” RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT Welfare Reform Proposal by The House Human Resources Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee Boustany Announces Hearing on Welfare Reform Proposals JULY 15, 2015 HEARING HUMAN RESOURCES WELFARE REFORM Congressman Charles Boustany (R-\u00ad\u2010LA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Sub-\u00ad\u2010 committee will hold a hearing on welfare reform proposals, specifically involving the reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) pro-\u00ad\u2010 gram. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, July 15, 2015, in 1100 Long- worth House Office Building, beginning at 10:30 A.M. The subcommittee invites witnesses and other interested parties to submit testi- mony and comments on the following Committee Discussion Draft of welfare reauthorization legislation: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION DRAFT Kevin Aslanian, Executive Director Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization (CCWRO) 1111 Howe Avenue, Suite 150, Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 Tel. (916) 712-0071 email:
[email protected] We fail to see that some are mired in desperate and degrading poverty, with no way out, while others have not the faintest idea of what to do with their possessions, vainly showing off their supposed superiority Pope Francis webpage: ccwro.org Dear Chairperson Boustany: As an antidote to poverty for families with children in America, the TANF program has failed. As a result of the callous treatment families endure from the state governors, legislators and TANF administrators, millions of children will endure lifelong problems, including profound health issues. Several years ago, a 60 Minutes segment on the CBS network, presented the tough journey of a homeless family, living in the southern United States, who could only qualify for SNAP. The TANF program was not even mentioned as a benefit to help poor and homeless families. This Committee should enact a TANF reform bill that would be consistent with Pope Francis’s recent encyclical letter wherein he wrote: We fail to see that some are mired in desperate and degrad- ing poverty, with no way out, while others have not the faintest idea of what to do with their possessions, vainly showing off their supposed superiority No family in the United States should have a TANF grant less than 100% of the federal poverty level. See TABLE #1 that reveals the average TANF payment level is less than 25% of the federal poverty level. The TANF program has been a federal bonanza for States who are charged with assisting parents of poor children get on the road to self-sufficiency. In 2015, only 30% of the total TANF block grant and State MOE funding is used to meet the family’s basic survival needs, such as rent, utilities and clothing. TANF money is a great source of funding for the welfare industry and bureaucracy who receive 70% of TANF money while only 30% goes to payments to impoverished families. As contrast, the previous Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) Program paid 70% of the AFDC funds for direct benefits payments to families. AFDC was funded with 50% federal dollars and 50% state dollars. TABLE #2 reveals the how States fleece the TANF program. Since the inception of TANF, California has been able to fleece the TANF pro- gram out of $23 billion while TANF\/CalWORKs children lead the nation in child poverty. Today, the average grant is about 30% of the federal poverty level. See TABLES #3. How do States manage to use less than 30% of the federal TANF allocation and the State Maintenance of Effort (MOE) for cash assistance? States are operating inhumane and punitive public assistance programs. Most states impose full fami- ly sanctions upon families with children whose parent has allegedly not partici- pated in the state employment programs even if the individual did not have child- care or transportation. States do this to meet the Work Participation Rates (WPR) through caseload reductions as well as eliminating families out of the numerator for the WPR calculations. Many children who are subjected to full family sanctions end up in the foster care system accused of negligence. In reality, it’s State induced economic negli- gence because parents cannot meet their child’s basic needs due to the sanc- tions. A lot of the TANF dollars are used by States to fund their foster care pro- gram aiding the TANF children. We now have TANF government children in the foster care system that would have been with their natural parents when we had the AFDC program. What is the fiscal difference between TANF and foster care? In California, Cal- WORKs (TANF) costs on the average $200 a month per child while costing $2,200 a month for a child in foster care. TABLE # 1 In 2015, the Federal Poverty Level for a Family of Three is $1,674 a month States TANF (3 Children) Percentage of Federal Poverty Level States TANF (3 Children) Percentage of Federal Poverty Level Alabama $215 13% Missouri $292 17% Alaska $656 39% Montana $504 30% Arizona $278 17% Nebraska $364 22% Arkansas $204 12% Nevada $383 23% California $694 41% New Hampsh. $675 40% Colorado $404 24% New Jersey $424 25% Connecticut $576 34% New Mexico $447 27% Delaware $428 26% New York $900 54% DC $270 16% North Carolina $272 16% Florida $303 18% North Dakota $310 19% Georgia $280 17% Ohio $434 26% Hawaii $763 46% Oklahoma $241 14% Idaho $309 18% Oregon $477 28% Illinois $284 17% Pennsylvania $403 24% Indiana $256 15% Rhode Island $554 33% Iowa $426 25% South Carolina $216 13% Kansas $375 22% South Dakota $681 41% Kentucky $262 16% Tennessee $232 14% Louisiana $240 14% Texas $179 11% Maine $386 23% Utah $498 30% Maryland $733 44% Vermont $710 42% Massachusetts $633 38% Virginia $389 23% Michigan $420 25% Washington $478 29% Minnesota $532 32% West Virginia $340 20% Mississippi $170 10% Wisconsin $550 33% Wyoming $561 34% TABLE #2 Federal Fiscal Year Total Federal TANF and State MOE Funds Total Spent for Payments to Poor Families with Children Percentage of TANF dollars Going to Cash Assistance to TANF Families Children Living in Deep Poverty – 50% of the federal poverty level Children Liv- ing Below 100% of the Federal Pov- erty Level 1997 $19,603,114,268 $13,901,705,312 71% 2,640,694 6,269,998.00 1998 $22,772,430,582 $13,927,623,731 61% 2,519,906 6,001,292.00 1999 $26,954,983,262 $13,165,747,213 49% 2,283,492 5,601,860.00 2000 $28,275,174,613 $11,180,400,974 40% 2,108,912 5,212,228.00 2001 $28,499,551,177 $10,143,465,544 36% 2,153,071 5,197,115.00 2002 $28,372,057,418 $9,408,233,518 33% 2,266,480 5,434,762.00 2003 $29,056,889,945 $10,218,545,347 35% 2,441,227 5,760,902.00 2004 $28,541,831,816 $10,389,421,895 36% 2,579,276 6,003,736.00 2005 $28,439,900,706 $10,739,000,687 