Statement of Kate Kahan, Executive Director,
Working for Equality and Economic Liberation, Missoula, Montana

Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources
of the House Committee on Ways and Means

Hearing on Welfare Reform Reauthorization Proposals

April 11, 2002

My name is Kate Kahan, I am the executive director for WEEL, Working for Equality and Economic Liberation, a Montana based organization focused on poverty issues. WEEL works with people in poverty across Montana, in the western region and nationally. WEEL has been a strong presence in the national arena surrounding welfare reauthorization, specifically utilizing the state experience with welfare reform to contribute information, lessons learned and model policy to the national debate. Given that focus, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the Bush Proposal for welfare reauthorization from the state perspective.

First, I would like to share my personal story. I am a former welfare recipient.  When I first applied for welfare at 6 months pregnant, with little to no job experience, I was denied assistance due to the fact that I had $7 too much in my bank account. Having no family or financial resources to turn to, I married the father of my child. Less than two years later, I found myself fleeing a violent home. I began receiving welfare and going to college. While in college I had a work-study job in a field that I knew I wanted to pursue employment in after completing my degree. The education and experience I gained ultimately helped me move out of poverty.  Marriage was not the solution to my poverty or my son's poverty. If I had not left that violent home, I can assure you I would not be here today, I would have died.

This story is reflective of many other women on welfare today. In the past 12 months, Over 50% of WEEL's advocacy calls, which are specifically focused on welfare, have been domestic violence related.  Welfare offices are focused on case load reduction and keeping people off of welfare and that puts women attempting to leave violent homes in a position no-one should ever have to face. Women facing violence should never have to make the choice between the security of food on the table for their children and continued violence. Far too many women in poverty are facing this devastating situation. Marriage promotion will not help these women in crisis leave, it will only serve as yet another barrier to leaving and that will not, under any circumstances, solve the poverty they face.

On top of the rise in domestic violence, Montana’s child poverty rate is 21%, our uninsured rate is 18%, our wages are 48th in the nation and we have the highest number of people working more than one job to make ends meet in the country. These factors point out that there is no cookie cutter approach to poverty alleviation or to welfare reform. Bush’s proposal to increase work requirements, without any acknowledgement of the fact that it is indeed the QUALITY of work, not the QUANTITY that makes a difference, is obviously not a solution for people in poverty. In Montana, people are working 2 and 3 jobs and they are still poor. Marriage is not the solution to poverty in Montana, women are facing domestic violence at alarming rates and wages are so low in Montana that two parent households are just as poor as single parent households. Montana’s experience is not unique; we are one of many very poor states and one out of 50 states that have people facing deeper poverty than we have seen in decades. It is time to move beyond oversimplified, band aid approaches to welfare reform and start focusing on family well-being by ensuring protection from domestic violence, including access to quality education and training programs and work supports like food stamps, Medicaid and child care to aid families working to move out of poverty. Poverty is complex, welfare reform must include policies that address that fact and begins to support families. 

Montana's welfare rolls have increased dramatically the past few months. Montana’s Department of Health and Human Services points out, a significant factor in that increase has to do with the fact that people have been pushed into low-wage employment and they aren't making it. People in poverty are facing a lack of support for the work they are engaged in and employment opportunities that allow them to become economically independent. Families who are working should not be poor. The Bush proposal certainly does not address poverty alleviation with any policy that will work on the state level.

TANF Reauthorization is the perfect opportunity to create policy that addresses poverty reduction by ensuring that families have access to quality education and training programs, options to secure care for their young children: Montana has a program called the At Home Infant Care Program which enables parents with children under age 2 to care for their children while being reimbursed the daily infant care rate. This program makes economic sense because it offsets the expense and difficulty of accessing infant care. In addition, it allows parents, many of whom reside in rural areas of the state with little or no access to resources an opportunity to provide infant care for their children. This is an essential component of stable communities.

It is innovative programs such as At Home Infant Care that will bring relief to poverty.  States need support to address the needs of their poor citizens, not a boost in bureaucracy and over simplified approaches like those in the Bush Proposal. TANF Reauthorization policies should address the poverty people face, support families working out of poverty in a variety of ways including training and education, work and caring for their children. Policies must ensure families have options and protection when leaving violent homes and approach child well being through actual poverty reduction measures rather than involving government in our private lives through economically coerced marriage

 I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today. I think it is essential to hear from the people who have been directly impacted by poverty. Our experience as a group that creates poverty alleviation policy in Montana certainly speaks to the fact that policies that are created with the input of the people that will be most impacted by them are the most successful.

Thank you.