Statement of NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York, New York
Thank you for this opportunity to submit a written statement for this hearing on welfare reform and work programs. The NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund has been working for thirty years to define and defend women's rights. One of our major goals is to eliminate barriers that deny women economic opportunities. In furtherance of that goal, NOW Legal Defense has litigated numerous cases to secure full enforcement of laws prohibiting employment discrimination. NOW Legal Defense has appeared before the Supreme Court of the United States in both gender discrimination and welfare cases. In addition, we address welfare reform issues from the perspective of ending women's poverty. To this end, we have convened the Building Opportunities Beyond Welfare Reform Coalition (BOB Coalition), a national network of local, state, and national groups, including representatives of women's rights, civil rights, anti-poverty, anti-violence, religious and professional organizations.
Our testimony focuses on the need to retain employment protections for TANF workers. In considering work requirements for welfare recipients, it is also important for this committee to understand the particular barriers that women with children face in obtaining and retaining paid work outside the home, and we have therefore addressed those issues as well.
Welfare recipients in work and training programs must be covered by Federal civil rights and labor laws.
In the current "work first" environment, one issue of paramount importance for welfare recipients is that of basic employment protections. Just like other employees, welfare recipients in work experience programs, welfare-to-work placements and job training programs should have the right to a discrimination free workplace. Indeed, regulations and guidelines issued by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Department of Labor and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services make clear that civil rights laws prohibiting racial and gender discrimination apply to welfare recipients in work and training placements. (7) Contrary to representations made by Commissioner Turner, under current Federal law, civil rights statutes prohibiting harassment and differential treatment based on race and sex cover welfare recipients and constitute an important federal protection that state and local officials cannot take away. Congress should do nothing to lessen these critical protections. If Congress does act in this area, it should be to clarify that the Federal civil rights and labor protection statutes do apply to women in TANF work programs.
Over the past few years, a number of women in New York City's Work Experience Program (WEP) have come forward with discrimination claims. (8) Their stories illustrate the plight of many welfare recipients. One woman, a client of NOW Legal Defense and the Welfare Law Center, complained that her WEP supervisor sexually harassed her repeatedly during a time when she, a mother of two, was homeless and living in a shelter. Her supervisor made inappropriate sexual comments to her, hinting that he could make life easier for her and her children if she would reciprocate. The woman felt she had nowhere to turn and feared retaliation by her supervisor for not giving in to his advances. She ultimately left the placement after her supervisor made a direct sexual proposition that she spend the night with him in a motel, which she rejected.
Other women have similar stories. One WEP supervisor would pinch the ribs and buttocks of his supervisee and put his hands down her pants. After many complaints, the City agreed to transfer her but allowed her supervisor to follow her to the new placement and continue to harass her. Another woman complained of a WEP supervisor who would physically touch her in a sexual manner and would verbally abuse her after she rejected his advances. He also called her at home to continue the harassment. The supervisor went so far as to threaten the woman's life.
The City's response to each of these complaints was to claim that the workers were not entitled to federal civil rights protections. In 1999, the EEOC found that there was "reasonable cause" to believe that the New York City Human Resources Administration subjected the women to sexual harassment. The EEOC also determined through its investigation that the Human Resources Administration violated Title VII by failing to inform a class of employees who worked in the WEP program of their rights under Title VII and failed to provide a mechanism for them to complain about harassment. The U.S. Department of Justice is currently investigating the charges.
Some work experience proponents talk of the moral dignity of work. Yet they would treat work experience participants as second-class citizens by denying them basic civil rights protections. In New York City and around the country, welfare recipients work side by side with other employees, performing the exact same tasks. Such recipients are employees in every sense of the word and clearly are covered by federal anti-discrimination laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, color, sex and national origin, including racial and sexual harassment. (9) Characterizing work experience as education does not eviscerate recipients' rights either. Welfare recipients in educational programs such as vocational education or other training programs are clearly covered by Title IX, the federal law the prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs and activities. (10)
Congress has thus recognized the importance of protecting women from discrimination in both work and education. Leaving civil rights protections up to the welfare departments of individual counties and cities is a huge step backward for those most vulnerable. In New York City, despite the existence of language in a workfare manual disavowing discrimination, no information was given to workfare workers about what steps to take if they were harassed. Fortunately, the EEOC was available to take their complaints and investigate their claims; those very real complaints are a strong argument that Federal anti-discrimination laws are necessary to insure that workfare recipients are not excluded from basic workplace protections.
