|
Angela Z. Monson State
Senator Oklahoma President, NCSL Gary S. Olson Director, Senate Fiscal
Agency Michigan Staff Chair, NCSL William T. Pound Executive Director |
July 24, 2003
|
Honorable Charles E. Grassley Chairman, Committee on Finance |
Honorable Max Baucus Ranking Minority Member United States Senate |
Dear Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus:
In the 1996 welfare reform law and subsequent
regulations, states were given a great deal of flexibility in return for
accepting a block grant. States used
the flexibility they were given to transform welfare in this country by putting
people to work and providing low-income families services leading to
self-sufficiency. State welfare
programs have honored and rewarded work.
States urge the reauthorization of the TANF
program because budgetary and policy consistency from the federal government is
critical, especially for state legislatures with biennial sessions and
budgets. The TANF program requires
significant financial decisions about state priorities to serve low-income
families. As important as
reauthorization is, however, now is not the time for drastic changes in the
TANF program.
States face significant fiscal challenges that
must be taken into account in reauthorizing the program. Jobs, especially for those with few skills,
are harder to find now than they were when TANF was implemented. To meet state balanced budget requirements,
states have spent down their TANF funds, have made budget cuts in front-line
staff, and simply cannot afford to implement the changes proposed in H.R. 4.
NCSL applauds Senator Grassley’s attempt to
craft a workable bill that could garner bipartisan support in the Senate. Particularly, NCSL appreciates that Senator
Grassley’s most recent proposal provides states with an employment credit that
allows more work effort and provision of services to low income families to
count toward an employment credit.
States appreciate that it does not impose the same work requirements for
parents of a child under six. State
lawmakers also agree that imposing full family sanctions is not the province of
the federal government. States believe
that part-time work is an important step to moving recipients to
self-sufficiency, and so we support credit for part-time employment. We look forward to continuing a discussion
of the amount of time for which barrier removal activities count as work.
However, we cannot support your proposal at this
time. There remain several key concerns
state legislators have that require further alteration and resolution. These include:
·
State legislators support the current standard
of requiring 30 hours (20 for mothers of children under six) to count in the
work participation rates. Major changes
in work requirements, such as those in the House-passed H.R. 4, compromise
state decisions about serving individual recipients. States have allocated their resources to focus on helping
welfare recipients get and maintain private sector employment. They have developed successful strategies
to end welfare dependence, including work programs. But states fear that new mandates will force states to establish
community work programs at the expense of those that have left or never been on
the rolls. If new and inflexible work requirements are added to the program,
states, constrained by the fixed sum of money available and their own economic
difficulties, will be forced to cut back on other TANF funded programs that
support work.
·
Reasonable additional funding must be included
for child care. Increased child care
must not have a state match attached, or else states will not be able to draw down
these much-needed funds. States currently spend 20% of TANF on child care, but
still must choose whether poor families who have never been on TANF or poor
families who are moving off cash assistance receive subsidies. If, as the Administration and some
Congressional bills propose, states are faced with more parents having to work
more hours a week, and no new funds are provided, the situation will get worse.
·
State legislators believe that an employment
credit should not be capped. Private
sector employment is the pathway to permanently leaving welfare. A full credit for employment encourages
strategies that serve this goal.
·
Similarly, successful state efforts to divert
potential applicants from ever going on cash assistance should be rewarded by a
full credit. If the employment credit
is capped, separate, uncapped credit for diversion activities should be given
outside of the capped credit.
·
Transitional Medical Assistance must be extended
for five years, and Congress should not penalize states through the withdrawal
of administrative funds.
·
Penalty relief must be a part of your bill
because it allows for state improvement in difficult circumstances. There should not be a penalty for not
meeting universal engagement requirements.
·
If recipients are determined by the federal
government to be disabled and eligible for SSI, these recipients should removed
from the state’s work participation rate for the year.
·
In order to work with recipients with barriers
to employment, states believe that they should have the flexibility to work on
these issues for an additional three months after the initial three month
period.
We stand ready to work with you on this
important program. But if it is not
possible for Congress to reach agreement on a reauthorization that states can
support, NCSL urges you to extend the program without policy changes and
without reducing funding, as the best way to continue the progress made since
1996.
Sincerely,
|
|
|
|
Senator Raymond Meier New York Co-Chair NCSL Executive Committee Task Force
on Welfare
Reform Reauthorization |
Representative Georganna T. Sinkfield Welfare Reform Reauthorization |
