen, and, at the option of the recipient, assess and identify individuals who are or have been subjected to domestic or sexual violence;
“(II) provide each recipient of assistance with adequate notice of eligibility and program requirements, confidentiality provisions, assessment and program services, and modifications and waivers available to such individuals as well as the process to access such services, modifications, or waivers;
‘‘(III) refer such individuals for appropriate counseling and other supportive services, modify or waive eligibility or program requirements or prohibitions to address domestic violence and sexual assault barriers, and ensure such individual’s access to job training, vocational rehabilitation, and other employment-related services as appropriate;
‘‘(IV) restrict the disclosure of any identifying information obtained through any process or procedure implemented pursuant to this section absent the individual’s written consent or unless otherwise required to do so under law; and
‘‘(V) pursuant to a determination of good cause, waive, without time limit, any State or Federal eligibility or program requirement or prohibition for so long as necessary, in every case in which an individual or family receiving assistance under this part has been identified as having been subjected to domestic or sexual violence and the requirement makes it more difficult for the individual to address, escape or recover from the violence, unfairly penalizes the individual, or makes the individual or the individual’s child(ren) unsafe.
“ (ii) Coordinate or contract with state or tribal domestic violence coalitions, sexual assault coalitions, or domestic or sexual violence programs in the development and implementation of standards, procedures, training, and programs required under this Act. to address domestic and sexual violence.
“ (iii) CASEWORKER TRAINING.—Train caseworkers in—
“ (I) the nature and dynamics of domestic or sexual violence and the ways in which they may act to obstruct the economic security or safety of the individual and the individual’s children;
“ (II) the standards, policies and procedures implemented pursuant to this part, including the individual’s rights and protections, such as notice and confidentiality;
“ (III) how to screen for and identify when domestic or sexual violence creates barriers to compliance, and how to make effective referrals for services and modify eligibility and program requirements and prohibitions to address domestic and sexual violence barriers; and
‘‘(IV) the process for determining good cause for noncompliance with an eligibility or program requirement or prohibition and granting waivers of such requirements.
‘‘(iv) USE OF QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS.—At State option, enter into contracts with or employ qualified domestic violence and sexual violence professionals for the provision of services in each of the fields of domestic or sexual violence.
‘‘(B) DEFINITIONS.—
“(i) DOMESTIC OR SEXUAL VIOLENCE.—In this title, the term ‘domestic or sexual violence’ has the same meaning as ‘battered or subject to extreme cruelty’ in 402(A)(7)(C)(II).’’
“ (ii) QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL DEFINED— For purposes of this Act, the term `qualified professional' includes a State or local victim services organization with recognized expertise in the dynamics of domestic or sexual violence who has as one of its primary purposes to provide services to victims of domestic or sexual violence, such as a sexual assault crisis center or domestic violence program, or an individual trained by such an organization.
SECTION 3. ASSESSMENT.
(1) Section 408(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 608(b)(1) is amended by striking “and” and inserting after employability, “and potential barriers, including domestic or sexual violence, mental or physical health, learning disability, substance abuse, English as a second language, or insufficient housing, transportation or child care”
(1) Section 408(b)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 608(b)(2)(A) is amended by striking “and” at the end of paragraph (iv) and the period at the end of paragraph (v), and inserting “; and” and inserting—
(vi) documents the individual’s receipt of adequate notice of program requirements, confidentiality provisions, assessment and program services, and waivers available to individuals who have or may have been subjected to domestic or sexual violence, as well as the process to access such services or waivers; and
(vii) may not require the individual to participate in services to address domestic or sexual violence.
SECTION 4. REVIEW AND CONCILIATION PROCESS.
Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(12) REVIEW AND CONCILIATION PROCESS.—
(A) In general—A State to which a grant is made under section 403 shall not
impose a sanction or penalty against an individual under the State program
funded under this part on the basis of noncompliance by an individual or
family with a program requirement, where domestic or sexual violence is a
significant contributing factor in the noncompliance; and
(B) Prior to imposing a sanction or penalty, the State shall specifically consider whether the individual has been or is being subjected to domestic or sexual violence, and where such violence is identified, make a reasonable effort to modify or waive program requirements or prohibitions, and offer the individual referral to voluntary services to address the violence.
SECTION 5. STATE OPTION TO INCLUDE SURVIVORS IN WORK PARTICIPATION RATES—
STATE OPTION TO INCLUDE SURVIVORS IN WORK PARTICIPATION RATES—
States may consider individuals receiving services or a waiver from program
requirements under Section 402 (a)(7) as being engaged in work for the
month for purposes of determining the monthly participation rates under
subsection (b)(1(B)(i).