The women who courageously stood up for their rights in New York City speak for hundreds of thousands of welfare recipients around the country. Many who experience sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination suffer in silence out of fear that they will lose subsistence-level benefits if they speak out. Congress can and should remedy this situation when it reauthorizes TANF by clarifying that fundamental civil rights protections apply to welfare recipients in work and training programs.
Nontraditional job training opportunities should be increased and made available to women on welfare.
Job discrimination is a factor in placement of TANF recipients in jobs that pay wages that can lift a family out of poverty. Many jobs, in which women are poorly represented, such as jobs in the skilled trades, technology, law enforcement and the computer industry, to name just a few examples, pay good wages with benefits and provide opportunities for career advancement.
The importance of nontraditional jobs for women is highlighted by the wage gap. In 1999, women earned only 72% of what men earned. (11) Median weekly earnings for full-time wage and salary workers in 1999 were $473 for women and $618 for men. (12) Nationwide, working families lose $200 billion of income annually to the wage gap. This amounts to an average loss of more than $4,000 each for working women's families every year because of unequal pay, even after accounting for differences in education, age, location and the number of hours worked. (13) The wage gap is even more pronounced for women of color. African-American women are paid 65% of the salaries averaged by white men, while Latinas receive a mere 52%. (14)
Welfare reform has further exacerbated the effects of the wage gap. The average disposable income of the bottom fifth of single-mother families increased between 1993 and 1995, but declined between 1995 and 1997 just as welfare reform was being implemented. (15) For welfare recipients who have found jobs, occupational segregation by gender relegates women to low-paying jobs that provide no way out of poverty. One study by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., found that 62.6 percent of welfare recipients were employed in female-dominated service sector or clerical jobs, with wages averaging $6.50 an hour. (16)
Recognizing the disadvantages women face entering the work force solely because of their gender, Congress should be aware of the benefits of nontraditional employment for women. Numerous studies have documented the success of nontraditional job training programs in placing women in higher paying jobs. For example, a study by Wider Opportunities for Women found that women who received training for nontraditional jobs earned between $8 and $9 an hour. (17) By contrast, in 1997 the average welfare recipient moving from welfare to work earned between $5.60 and $6.60 an hour. (18) Not only do nontraditional jobs provide higher entry-level wages, but they also provide career ladders to higher wages. For instance, an operating engineer could start by earning $9 per hour and eventually earn $24 per hour. (19) Nontraditional jobs also provide women with increased access to a full range of benefits, such as health, family leave, sick leave, retirement plans, and paid vacation. Finally, nontraditional jobs can provide women with tremendous job satisfaction. Women in nontraditional jobs may gain confidence in performing physical labor and take pride in learning new and technical skills.
The good news is that job availability is growing in many nontraditional fields, including service sector jobs in computer and data processing, and blue-collar jobs such as law enforcement, construction, and motor vehicle operation. (20) At the same time, recent reports have detailed a shortage of workers in nontraditional fields. (21) Due to demographic and economic changes, the traditional labor supply for the building industry (men between the ages of 18 and 24) can no longer fill the demand for such jobs. Thus, for instance, the Home Builder's Institute has identified women as holding "tremendous promise for helping alleviate the labor shortage." (22) In short, significant job opportunities await women who gain access to training in nontraditional fields.
When Congress reauthorizes TANF, it should prioritize nontraditional training and employment as a path towards economic self-sufficiency. One way to do so is to eliminate the current restrictions on education and training. Congress should also focus states' attention on the benefits of nontraditional employment by requiring states to describe in their state plans how TANF and other resources will be used to promote nontraditional employment opportunities and by rewarding states that focus resources on such programs.
Lack of Child Care is A Serious Barrier to Work for TANF Recipients And Leavers.