38% 2,568,050 5,975,370.00 2006 $28,445,736,836 $9,906,038,682 35% 2,554,450 5,973,777.00 2007 $30,006,456,645 $9,068,930,860 30% 2,577,614 6,041,259.00 2008 $30,989,868,539 $8,648,970,019 28% 2,663,741 6,173,802.00 2009 $33,534,692,301 $9,323,502,540 28% 2,877,916 6,590,502.00 2010 $35,848,113,846 $10,699,142,042 30% There is no reason why Congress should not DEMAND that states use at least 70% of the funding for payments to needy families (cash assistance) rather than allowing states to use 70% of the TANF funds to pay for bureaucratic costs, es- pecially when Congress has appropriated billions for employment and childcare programs in the past two years. These funds must first be used for those in the highest need TANF recipients. The other major reform needed in the TANF pro- gram is to assure that the TANF is a program help- ing poor families and not greedy states . The other major reform needed in the TANF program is to assure that the TANF is a program helping poor families and not greedy states . USDA keeps track of the number of people potentially eligible for SNAP and how many receiving SNAP. TANF has no similar information. It seems like Congress and States don’t care that there are families suffering in deep poverty that should be eligible for TANF but cannot overcome the path to eligibility that is loaded with landmines that are often insurmountable. Is the State Welfare Agency the Right Entity for Employment Services for the Poor of America? We encourage the House to end the welfare office responsibility to find jobs for welfare recipients. The welfare department is not the jobs department. TANF mandates that the welfare department perform the jobs function. Recently, Congress enacted the Workforce Investment Program. Section 2 of PL. 113-128 states: The purposes of this Act are the following: (1) To increase, for individuals in the United States, particularly those individuals with barriers to employment, access to and oppor- tunities for the employment, education, train- ing, and support services they need to suc- ceed in the labor market. (3) To improve the quality and labor market relevance of workforce investment, education, and economic development efforts to provide America’s workers with the skills and credentials necessary to secure and advance in employment with family-sustaining wages and to provide Ameri- ca’s employers with the skilled workers the employers need to succeed in a global economy. Congress authorized over $3.3 billion a year to operate employment programs for Americans in the most recently reauthorized WIA act P.L. 113-128. In Califor- nia there is another estimated $5.6 billion employment programs for Californians. Welfare recipients are also Americans and they should have the same opportuni- ties to be assisted by the state employment professionals and not be subjected to the segregated employment programs operated by the welfare officials of the various states. Welfare recipients are also Americans and they should have the same opportunities to be assisted by the state em- ployment professionals and not be subjected to the segregated employment programs operated by the welfare officials of the various states. Section-By-Section Analysis The Ways & Means Committee Discussion Draft ___________________________________________ SECTION 3. EXTENSION OF PROGRAM Page 2, Line 7 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: None. CCWRO POSITION Support CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS None ___________________________________________ SECTION 4. NO WAIVER OF WORK REQUIREMENT Page 3, Line 19 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: Historically most waivers issued by HHS has had a negative impact on the beneficiaries of the AFDC and now TANF pro- gram. CCWRO POSITION Support CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS None __________________________________________ SECTION 5. INDIVIDUAL OPPORTUNITY PLANS Page 4, Line 11 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: Opportunity plans, employment plans or contracts, rarely give beneficiaries an opportunity to elect a path to self-sufficiency. A family has less chance of becoming self-sufficient when the en- tire process gives the government all of the decision- making and the beneficiary has no say in it. Many will NOT achieve independence when the whole process starts with making the individual totally dependent on the whims of the state welfare agency. If the individual is go- ing to achieve independence, Congress needs to trust the individual to make decisions on how to achieve self- sufficiency. Currently, participants must either obey the state welfare agency, who believe they know best how to achieve self-sufficiency, or be sanctioned and face the loss of all TANF benefits. Under this proposal, the opportunity plan is developed in consultation with the beneficiary, but given 408(b)(2), the desires of the participant will not be reflected in the plan. First of all, the beneficiary, or the individual as stated in this bill, would sign the plan presented by the TANF department or face the total loss of all TANF benefits in many states. This does not present a landscape of fair consultation . Moreover, the information being gathered pursuant to 403(b) is meaningless if the individual does not have verified access to the services. In California, 50% of the participants do not receive transportation assistance even though the law mandates that the state agency pay for transportation. See TABLE # 4. The rea- son is very simple. There is no requirement for the state or local agency to verify that the individual has transportation or childcare before being required to partici- pant in an activity or be sanctioned. CCWRO POSITION Support if amended CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS In order to make the consultation process more effective we suggest the following amendment: On page 5, line 25, after the word employment insert: The plan shall allow the agency to suggest the employment activity that the agency determines is appropriate for the individual. The plan shall also state other activities that the state agency provides in its state plan. The Many will NOT achieve independence when the whole process starts with making the individual totally de- pendent on the whims of the state welfare agency. If the individ- ual is going to achieve independence, Con- gress needs to trust the individual to make decisions on how to achieve self- sufficiency. proposed plan shall be mailed to individual and the individual shall select the activity offered by the state agency or another activity in the state plan. The activity selected by the individual shall be approved unless the state agency has documentary evidence that the activity selected by the