SEC. 6. EXCLUSION OF SURVIVORS OF DOMESTIC OR SEXUAL VIOLENCE FROM 20 PERCENT LIMITATION ON HARDSHIP EXCEPTION—
Section 408(a)(7)(C) (42 USC 608(a)(7)(C) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking ‘by reason of’ and all that follows through
the period and inserting ‘by reason of--
(I) hardship; or
(II) if the family includes an individual who has been subjected to domestic or sexual violence
(2) in clause (ii), by striking ‘clause (i)’ and inserting ‘clause (i)(I)’ and
(3) in clause (iii), by striking ‘clause (i)’ and inserting ‘clause (i)(II).
SECTION 7. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
Section 413 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 613) is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(j) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—
‘‘(1) GRANTS AUTHORIZED- The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall make an award to a national victim services organization or organizations to identify and provide technical assistance with respect to model standards and procedures, practices and training designed to comprehensively address domestic and sexual violence, including for individuals with multiple barriers, and move individuals subjected to domestic or sexual violence into employment without compromising their safety or that of their child(ren).”
“(2) GRANTS TO STATES.— The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide grants to states and localities to contract with a State or tribal domestic violence coalition or sexual assault coalition or joint domestic and sexual violence coalition to—
(i) provide training to caseworkers and technical assistance regarding screening, assessing, and providing services to address domestic or sexual violence, modifying or waiving eligibility or program requirements or prohibitions, and assisting individuals subjected to domestic or sexual violence to secure and retain employment; and
(ii) develop and implement demonstration projects to promote best practices in serving individuals who have been subjected to domestic or sexual violence, with priority given to programs that contract with qualified professionals.
‘‘(3) LIMITATIONS ON AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—To carry out paragraph (1), there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $1,000,000 for Fiscal Year 2003, to carry out paragraph (2) there are to be authorized and appropriated not more than $10,000,000 for each fiscal year 2003 – 2007.
APPENDIX D
CHILD CARE PROTECTIONS
The Problem: Nearly all of the adults moving off welfare and into waged work are women with children. But women with children can only work if they have access to reliable and affordable childcare. Without it, their families’ financial security and well-being are jeopardized. A report issued in 2000 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, found that only 12% of eligible families are currently receiving federal childcare assistance.
The Solution:
Sanction protection amendments:
Amend Section 407(e)(2) as follows:
(1) By striking “EXCEPTION” and inserting “CHILD CARE EXCEPTION”; and
(2) By striking “proves that the individual has a demonstrated inability (as determined by the State)” and inserting “certifies that the individual is unable”; and
(3) By adding at the end of paragraph (2) the following:
a. “(3) ADDITIONAL CHILD CARE EXCEPTIONS – Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a State may not reduce or terminate assistance under the State program funded under this part based on a refusal of an individual to engage in work required in accordance with this section if the individual is a custodial parent or caretaker relative caring for –
(A) a child who has a disability or a serious health condition (as defined in section 101(11) of the Family and Medical Leave Act), and the individual does not have meaningful access to safe, appropriate, affordable, and quality care for the child; or
(B) a child who has attained 6 years of age and the individual does not have meaningful access to safe, appropriate, affordable quality after-school or summer care for the child.
Work Requirement Amendments for Parents of School Age Children:
Section 407(c)(1)(A) should be amended by adding the following provision at the end of the section:
“Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the maximum average number of hours per week shall be 20 for any week in which the recipient is the parent or caretaker relative of a child who has attained 6 years of age and does not have meaningful access to safe, appropriate, affordable quality after-school or summer care for the child.”
[1] U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Women’s Bureau, “20 Facts on Women Workers” (Mar. 2000), available at http://www.dol.gov/dol/wb/public/wb_pubs/20fact00.htm.
[2] Nat’l Comm. on Pay Equity, “Advocates Take Action for Fair Pay,” press release (Mar. 13, 2001).
[3]Zedlewski, Shelia. “Do Families on Welfare in the Post TANF Era Differ from Their Pre TANF Counterparts?” Urban Institute New Federalism. (Washington: February 2001). Online access 10/09/01 http://newfederalism.urban.org/pdf/discussion01-03.pdf at 18.
[4] GAO, More Coordinated Federal Effort Could Help States and Localities Move TANF Recipients With Impairments Towards Employment (GAO-02-37) at 3-4.
[5] Richard Tolman & Jody Raphael, A Review of Research on Welfare and Domestic Violence, 56 J. of Soc. Issues (no. 4) 655-82, at 657.
[6] Krista Olson & LaDonna Pavetti, “Personal and Family Challenges to the Successful Transition from Welfare to Work.” The Urban Institute (Washington: 1996) at http://www.urban.org/welfare/reportl.htm.
[7] HHS, ACF, HHS News, New Statistics Show Only Small Percentage of Eligible Families Receive Child Care Help. (Dec. 6, 2000).
[8] Center for Law and Social Policy. “Welfare Caseloads Are Up in Most States.” At http://www.clasp.org/pubs/TANF/FY01%20Caseload%20Data.htm (visited Jan. 15, 2002).