Both state and federal law recognize the importance of child care to parents in welfare-to-work programs by providing parents with certain rights and options. Federal TANF law includes an exemption from sanctions if a parent cannot work due to lack of child care. (23) In addition, TANF requires that information about the sanction prohibition be given to parents so they are not coerced into using unsuitable care. (24) In all states, Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG) money is available for TANF recipients and those moving off of welfare into work. Under the CCDBG, states must insure parental choice for families with child care subsidies. (25)
Despite these legal protections, however, the "work first" initiatives of some states has made the sanction protection ineffective. Many poor women are either sanctioned for failing to cooperate with work requirements when they cannot find child care for their children or are forced to use inadequate child care so that they can meet work requirements and avoid sanctions. In New York City, for example, a recent survey conducted by NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund found that 79% of respondents had not received written information about their child care rights, as mandated by the state and city's most recent policy directives; 95% of respondents were not informed by their caseworkers that they could not be sanctioned if they were unable to work due to lack of child care; 46% of respondents were threatened with sanctions if they were unable to work even if the reason was lack of child care. (26)
Misinformation and threats of sanctions mean that parents may be effectively coerced into placing their children in inappropriate child care arrangements in order to comply with work requirements. For example, in New York, TANF recipients are given only 10 days to find child care for their children. It is not surprising with so little time to find care that 89% of parents on TANF in New York City use informal care -- in contrast to only 2% of non-TANF low income families who receive child care from the City. This powerfully suggests that parents on TANF are being pressured into using unregulated, informal care -- or no care at all -- because they wrongly fear losing their benefits.
At the same time, subsidies are getting to only a fraction of the families eligible for them. This is a particularly serious problem for women leaving welfare for work. Although testimony by Commissioner Turner and Commissioner Howard indicated that child care is not a problem, this is inconsistent with statistical and survey data as well as the experiences of our clients. A recent HHS study found that only 10% of those eligible for child care subsidies receive them. (27) There are long waiting lists for child care in most states. In New York City alone, over 38,000 children are on waiting lists for subsidized care; in California, nearly 200,000. (28) Lack of child care for welfare leavers virtually assures they will not be able to retain employment or that their children will go uncared for.
Domestic Violence Is A Factor in the Lives of Many Poor Women and the Needs of Violence Victims Must Be Better Addressed in the TANF Program.
Domestic violence is a prevalent factor in the lives of TANF recipients and, in turn, can pose a significant barrier when an individual tries to leave welfare for work. Many abusers actively sabotage their partners' job or job prospects by verbally abusing their partners before interviews, by inflicting injuries before important work events or by refusing child care at the last minute. (29) They may stalk, harass or even assault their partners at their work placements or new jobs. (30) In addition, individuals experiencing domestic violence may need to take time during business hours to seek legal, medical or other assistance. Unfortunately, unless the underlying violence is addressed, individuals who do succeed in leaving welfare may end up losing their new jobs because of the violence. Studies indicate that up to one-half of employees who have experienced domestic violence have lost a job due to that violence. (31) For example, in a recent Wisconsin study of current and former welfare recipients who had experienced domestic violence, 30% had lost a job due to violence and 58.7% were threatened so much that they were afraid to work or go to school. (32)
In 1996, Congress recognized that the new welfare work requirements and time limits might unfairly penalize families attempting to leave violent relationships when it attached the Wellstone/Murray Amendment to the TANF statute. This amendment, popularly known as the Family Violence Option (FVO), permits States to provide temporary waivers of TANF program requirements. (33) The goal of the FVO is to permit individuals to engage in activities other than work that will help them escape from violence in the long run, such as attending counseling or seeking legal assistance, and to give extra time to families to become self-sufficient so that they are not forced to rely on batterers for financial assistance. Specifically, a state that adopts the FVO must create a mechanism to screen for domestic violence; refer recipients who screen for domestic violence to services; and may waive any TANF requirement that "would make it more difficult for individuals receiving assistance . . . to escape domestic violence or unfairly penalize such individuals ...." (34)
Since 1996, a majority of states have adopted the FVO or have made some provision for domestic violence in their state policies or procedures. (35) Unfortunately, implementation of the FVO continues to lag. A case in point is New York City. New York City's welfare department has persistently failed to follow state laws and procedures enacted to assist domestic violence victims who receive or apply for welfare benefits. In 1999, several organizations including NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund surveyed welfare recipients, domestic violence service providers, and domestic violence caseworkers to determine whether New York City was following state FVO laws and procedures. The survey results indicate that the New York welfare agency failed to meet its legal obligations to victims of violence in need of welfare. (36) For example, although the law requires screening of every welfare applicant and recipient for domestic violence, the majority of those interviewed in two surveys (56 percent and 72 percent) were never screened. (37) Fewer than half of survey participants who self-identified in writing as a domestic violence victim - and not one of the survey participants who orally told their regular caseworkers -- were referred to a special domestic violence caseworker as required by state law. (38) According to New York City's own data for September 1998 to August 1999, only one-third of the individuals who met with a liaison obtained any type of waiver. And, the vast majority of those waivers (71 percent) were "partial child support waivers," under which victims still must cooperate with child support enforcement but the agency will "make every effort" to avoid contact for the victim with the absent parent in court. (39) These are not waivers that are likely to address the safety issues and service needs of domestic violence victims in the TANF program.