partici- pant would not enhance the individuals’ employability; The state agency shall verify, through documentary evidence, that the in- dividual actually has the needed supportive services before requiring the individual to participate in any activity that would be subject to the penal- ties under section 408(b)(3). SECTION 6. STRENGTHENING REQUIREMENTS TO ENGAGE RECIPIENTS IN WORK AND WORK PREPARATION ACTIVITIES ___________________________________________ SECTION 6(a), (b) ELIMINATION OF CREDIT TOWARD WORK PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENT FOR CASELOAD SIZE AND EXCESS STATE SPENDING & COUNTING OF WORK PER- FORMED BY INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING ATYPICAL BENEFIT PAYMENTS Page 8 Line 4 and Line 10 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: This is a good change for beneficiaries in that it would make sure that the state gets credit for positive outcomes moving families to self-sufficiency and not into deep poverty. Cur- rently, states are rewarded for terminating cases and im- posing full-family sanctions that leave the family in deep This is a good change for beneficiaries in that it would make sure that the state gets credit for positive outcomes moving families to self- sufficiency and into deep poverty. poverty. States have also become masters of 101 ways to prevent a family in need from receiving TANF benefits. With this change states would have to think about positive terminations hopefully. The fact that states do not have to spend a specified amount of the TANF and TANF MOE funds for cash assistance still leaves the door wide open for states to use funds for themselves and not for the TANF recipients. CCWRO POSITION Support CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS- None ___________________________________________ SECTION 6(c)(1) – ELIMINATION OF DISTINCTION BETWEEN CORE AND NON-CORE ACTIVITIES Page 10, Line 13 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: This change would simplify the program and encourage state agencies to offer individuals more options that would help them in their efforts to achieve self-sufficiency. States that may give TANF participants a choice would now be able to make a choice. CCWRO POSITION Support CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS – None ___________________________________________ SECTION 6(c)(2) ALLOWING STATES TO RECEIVE PARTIAL CREDIT FOR PARTIAL ENGAGEMEMNT Page 10, Line 20 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: This change would finally recognize the ef- forts of the individual to meet the federal WPR, even if it is a partial effort. All ef- forts should be recognized. CCWRO POSITION Support CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS None SECTION 6(c)(3) STATE OPTION TO REQUEST ALTERNATIVE WORK PARTICIPATION CALCULATION – Page 11, Line 16 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: From the perspective of the TANF benefi- ciary the best outcome of the TANF program is to obtain the tools needed to be- come self-sufficient through a self-sufficiency path selected by the individual and not the state welfare bureaucrat. Congress should also be aware that this does not happen overnight. First of all, families living on a fixed income that is less than 25% of the federal poverty rate, are in deep poverty. They are competing for jobs with people who are dressed, have a computer, cell phone, car and money for transportation. Most TANF beneficiaries lack many of these resources. CCWRO POSITION Support if amended as set forth below CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS The TANF recipients are the customers of this program. We believe that TANF recipient evaluation of the performance of the state welfare agency should be given adequate weight. California’s Welfare-to-Work (WtW) program spends about $2.2 billion a year on work and childcare programs and less than 2 to 3% of the participants find em- ployment that results in the termination of TANF benefits. On the other hand, the WtW program sanctions over 50% of the unduplicated participants. See TABLE # 4. ___________________________________________ SECTION 6(c)(5) MODIFICATION OF RULE PROVIDING FOR PARTICIPATION BY REASON OF SECONDARY SCHOOL PARTICIPATION Page 13, Line 20 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: Education is the on- ly real effective antidote to poverty in the 21st century. This proposal is a very small step in helping TANF recipients to achieve self-sufficiency through educa- tion. As recent history has shown us, jobs yielding in- comes that allow for self-sufficiency have migrated to other countries. Jobs yielding income that would support a family demand workers with education higher than a Jobs yielding income that would support a family demand workers with education higher than a high school diploma. Most TANF recipients lack high school diplomas. high school diploma. Most TANF recipients lack high school diplomas. We would suggest that rather than having a 2-year ceiling on education, states be required to have a program that provides at least two-years of secondary school education and allow states to approve more than two years at their option. CCWRO POSITION Support if amended as stated below. CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS Amend the bill as follows: On page 14, strike lines 8 through 11 and in lieu thereof insert: (6) The individual who maintains satisfactory attendance at sec- ondary school or the equivalent for at least 24 months and, at the state’s option, for a longer period provided the participant is mak- ing satisfactory progress as defined by the secondary education entity that the individual is attending. ___________________________________________ OPEN ISSUE SECTION 6(c)(6) WHETHER TO ADJUST CURRENT CAP ON SHARE OF WORK PARTICIPATION RATE THAT CAN BE SATISFIED BY PARTICIPATION IN EDUCATION Page 14, Line 8 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: Education is the most effective way to help TANF recipients achieve self-sufficiency. As recent history has shown us, jobs yielding incomes that allow for self-sufficiency have migrated to other counties. Individuals should have a right to decide the best path to self-sufficiency and Congress should provide states with the flexibility to accommodate the individu- als’ decision how to overcome deep poverty that the majority of TANF recipient endure today they live on a cash assistance of 25% of the federal poverty level. CCWRO POSITION Support lifting the cap. CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS Remove all caps. If workfare and job search have no caps, then education should not have a cap. Let the beneficiaries decide and not Washington the bureaucrats what best for the TANF individuals . ___________________________________________ SECTION 6(c)(4) MODIFICATION OF COUNTING JOB SEARCH AS WORK – Page 14, Line 8 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: This change would in- crease the job search period to three months. We have seen many job search programs that require individuals without a high school diploma, non-English speakers or individuals with a felony record to look for jobs that they are not equipped to do or jobs that do not exist. It makes more sense if the state submits quarterly plans to the HHS region- al office for approval, showing the availability of jobs so that the individual is not merely submitting applications and get- ting a piece of paper signed just to satisfy the state and local workfare bureaucrats. This is burdensome on small business owners, who have to take applications for jobs that do not exist, just to make sure that the individual, who is also a cus- tomer of the small business, satisfies the welfare agency’s need for paper proof that the individual applied for a job. CCWRO POSITION Oppose unless amended. CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS Amend the law to require that States demon- strate with objective statistical information that the job search being performed by individuals to meet the federal WPR are for jobs that actually exists and that states are not gaming the system by forcing individuals looking for jobs that do not exist. ___________________________________________ SECTION 6(c)(7) REQUIREMENT TO REVIEW INDIVIDUAL OPPORTUNITY PLANS FOR INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN JOB READINESS ACTIVITIES FOR LONGER THAN THREE MONTHS Page 14, Line 12 This is burdensome on small business owners, who have to take applica- tions for jobs that do not exist, just to make sure that the individual, who is also a customer of the small business, satisfies the welfare agency’s need for paper proof that the individual applied for a job. RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: This is a positive change, but, from the per- spective of the individual, the current draft is meaningless. This section simply requires the State to certify that more job search would be good for the person after the three months of, often frivolous, job search, that is a total waste of tax- payer dollars. Under the federal AFDC Work Incentive Program (WIN), California had a 3-day job search that yielded more employment than today’s glorified job clubs and never ending job search programs. Although job search is cheaper than training and education, it does not lead to self-sufficiency. Finally, it is puzzling that the state agency is required to determine if the partici- pant can be sanctioned pursuant to section 408(b)(3). The insertion of 408(b)(3) implies that the individual has done something wrong by not finding a job after looking for work for three months when there was no finding by the state agen- cy that there were any available jobs in the first place that the participant could perform and all barriers to self-sufficiency have been identified and verifiably re- moved. CCWRO POSITION OPPOSE unless amended as stated below. CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS Amend the bill as follows: On page 15, strike lines 3 through 8 and in lieu thereof insert: unless the individual certifies in writing that continued participation in such an activity would support and prepare the individual for em- ployment or in the alternative it would not. The individual shall make a choice between the two options in writing. The state agency shall provide objective evidence that the additional job search would yield self-sufficiency. The state agency shall pro- vide quarterly reports of the number of individuals who participated in the job search activity and the number of participants finding em- ployment that yielded income over 100% of the federal poverty level. If two consecutive quarterly reports show that the state agency has not met this standard, then the state shall no longer be allowed to operate a job search program more than three months. _________________________________________ SECTION 6(c)(9) INCREASE IN TIME LIMIT ON COUNTING VOCATIONAL EDUCATION TRAINING AS WORK Page 15. Line 19 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: This would be beneficial to TANF benefi- ciaries. CCWRO POSITION Support CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS As stated above, states should have flexibility to go beyond this 24-month limit. One-size does not fit all. ___________________________________________ OPEN ISSUE SECTION 6(c)(10) HOW TO VERIFY PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES- Page 15, Line 23 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: How to verify TANF activities? From the perspective of the TANF beneficiary, participation alone is not much benefit, if it is done just to meet the desires of the statute to show that TANF recipients are doing something that has no positive outcomes for the beneficiary. From the per- spective of the beneficiary, a positive outcome is getting the necessary tools to obtain and retain employment that would propel the family out of poverty and into self-sufficiency. The TANF program has time limits. Time limits impede the ability of beneficiaries to acquire the tools needed to obtain and retain employment that would pay more than the poverty level. The purpose of the employment program is to remove the barriers that the beneficiary has preventing her or him from getting a job that pays a family wage. The removal of those barriers cannot be done the same way for all beneficiaries. Each individual, just like each state, has different needs and barriers. Some need extensive education, while others need a refresher course. Transportation is generally a major problem for finding and maintaining a job for TANF recipients. Yet most states do thing to address this major barrier except for sometimes paying for public transportation, if the beneficiary is lucky. In California about 50% of the beneficiaries actually participating do not receive transportation services. See TABLE # 4. Moreover, there is nothing in the federal law that says the beneficiary shall receive transportation. In America today, thou- sands and thousands of families endure full-family sanctions because they did not have money for transportation and could not use their TANF grant to pay for transportation after paying for rent and utilities, with the TANF grants being 25% of the federal poverty level. Often beneficiaries who find employment and become self-sufficient, do not re- port it to the welfare department because of the relationship of the welfare sys- tem and the individuals the state agency is the overbearing parent always threatening sanctions and the individual just can’t wait to get out of