NOTE: Hyperlinks provided in this policy fax briefing were correct as of the time of publication.

July 2000 - Vol. 2, No 6

• Progress in Welfare-to-Work Program's Enrollment and Job Placement is Slow
• Of Five Federal Legislative Proposals Related to Child Support Distribution, None Include Disregard Requirement
• TANF Block Grants of Poorer States at Risk of Funding Cuts
• Medical Journal Questions Ethics of Welfare Policy Evaluation
• USDA Issues Report on Declining Food Stamp Participation Rates
• Assistance Available for Understanding Child Support Terms

Progress in Welfare-to-Work Program's Enrollment and Job Placement is Slow

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has released the results from a second survey it conducted on the implementation of the Welfare-to-Work grants program. The report, Further Progress, Persistent Constraints: Findings from a Second Survey of the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program, was released in June 2000 and was conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Welfare-to-Work grants provide an additional resource for helping individuals with the greatest barriers to employment prepare for employment, find jobs, and stay employed.

Among the report's findings:

• While the average funding levels rose by 33 percent from 1998-1999, average expected total enrollment in Welfare-to-Work programs rose only 10 percent over the same period.
• Participation of males (primarily noncustodial parents) has been particularly disappointing. On average, 11 percent of participants enrolled to date have been males, compared to an anticipated participation rate of 20 percent. The report notes that recruitment of men has been difficult for some programs, particularly if they have been attempting to rely on child support enforcement offices for referrals.
• Most Welfare-to-Work grantees are now delivering services, but enrollment and program operations have been seriously impeded by restrictive eligibility rules still in effect in late 1999.
• Wages in unsubsidized employment averaged just $6.81 per hour, with limited opportunities for advancement. Only 24% of the grantees reached their goals for placements into unsubsidized employment; for supported work activities, placements ranged from about 13 percent to 34 percent of placement goals, and average wages were $5.50 to $5.60 per hour.

The report suggests three reasons for the low rates of referral and enrollment:

1. Eligible TANF recipients are likely to be engaged in work-first activities, to find employment on their own, or to leave the TANF rolls before being referred to a Welfare-to-Work program.
2. The original eligibility criteria have restricted the ability of programs to confirm TANF recipients as eligible for Welfare-to-Work services.
3. Declining TANF caseloads have shrunk the pool of potential eligible participants who might be referred.

The report cites two recent developments that could improve the delivery of Welfare-to-Work services in the future:

1. Recruitment difficulties should be eased by recent legislation that expanded and eased eligibility rules.
2. The Administration has proposed an extension of the period over which grantee organizations may use their Welfare-to-Work funds by two years.

The report can be downloaded from the web at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/wtw-2nd-survey00/index.htm.

Of Five Federal Legislative Proposals Related to Child Support Distribution, None Include Disregard Requirement

There are currently five proposals that have been introduced to Congress with provisions that would affect policy related to the pass-through and disregard of child support. The proposals are:

1. the "Children First Child Support Reform Act", introduced by Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) in May 1999
2. the "Child Support for Children Act", introduced by Representative Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) in March 2000
3. a set of initiatives introduced by President Clinton in January 2000 and directed at fathers, known as the "Fathers Work/Families Win" proposals
4. the "Child Support Distribution Act of 2000", introduced by Representative Nancy Johnson (R-CT) in May 2000
5. the "Responsible Fatherhood Act of 1999", introduced by Senator Bayh in July 1999, with a counterpart House bill introduced by Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) on June 15, 2000. Each proposal has been summarized in previous issues of the Policy Fax Briefing. The bills are in various stages and committees, and may change significantly before the current session ends

Although each of the proposals would ease the pressure on families that results from the state enforcing child support in order to recover the cost of welfare assistance, it is important to be aware that none of them would require states to disregard the amount of child support that is passed through to families when calculating the welfare grant amount. When the state passes through child support, but deducts that amount from the welfare grant, families who are on welfare receive no additional monthly income.

The Cardin bill would require states to pass-through collected child support but would make the disregard policy a state decision, with some incentives to encourage the disregard. The Kohl bill contains a greater incentive to disregard, but does not require the pass-through. The other bills approach the pass-through in more limited ways. The issue of the pass-through and disregard will be important for advocates to become aware of and to track as legislation and TANF reauthorization progress.

TANF Block Grants of Poorer States at Risk of Funding Cuts

Supplemental TANF block grants would be subject to $240 million in budget cuts contained in Appropriations bills proposed by the House, Senate and in the President's budget. The supplemental grants were established at the time PROWRA became law to provide an additional block grant allocation to the 17 states that have the highest child poverty rates, the lowest federal TANF grants relative to need and the least state capacity to generate revenues. If the supplemental grants are cut, 16 of the 17 states that receive them would face new barriers to implementing planned and needed TANF activities. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued a report on June 22, 2000, Appropriations Bills Would Cut Welfare Reform Block Grant Funding For 16 States, Undoing Compromise in Welfare Law, that details the proposed cuts and their potential impact on poor families. To obtain a copy of the report, go to www.cbpp.org, or contact the Center at 202/408-1080.

Medical Journal Questions Ethics of Welfare Policy Evaluation

In the July 5, 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, doctors question the ethics involved in a recent evaluation of a welfare initiative in Georgia. Under the initiative, the State of Georgia required that all families receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) be warned that unless they provided proof of up-to-date immunizations, they could be sanctioned from welfare. The evaluation involved the assignment of 1,500 families to a treatment group that was subject to the sanctions, and a control group of 1,000 families that was not.

The authors take issue with several aspects of the reform initiative and its evaluation:

• The threat of financial sanctions for delayed immunizations to a group already financially at risk an ethically questionable practice. The authors state that the ethical imperative in research should be to decrease, not increase, the overall risk borne by vulnerable groups.
• The study did not seek the approval of an institutional review board; neither did it obtain the informed consent of research participants. The authors note that federal waiver legislation has been utilized in all forty states to conduct reform initiatives and to study them, with random assignment if possible, but little mention is made in the legislation of participant protections.
• The study did not fully evaluate the impact of the threat of sanctions on the participants. While the study found that significantly more families dropped out of the treatment group than the control group (38.3% compared to 34.5% at 4 years), this was not fully investigated or attributed to any particular difference between the groups.

The commentary is available on-line at http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/. The study on which the commentary is based was completed by Abt Associates Inc. and can be obtained at www.abtassoc.com.

USDA Issues Report on Declining Food Stamp Participation Rates

The Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture has issued a report, The Decline in Food Stamp Program Participation in the 1990's, that uses State-level data and household-level data to calculate the reasons for recent caseload declines in the Food Stamp Program. The analysis finds that, while 28 percent of the total change in participation was associated with a decrease in the number of people living below 130% of the poverty line, a full 55% was due to a decline in the proportion of eligible low-income people who participate. The report is available on-line at http://www.ers.usda.gov/epubs/pdf/fanrr7/.

Assistance Available for Understanding Child Support Terms

The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement has issued a Glossary of Child Support Terms that could be helpful to individuals working with families involved in the child support system. The glossary provides a comprehensive list of acronyms and definitions of terms and language, including policies related to terms and cross-references. To access the glossary, go to www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse. From this site, click on "Policy Documents", then "Information Memorandum", then IM-00-08.