An audit by the New York State Comptroller of the case files of individuals who identified as domestic violence victims confirms NOW Legal Defense's findings that New York City caseworkers are not following state laws and procedures. (40) The Comptroller's audit sought to determine whether individuals were assessed for domestic violence in accordance with state guidelines, if safety plans were developed for individuals in crisis, and whether individuals receiving waivers were referred to services. (41) In 50% of the New York City case files reviewed, there was no documentation of whether an assessment occurred and in 80% there was no written indication of whether the victim's safety had been assessed. (42) The Comptroller's report expressed concern that if individuals were not properly assessed then "victims of domestic violence may not be referred to services they need." (43)
New York City's failure to properly implement the domestic violence protections under Federal and state law is, in part, the result of a "one size fits all" approach to work programs. Domestic violence, like child care problems discussed above, can create true barriers to participation in the kind of workfare program New York runs. Congress should insure that stringent work participation requirements or draconian sanction measures do not compel states to disregard the needs of domestic violence victims. If anything, Congress should strengthen the protections currently in the law and require states to address the needs of violence victims in their TANF programs.
Mothers' Care Giving Is Work and Does Have Value
The idea that a mothers' care giving work has no value is central to much of the testimony heard by this committee, and indeed to the welfare reform discussion generally. It is repeated over and over again that reform aims to move recipients "from welfare to work," as if only mothers with paid employment are working. Rising employment for TANF recipients is said to show success in inculcating the work ethic, as if recipient mothers have been idling away their time in activities with no social value. This notion that mothers' care giving work is valueless is false and pernicious. (44)
As indicated in the discussion of child care, mothers who receive public assistance and former recipients of assistance are likely to be single and more likely than other low income women to have small children. (45) It is outrageous to claim that these women caring for their pre-school children have no exposure to a work ethic. Mothers were well acquainted with "24-7" eons before there were dot coms and e-commerce. Mothers have been obligated to work from the first instant of a child's life long before "work first" became a slogan for denying women the opportunity to participate in education and training programs.
Perhaps mothers' care giving work is ignored and dismissed because it is not paid, and therefore is not included in our Gross National (Domestic) Product. But our economic system's failure to properly account for unpaid care giving should not blind us to care giving's fundamental importance. Indeed, probably never before in human history has care giving been more important or essential to social and economic well being. Today, human capital is an even more important component of a nation's riches then natural capital or physical capital. The quality of early care is one of the most important determinants of human intellectual and emotional development. Care and guidance of the young child lays the essential groundwork for the formation of knowledge and skills. Where valuing of care has been done, the value has been found to be high. In Canada, the 1996 census for the first time measured unpaid caregiving work done at home. The value placed on that work - two thirds of which was done by women - came to between $221 and 324 billion. (46) Those advocating this valuation stated that they did not expect actual payment, but their goal was to have this work "counted and recognized when formulating public policy." Policy debates in the United States must also start counting and recognizing the valuable work that all mothers - including poor single mothers - perform when they care for their young children.