the horrible relationship. This is not to say that there are not individuals who adore their state employment worker. But as a general rule they don’t, thus they do not tell the welfare system that they got a job. On the other hand, if the statute would man- date that individuals who meet the provisions of the opportunity plan and provide evidence of self-sufficiency, they should be given an incentive for reporting and achieving the milestone of self-sufficiency that is meaningful. CCWRO POSITION Support if the participation rates are based on achieving the benchmarks of the individual’s opportunity plan by 50% and having 50% of those eligible for TANF to be participating in the TANF program and require states to provide meaningful bonuses to individuals who become self-sufficient and report that to the state agency. CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS The discussion draft has a proposal for an opportunity plan . The TANF program has two primary goals: (1) assistance to needy families; and (2) getting the TANF recipients to become self-sufficient by meeting the benchmarks of the TANF opportunity plan. ___________________________________________ SECTION 6(d) PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO SATISFY MINIMUM PARTICIPATION RATES Page 16, Line RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: We would oppose this provision unless it protects the individuals that the program is supposed to serve from being pun- ished through reduction of cash assistance payments because of the failure of the State to meet the federal minimum participation rates. The children suffer the most by having States reduce the already low payment levels of payments to families. CCWRO POSITION Support if amended as stated below. CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS Amend the bill as follows: On page 17, between lines 11 and 12 insert: (C) In no event shall payments to families in the form of cash assistance be reduced that have any explicit or implied connec- tion to the state’s failure to meet the requirements of this sec- tion. ___________________________________________ SECTION 6(e) REPORT OF NON-ENGAGEMENT OF NON-WORKING RECIPIENTS Page 17, Line 16 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: Many beneficiaries are not engaged be- cause the state agency has failed to assure that they have childcare and trans- portation services. While Congress wants to verify participation, there is no re- quirement that state agencies verify that the individual actually has supportive services before being required to participate in an activity and be subject to the provisions of Section 408(b)(2). CCWRO POSITION Support if amended. CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS Amend the bill to include monthly sanction reports to let the public know the number of children enduring TANF-caused government economic child abuse that often leads to the destruction of the family with children ending up in foster care. The report should also document whether or not supportive services were actual- ly available before the individual was asked to engage and did not engage. In California, local welfare workers tell participants that the county will pay for childcare. However, before childcare can be paid, the provider must be approved by Trust line1. If the provider fails Trust line, the provider is not paid for his\/her work. Thus, the community learns that the welfare office does not speak the truth when they say they will pay for childcare and refuse to work as a childcare pro- vider unless paid in advance. In California, and I believe in most states, childcare payments cannot be advanced. Congress should know that just because there are millions of dollars appropriat- ed for TANF recipients for childcare, does not mean the individuals actually re- ceive childcare. ___________________________________________ SECTION 6(f) PURPOSES OF TANF PROGRAM TO INCLUDE REDUCING POVERTY Page 19, Line 13 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: The reason that the TANF program has been a bonanza for States in that the TANF money can be used for anything ra- ther than families who meet the rigorous eligibility and work requirements of the TANF program. This has caused extreme undue hardship upon impoverished families of America while showering states with federal money that is minimally used to relieve poverty and it is generally used to provide aid to state bureau- cracies . CCWRO POSITION Support if amended. 1 TrustLine is a California’s registry of license-exempt childcare providers who have been through a criminal background screening and clearance process. CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS Limit the purpose of the using the TANF money for the families who meet the eligibility requirements and are required to participate in employment programs and are subject to the provisions of 408(b)(3). ___________________________________________ OPEN ISSUE SECTION 6(h) ELIGIBILITY OF INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF DRUG-RELATED CRIMES Page 20, Lines 8-9 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: Children are always better off with their nat- ural parents, even with a natural parent who has done wrong and done the time. The denial of TANF benefits to parents who have criminal convictions and have served time in jail or prison should not continue to be punished because such continued punishment has a negative impact on the children. Moreover, by deny- ing aid to the parent, the parent is also being denied the opportunity to receive case management and assistance in becoming self-sufficient. CCWRO POSITION See below. CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS This policy has always been anti-family and anti-child resulting in government-induced economic child abuse. It should be re- pealed. Every child needs a parent, and no child should be punished because his or her parent did wrong, paid the price and now wants to do right. ___________________________________________ SECTION 7. PROMOTING INCREASED EMPLOYMENT, RETENTION, AND ADVANCEMENT AMONG FORMER TANF RECIPIENTS Page 21, Line 1. RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: Former TANF recipients would be very happy to get assistance. CCWRO POSITION Support if amended CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS This section should specify the amount of money to be used to pay for case management services, which should be no more than 50%. The remaining funds should be used to aid former TANF recipi- ents with supportive services, such as childcare, transportation and other ancil- lary needs SECTION 8. STRENGTHENING TANF FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS ___________________________________________ SECTION 8(a)(1). No Counting of Third-Party Spending to Meet State Spending Requirements Page 28, Line 15 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: This would have a positive impact on TANF recipients in that it stops the States from gaming the system and pretending to count money that does not reach TANF recipients, in that, the beneficiaries of those funds do not have to meet the TANF eligibility and work requirements. CCWRO POSITION Support CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS None ___________________________________________ SECTION 8(a)(2). No Counting of Spending on Medical Services to Meet State Spending Requirement Page 29, Line 23 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: This would have a positive impact on TANF recipients in that it stops the States from gaming the system and pretending to count money that does not reach TANF recipients in that the beneficiaries of those funds do not have to meet the TANF eligibility and work requirements. CCWRO POSITION Support CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS None ___________________________________________ SECTION 8(c). Prohibition on Use of Federal TANF Funds for Families with Income Greater Than Twice the Poverty Line Page 30, Line 9 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: This would have a positive impact on TANF recipients in that is stops the States from gaming the system and pretending to count money that does not reach TANF recipients in that the beneficiaries of those funds do not have to meet the TANF eligibility and work requirements. CCWRO POSITION Support CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS This section should be amended to include the State TANF Maintenance of Efforts to prevent the States from finding another way to game the system. ___________________________________________ OPEN ISSUE SECTION 8(e). HOW SHOULD STATES USE THE TANF FUNDS? Page 32, Lines 20-23 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: States have been fleecing the TANF pro- gram and gaming the system for decades. The name of this program is Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and not Aid to Needy States . The program has been functioning as a program that provides aid to needy, and often greedy, states . California’s budget reveals that TANF has contributed over $1.5 billion a year to the state general fund while the average family on TANF\/CalWORKs is getting cash assistance that is equal to about 30% of the federal poverty level. See TABLE #3 showing the history of California’s budget for the TANF program. This is from the Governor’s proposed budget. Taking from poor children and families is not a California phenomenon. It is something done by major- ity of the States. CCWRO POSITION See recommendation below. CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS Limit TANF expenditures to TANF-eligible re- cipients who are required to meet the TANF work requirements. The federal TANF grant and the State Maintenance of Efforts (MOE) funds shall be used by states as follows: Expenditures Floor Percentage of Federal TANF and State MOE funds Cash Assistance Payments to Needy Families 70% Child care- There is already the Child Care Block Grant available for TANF. 10% should be more than sufficient 10% Work activities 10% Administration 10% Any funds not used by the state in any year shall be returned to the federal government and used to pay of the U.S. public debt. In 2013 states failed to use over $3 billion. In 2014 there were about $1.5 billion not used. There are some who are advocating for the increase of The program has been func- tioning as a program that provides aid to needy, and often greedy, states . In 2013 states failed to use over $3 bil- lion. In 2014 there were about $1.5 billion not used. There are some who are advo- cating for the increase of the TANF block grant. We would support increasing the TANF block grant if states had to do a 100% match and use 70% for cash assis- tance. We do not support welfare for state government . the TANF block grant. We would support increasing the TANF block grant if states had to do a 100% match and use 70% for cash assistance. We do not support welfare for state government . The administrative costs of other means-tested programs and employment pro- grams: Program Administration Costs SNAP, formerly known as food stamps 5% for state and local SNAP agencies Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Less than 1% Unemployment Insurance that includes a work program (in 2010 according to the GATO institute) $134 billion in benefits and administra- tive cost of 5.9 billion = .004% ___________________________________________ SECTION 8(f)(2). LIMITS ON ACCESS TO ASSISTANCE IN CASINOS, STRIP CLUBS, AND LIQUOR STORES Page 33, Line 5 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: These federal restrictions have already been implemented in California. The major problem facing TANF recipients is that with Electronic Benefits Transfer banks have been fleecing TANF recipi- ents by charging fees to use the banks’ ATM machine to access their funds. Calendar Year TANF Recipient Payments to Banks in the Form of Surcharges and Fees 2011 $20,234,150 2012 $19,377,374 2013 $18,875,475 2014 $19,595,619 CCWRO POSITION see below CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS Prohibit the state agency from requiring any TANF individual from being required to pay any fee or surcharge to any bank to access their TANF benefits. ___________________________________________ SECTION 9. ELIMINATION OF THE MARRIAGE PENALTY Page 35, Line 9 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: This is a good step in supporting marriage. Congress should go one more step and prohibit the use of any TANF funds or TANF MOE funds for state TANF policies that results in a penalty for being mar- ried. CCWRO POSITION Support CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS Prohibit the use of any TANF funds or TANF MOE funds for state TANF policies that results in a penalty for being married. ___________________________________________ OPEN ISSUE SECTION 11(b). REQUIRE SECRETARY OF HHS, USDA, HUD AND OTHER SECRETARIES TO REPORT TO CONGRESS ON BARRI- ERS TO IMPROVING PROGRAM COORDINATION AND HOW TO DEVELOP CROSS-PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY Page 92, Line 3 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: The major barriers for beneficiaries to assis- tance lies in the fact that each program has different eligibility requirements. Re- cipients must complete and file multiple applications when it can be done more efficiently through horizontal integration. This means that if a person is eligible for TANF, then they should also be eligible for SNAP, WIC if the child is at the WIC age, Section 8, childcare, school