Indeed the dollar cost to the nation of providing quality care for poor young children while their mother works outside the home is potentially greater than the cost of income maintenance for that mother to care for her own child. Child care monthly reimbursement rates under the CCDBG, uniformly seen as inadequate, are still higher for a single infant in a licensed care facility in 40 states than is the monthly income maintenance grant for a family of 3 under TANF in those states. (47)
While it is important that TANF maintain a focus on providing pathways to good jobs for poor families, it is also important that the value of the work done by women caring for young children be recognized and valued. Particularly in the absence of affordable child care for very young children, Congress should ask the question whether it might not be better, more moral and, indeed, more economical, to allow poor women who wish to do so to care for their young children in their own homes rather than insisting that the only valuable work to be performed is that which is done outside the home. (48)
[The attachments are being retained in the Committee files.]
1. We are responding to the written version of Commissioner Turner's statements. See http://waysandmeans.house.gov/humres/107cong/4-3-01/4-3turn.htm.
2. Urban Inst., "Families Who Left Welfare: Who Are They and How Are They Doing?" (1999).
3. Department of Health and Human Services, Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients, FY 1998 http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/welfare/congress/tanfp7.htm.
4. Pamela Loprest, Families Who Left Welfare: Who Are They and How Are They Doing? (Urban Institute, 1999) 6, Table 1; Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, 2000 GREEN BOOK (October 6, 2000) 437. This is considerably higher than the 32 percent of women in the low-income population generally with children under age 6. Loprest at 6.
5. Sharon K. Long, Urban Inst., Child Care Assistance Under Welfare Reform: Early Responses By the States 7, 8 (1998); Loprest, n. 20.
6. Eleanor Lyon, National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, Welfare, Poverty, and Abused Women: New Research and its Implications 1 (2000); U.S. Gen. Accounting Office, Domestic Violence: Prevalence and Implications for Employment Among Welfare Recipients 15-16 (1999). See also, Equal Rights Advocates, From War on Poverty to War on Welfare: The Impact of Welfare Reform on the Lives of Immigrant Women 38, 40 (1999). One reason for the high rates of domestic violence among TANF recipients may be that parents fleeing abusive relationships may turn to TANF to meet their economic needs.
7. EEOC Enforcement Guidance 915.002 (Enforcement Guidance on Application of EEO Laws to Contingent Workers Placed by Temporary Employment Agencies and Other Staffing Firms), EEOC Compl. Man. (CCH) (Dec. 3, 1997); Dep't of Labor, "How Workplace Laws Apply to Welfare Recipients," (1997), available at: http://www.dol.gov/dol/asp/public/w2w/welfare.htm; 45 C.F.R. § 260.35 (1999); 64 Fed. Reg. 17,881 (Apr. 12, 1999).
8. See Nina Bernstein, "Federal Agency Accuses City of Illegally Ignoring Harassment," N.Y. Times, Oct. 1, 1999 at PIN.
9. See Sherry Leiwant & Yolanda Wu, "Civil Rights Protections and Welfare Employment Programs," 31 Clearinghouse Rev. 454, 459-65 (Jan.-Feb. 1998).
10. See id. at 465-68.
11. Nat'l Comm. on Pay Equity, "The Wage Gap: 1999."
12. 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
13. AFL-CIO fact sheets, available at: http://www.aflcio.org/women/equalpay.htm and http://www.aflcio.org/women/exec99.htm
14. Nat'l Comm. on Pay Equity, "Advocates Take Action for Fair Pay," press release (Mar. 13, 2001).
15. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "The Initial Impacts of Welfare Reform on the Incomes of Single-Mother Families," 9 (Aug. 1999).
16. Rangarajan, Anu et al., "Employment Experiences of Welfare Recipients Who Find Jobs: Is Targeting Possible?" Mathematica Pol'y Res., Inc. (1998).
17. Roberta Spalter-Roth et al., "Welfare That Works: The Working Lives of AFDC Recipients, A Report to the Ford Foundation" (1995), cited in Inst. for Women's Policy Research, Welfare Reform Network News 8 (Aug./Sept. 1997).
18. U.S. General Accounting Office, "Welfare Reform: States and Restructuring Programs to Reduce Welfare Dependence," 107 (June 1998).
19. Wider Opportunities for Women, Women and Nontraditional Work (June 1998) (citing U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the U.S. General Accounting Office).
20. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (1999) (projecting an average annual growth rate of 7.6% for computer and data processing services, and projecting that law enforcement positions will grow 30.8% from 1998 to 2008, that construction jobs will grow 8.4%, and that motor vehicle operation jobs will grow 15.6%.
21. Dirk Johnson, "Facing Shortage, Building and Labor Court Workers," N.Y. Times, Mar. 13, 1999, at A1.
22. Home Builder's Inst., "Nontraditional Labor: Other Sources of Workers" and "Nontraditional Labor: NAHB Women's Council and HBI Opening New Doors Guide," available at: http://www.hbi.org/ls/index.htm
23. 42 U.S.C. § 607(e)(2) (2000); N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 342(1) (2000).
24. 45 C.F.R. § 261.56 (2000); 45 C.F.R. § 98.33 (2000).
25. 42 U.S.C. §9858C(c)(2)(A)(i); 45 C.F.R. §98.30.
26. Roslyn Powell and Mia Cahill, Nowhere to Turn: New York City's Failure to Inform Parents on Public Assistance About Their Child Care Rights (NOW Legal Defense, 1999); Still Nowhere to Turn (forthcoming April, 2000)
27. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Access to Child Care for Low Income Working Families, www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ccb/reports/ccreport.htm
28. Child Care, Inc., A Child Care Primer, Key Facts About Child Care and Early Education Services in New York City, 2000, i.
29. See U.S. Gen. Acct. Office, Domestic Violence Prevalence and Implications For Employment Among Welfare Recipients 7 (Nov. 1998) ;Thomas Moore and Vicky Selkowe, Institute for Wisconsin's Future, Domestic Violence Victims in Transition from Welfare to Work: Barriers to Self-Sufficiency and the W-2 Response 6 (1999); Jody Raphael, Taylor Institute, Prisoners of Abuse: Domestic Violence and Welfare Receipt 6-10 (1996).
30. Studies indicate that between 35 and 56% of employed battered women surveyed were harassed at work by their abusive partner. See U.S. Gen. Acct. Office, Domestic Violence Prevalence and Implications For Employment Among Welfare Recipients 19 (Nov. 1998) (summarizing the results of 3 studies).
31. See U.S. Gen. Acct. Office, supra note 8, at 19.
32. Moore & Selkowe, supra note 7, at 5-6.
33. 42 U.S.C. § 602 (a)(7).
34. Id.
35. See generally, Jody Raphael and Sheila Haennicke, Taylor Institute, Keeping Battered Women Safe Through the Welfare-to-Work Journey: How Are We Doing? A Report on the Implementation of Policies for Battered Women in State Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Programs 4 (1999)
36. Marcellene E. Hearn, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, et. al., Dangerous Indifference: New York City's Failure to Implement the Family Violence Option (2000).
37. Id. at 9.
38. Id. at 10-11. In New York, only the domestic violence liaisons have the authority to grant Family Violence Option waivers.
39. Dangerous Indifference, supra note 27 at 12-13; Family Independence Administration, Policy Directive # 99-44R (Jan. 10, 2000).
40. New York State, Office of the State Comptroller, Service Referral Process for Victims of Domestic Violence, 1999-S-4. [Comptroller's Audit].
41. Id. at 2.
42. Id. at 9,11.
43. Id. at 9; Comptroller's Audit Reporter, supra, note 31,at 12-13 (noting that individuals who received waivers were often not referred to any services during the waiver period).
44. Fathers also give care, but even when fathers are present, mothers still typically perform the bulk of the care giving work. Ann Crittenden, The Price of Motherhood at 24-25 (2001).
45. See n. 20, supra.
46. Robin Harvey, "Women Want Value Placed on Unpaid Work in the Home," TORONTO STAR (February 5, 1998) B5, available 1998 WL 17792562.
47. National Child Care Information Center, Child Care and Development Block Grant (HHS, March 1998), 63-67; compare with GREEN BOOK, n. 4, supra, Table 7-10, pp. 389-390.
48. For an excellent portrait of a welfare "success story," and the enormous costs to both children and mothers when working outside the home is the paramount goal, see Katherine Boo, "After Welfare," The New Yorker (April 9, 2000), pp. 93-107.