meals and other programs, if otherwise eligible. Recipient would OPPOSE putting these programs in one pot to be administered by the welfare office or another office that is not in business of running all of the- se programs. Lumping programs together into one pot would mean beneficiaries would receive benefits, but the outcomes would not yield maximum benefits to the beneficiary as the program has potential to deliver. CCWRO POSITION None CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS The Secretaries should review their programs and try to align the eligibility requirements to streamline and simplify the admin- istration of the program designed for the same beneficiary. They should report to Congress annually what statutory eligibility requirements impede the simplifica- tion of the programs designed to assist low-income persons and families. ___________________________________________ SECTION 13. RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Page 108, Line 12 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: There is very little research as to why so many families who live in deep poverty, are able to eat, but are homeless and receive no cash assistance. The bar- riers to participation in the TANF program should be extensively reviewed to spot barriers to participation similar to the way USDA identified barriers to participation in the SNAP program, unless it is the intent of Congress to enact a program and then erect barriers between the program and its intended beneficiar- ies. A family eligible for TANF and SNAP should leave the wel- fare office with both SNAP and TANF, if otherwise eligible. CCWRO POSITION Support CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS Research should also identi- fy barriers that families eligible for TANF not receiving TANF benefits. ___________________________________________ SECTION 13(h). DEVELOPMENT OF WHAT WORKS CLEARINGHOUSE OF PROVEN AND PROMISING APPROACHES TO MOVE WELFARE RECIPIENTS INTO WORK Page 111, Line 10 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: This section would only look at what works and fails to look on the other side of the coin what does not work. Many TANF state policies, such as full-family sanctions, are financially deadly to poor families. Full family sanctions help states meet their work participation rates by sentencing The barriers to partici- pation in the TANF pro- gram should be exten- sively reviewed to spot barriers to participation similar to the way USDA identified barriers to participation in the SNAP program, unless it is the intent of Con- gress to enact a pro- gram and then erect barriers between the program and its intend- ed beneficiaries. families to a lifetime of poverty. If the family is not in the numerator, then they cannot impact the denominator. CCWRO POSITION Support CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS Develop best practices for the improvement of the TANF program to benefits the individuals and children. Upon completion, circulate the best practices to the states. ___________________________________________ OPEN ISSUE SECTION 15(b). CHANGE TERMINALOGY FROM FROM VOCATIONAL AND EDUCATION TRAINING TO CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION TRAINING Page 117, Line 5 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: The constant changing of names of a pro- gram is confusing to TANF beneficiaries. Any education or training program is designed for career development. The only reason that TANF recipients would enroll in any educational or training program is to have a career, to become self- sufficient. Welfare moms do not go to college to have fun. They are not invited to parties because they have kids to take care of. Any welfare mom participating in an educational or training, is doing so to achieve self-sufficiency. They are he- roes! CCWRO POSITION Oppose CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS RECIPIENT SUGGESTIONS TO MAKE THE PROGRAM FAMILY\/CHILD FRIENDLY Some ideas that the Ways and Means Committee may want to consider are: 1. Provide employment services and supportive services to parents who have timed out. 2. The time limits shall never be applied to children. 3. Any month that the parent works and meets the federal WPRs should not count towards the 60-month time clock. 4. All states shall have a 60-month time clock. 5. Parents who are not being aided should not be in the numerator. Current law requires that the States include par- ents in the numerator even when they are not being aided and are not provid- ed with any employment services. California Department of Social Services Local Assistance 2015-16 Governor’s Budget AUXILIARY TABLES* TABLE OF CONTENTS Includes charts, graphs and additional history regarding various CDSS local assistance programs. Public Assistance Programs Average Monthly Grants…………………………………………………….. 1 CalWORKs and CalFresh Caseload Projections Summary ……………………………………………… 3 Children and Adults Caseload Projections Summary ……………………………………………………… 5 SSI\/SSP Payment Standards ……………………………………………………………………………………… 7 CAPI Payment Standards ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13 CalWORKs MAP Levels…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19 CalWORKs MAP History ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 21 Historical CalWORKs and TANF Funding …………………………………………………………………….. 23 Funding Reconciliation for CalWORKs, the TANF Block Grant and MOE ………………………….. 27 Community Care Licensing Licensed Facilities …………………………………………………………… 29 IHSS Individual Provider Caseload and Hours by County ……………………………………………….. 30 IHSS Wage, Tax, Benefit and Administrative Rates ……………………………………………………….. 32 IHSS County MOE: Shift to GF …………………………………………………………………………………… 37 TABLE #3 Historical CalWORKs and TANF Funding Chart* FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total TANF Grant\/Required MOE $ 6,583,092,000 $ 6,584,132,000 $ 6,950,599,000 $ 6,580,797,000 CalWORKs Program1 Grants Administration Services Child Care Substance Abuse\/Mental Health Svcs County Share of Admin\/Svcs2 Tribal TANF3 Performance Incentives (budgeted) Probation Student Aid Commission KinGAP ARRA Subsidized Employment – ECF ARRA Non-Recurrent Short-Term Benefits ECF Non-MOE\/TANF in CDSS Additional TANF\/MOE Expenditures in CDSS Other MOE Eligible Expenditures State Support 5,341,526,077 3,275,881,220 579,578,620 829,198,822 542,554,111 114,313,304 27,214,878 71,001,000 114,052,000 (196,041,000) 271,073,000 714,079,000 28,131,000 5,341,519,431 3,406,732,000 590,571,121 798,905,700 440,639,196 104,671,414 8,368,000 69,750,000 107,687,000 158,508,000 176,233,000 (179,056,000) 299,394,000 668,044,000 27,687,000 5,576,729,520 3,674,460,000 619,727,897 784,790,383 388,502,665 109,248,575 69,073,000 91,033,000 200,348,000 18,775,000 (158,118,000) 303,620,000 641,575,000 29,180,000 5,269,004,000 3,260,513,000 652,927,039 826,832,008 409,314,953 119,417,000 73,743,000 56,454,000 (163,597,000) 291,131,000 682,620,000 29,019,000 Total Expenditures 6,343,821,077 6,892,156,000 6,772,215,520 6,238,374,000 Federal TANF General Fund (MOE)4 Other State Funds (Employment Training Funding) County Funds4 Total TANF transfers Non-CalWORKs Transfers5 CalWORKs\/Tribal TANF Transfers and Reserves 3,560,047,000 2,715,820,000 35,000,000 133,454,000 442,017,000 169,793,000 272,224,000 4,041,842,000 2,712,840,000 20,000,000 117,474,000 440,818,000 186,921,000 253,897,000 3,810,007,000 3,103,684,000 113,097,000 440,163,000 197,931,808 242,231,192 3,391,395,000 1,689,030,000 1,157,949,000 444,672,000 192,242,450 252,429,550 TANF Grant\/Required MOE Prior Year TANF Carry Forward6 Excess MOE Needed to Fund Programs Single Allocation Reappropriation (AB 1477) ARRA – Emergency Contingency Funds ARRA – Subsidized Employment ARRA – Non-Recurring ECF Un- spent Performance Incentives High Performance Bonus 6,583,092,000 119,532,000 259,212,000 6,584,132,000 117,100,000 370,195,000 159,386,000 176,233,000 6,950,599,000 233,398,000 125,626,000 215,348,000 27,225,000 6,580,797,000 158,450,000 Total Available Funding Total Funding Needed 6,961,836,000 6,785,838,077 7,407,046,000 7,332,974,000 7,552,196,000 7,212,378,520 6,739,247,000 6,683,046,000 NET TANF Carry-Over Funds6 75,498,000 74,072,000 91,187,000 56,201,000 CalWORKs Contribution to the Gen- eral Fund7 $ 1,268,997,000 $ 1,262,046,000 $ 1,234,159,808 $ 1,222,447,450 Please see Notes Associated with the CalWORKs and TANF Funding Chart for additional information. Historical CalWORKs and TANF Funding Chart* FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 Revised Budget FY 2015-16 Governor’s Budget Total TANF Grant\/Required MOE $ 6,584,722,000 $ 6,575,412,000 $ 6,578,959,000 $ 6,572,248,000 CalWORKs Program1 Grants Admin- stration Ser- vices Child Care Substance Abuse\/Mental Health Svcs County Share of Admin\/Svcs2 Tribal TANF3 Performance Incentives (budgeted) Probation Student Aid Commission KinGAP ARRA Subsidized Employment – ECF ARRA Non-Recurrent Short-Term Benefits ECF Non-MOE\/TANF in CDSS Additional TANF\/MOE Expenditures in CDSS Other MOE Eligible Expenditures State Support 5,076,484,000 3,155,806,000 643,265,561 819,383,597 330,464,842 127,564,000 69,045,000 803,754,000 69,044,000 (163,874,000) 308,402,000 522,617,000 29,703,000 5,285,017,000 3,117,515,000 746,813,504 931,663,610 362,418,886 126,606,000 80,168,000 541,712,000 73,319,000 (339,006,000) 311,414,000 468,067,000 29,999,000 5,503,947,000 3,200,769,000 779,020,271 1,021,629,035 375,922,694 126,606,000 75,945,000 377,406,000 74,977,000 (599,719,000) 343,540,000 540,382,000 29,900,000 5,607,783,000 3,241,950,000 801,636,168 1,050,754,650 386,836,182 126,606,000 83,951,000 286,320,000 78,523,000 (596,209,000) 371,502,000 561,016,000 29,796,000 Total Expenditures 6,715,175,000 6,450,690,000 6,346,378,000 6,422,682,000 Federal TANF General Fund (MOE)4 Other State Funds (Employment Training Funding) County Funds4 3,470,035,000 2,056,417,000 1,188,723,000 3,389,838,000 1,653,982,000 1,406,870,000 3,387,456,000 1,202,909,000 1,756,013,000 3,378,309,000 1,262,417,000 1,781,956,000 Total TANF transfers 440,136,000 451,931,000 446,794,000 454,547,000 Non-CalWORKs Transfers5 CalWORKs\/Tribal TANF Transfers and Reserves 192,243,000 247,893,000 192,242,773 259,688,227 192,119,000 254,675,000 192,119,000 262,428,000 TANF Grant\/Required MOE Prior Year TANF Carry Forward6 Excess MOE Needed to Fund Programs Single Allocation Reappropriation (AB 1477) ARRA – Emergency Contingency Funds ARRA – Subsidized Employment ARRA – Non-Recurring ECF Un- spent Performance Incentives High Performance Bonus 6,584,722,000 245,245,000 394,236,000 80,000,000 6,575,412,000 107,951,000 219,258,000 6,578,959,000 199,470,000 113,781,000 6,572,248,000 99,038,000 205,943,000 Total Available Funding Total Funding Needed 7,304,203,000 7,155,311,000 6,902,621,000 6,902,621,000 6,892,210,000 6,793,172,000 6,877,229,000 6,877,229,000 NET TANF Carry-Over Funds6 148,892,000 – 99,038,000 CalWORKs Contribution to the General Fund7 $ 1,896,060,000 $ 1,586,754,773 $ 1,528,424,000 $ 1,489,480,000 25 California TANF\/CalWORKs Annual Involuntary Contributions to the California State General Fund State Fiscal Year Amount of Annual TANF\/CalWORKs Involuntary Contribution FY 98-99 $708,502,000 FY 99-00 $745,249,000 FY 00-01 $1,021,913,000 FY 01-02 $1,126,647,000 FY 02-03 $1,088,940,000 FY 03-04 $1,163,238,000 FY 04-05 $1,087,321,000 FY 05-06 $1,299,448,000 FY 06-07 $1,184,134,000 FY 07-08 $1,745,291,000 FY 08-09 $1,268,997,000 FY 09-10 $1,262,291,000 FY 10-11 $ 1,234,159,808 FY 11-12 $ 1,222,447,450 FY 12-13 $1,896,060,000 FY 13-14 $1,586,754,773 FY 14-15 $1,522,729,000 FY- 15-16 $1,777,001,000 Total TANF Contribution to the California General Fund Since the Repeal of AFDC $22,941,123,031 26 TABLE #4 CalWORKs Welfare-to-Work Monthly Activity Report WTW 25 For May, 2015 – STATEWIDE PART A. ENROLLMENT DATA 1. Enrollees 179,488 2. Exemptions 84,847 3. Removed from the Assistance Unit 0 a. Sanctions 58,810 4. Entered employment 9,353 5. Terminations due to employment 4,614 PART B. ACTIVITIES 6. Appraisal 11,360 7. Assessment 5,710 8. Reappraisal 949 9. Job search & job readiness assistance 14,231 10. Unsubsidized employment 64,741 11. Self-employment 5,143 12. Subsidized private sector employment 1,776 13. Subsidized public sector employment 2,442 14. On-the-job training (OJT) 226 15. Grant-based on-the-job training (OJT) 1 16. Work-study 1,955 17. Supported work or transitional employment 140 18. Work experience 2,874 19. Community service 4,914 20. Job skills training directly related to employment 4,816 21. Vocational education training 18,714 22. Education directly related to employment 3,518 23. Adult basic education 5,953 24. Satisfactory progress in a secondary school 201 25. Other activities 6,228 27. Providing childcare to community services participants 0 27. Mental health services 6,247 28. Substance abuse services 1,480 29. Domestic abuse services 3,259 a. Granted DV Waiver 2,721 30. Number of individuals 6-29 (Unduplicated) 122,173 a. Self-Initiated Education Program 6,883 PART C. NONPARTICIPATION STATUS 31. Noncompliance 30,412 32. Good cause for not participating in WTW 16,562 PART D. SUPPORTIVE SERVICES 33. Transportation 67,872 34. Ancillary services 13,292 35. Post-employment\/Job-retention services 9,119 36. Post CalWORKs 60-month time limit services 2,876 CCWRO DATA ANALYSIS Unduplicated Participants Not Receiving Transportation 54,301 Persons 44% Unduplicated Participants Sanctioned 48% Unduplicated Participants Finding Employment that Terminates TANF 4% 27 ”
