 |
 |
 |
|
   |
 |
|
 |
|
|
NOTE: Hyperlinks provided in this policy fax briefing were correct as of the time of publication. April 2001 - Vol. 3, No 3
 Legislation Targeted at Low-Income Families Introduced in Senate; Bush Budget Proposals Released The Strengthening Working Families Act of 2001 (S. 685) was introduced in the Senate on April 3, 2001. The bill is sponsored by Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN), and is currently co-sponsored by 11 senators from both parties. The primary provisions contained in the bill would apply to child support, fatherhood and marriage promotion, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), child welfare, childcare and the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). Many of the bill's provisions are also in President Bush's budget proposal. The fatherhood and marriage promotion provisions will surely be supported by the administration in light of the President's emphasis on such measures, and the recent appointment of Wade Horn as Assistant Secretary of HHS. Dr. Horn previously served as President of the National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI), a private national marriage and responsible fatherhood promotion campaign. H.R. 1300, the Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2001, contains identical provisions to the fatherhood provisions contained in S. 685, but does not, as of this writing, contain the other titles and provisions. Also introduced on April 4, 2001 was the Child Support Distribution Act of 2001 (H. 1471), sponsored again by Representatives Nancy Johnson (R-CT) and Benjamin Cardin (D-MD). The provisions of this bill are primarily the same as those contained in the Child Support Distribution Act of 2000 (see Policy Briefing from June 2000, available on our website, www.cffpp.org, for a summary of that bill). The fatherhood section, however, reflects a substantially increased emphasis on marriage, in accordance with this year's focus on marriage policy. Where differences between H. 1471 and S. 685 are key, they are noted below. Among the many provisions of S. 685: Fatherhood provisions
Also included in the bill are provisions that would:
President Bush's budget also includes a proposal to allow states to use TANF funds to partially offset the cost of a Charitable State Tax Credit that would allow individuals to claim a tax credit of up to 50% of the first $500 ($1,000 for married couples) for contributions to charities addressing poverty. -AL and RM New Food Stamp Regulations Will Affect Child Support Payors The U.S. Food and Nutrition Service has issued new regulations that are intended to bring the Food Stamp Program (FSP) into compliance with the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. These regulations could have significant repercussions for families with any members who participate in TANF and/or the FSP. The regulations will:
An analysis of the new regulations was recently prepared by Paula Roberts of the Center on Law and Social Policy, and is available at www.clasp.org. -RM Uninsured and Working Poor Facing Reduction in Access to Health Care Services Under President Bush's new budget announced on April 9, health care services to the uninsured face an 86% cut in funding. First reports indicate that the proposed cuts would eliminate Community Access Grants, that fund training for health professionals who provide health care to the uninsured and would cut programs that promote the involvement of doctors and hospitals in providing care in poor communities. Families USA, a national organization for health care consumers, describes Bush's health care budget as "an obvious casualty of the huge tax reductions he proposes", tax reductions that will see little if any benefits for poor families. Additionally, the number of uninsured may increase as businesses become disinclined to provide health benefits due to an economic downturn and high inflation in health insurance costs. While President Bush and Republicans in Congress expect that these newly uninsured will be able to purchase private insurance with a small tax credit, the Congressional Budget Office has reported that such a tax subsidy would have to be significantly larger than that proposed by the administration in order to cover insurance costs for the families that need it most. Democrats will request additional funds for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and plan to expand CHIP to cover the low-income working parents of children currently covered. In a separate report, the state of Idaho has placed a restriction on promotional efforts to attract qualified recipients into what are deemed "very, very costly programs". Such programs include health coverage for children under Medicaid and Children's Health Care Program, immunization campaigns, domestic violence and child abuse services, substance abuse services, and programs for the disabled. In a state with a growing number of uninsured children, previous promotional efforts enrolled twice as many children in the Children's Health Care Program and found that four times as many were eligible for Medicaid. -AL Additional information can be found at: www.nytimes.com/2001/04/04/politics/04HEAL.html www.nytimes.com/2001/03/27/politics/27HEAL.html www.familiesusa.org/statement/bushbudget.htm www.idahostatesman.com/Legislature/daily/20010330/97940.htm Decline in Welfare Caseload Nationwide Reaching a Standstill Recent data from HHS indicate that welfare caseloads for most states have stopped the decline that started after welfare reform in 1996. Twelve states' welfare rolls have actually increased more than 3% in the last quarter reported, from June to September 2000. Drastic steady declines in welfare caseloads in the last six years propelled by new restrictions coincided with a time of unprecedented economic prosperity. Reports from several states indicate that state officials and advocates are concerned, however, that a slowing economy will be unable to sustain both former recipients placed into low-wage jobs and the large number of current recipients subject to the 60-month lifetime benefit limit within the next year. Some states estimate that nearly half of their current recipients will lose their benefits in 15 months due to the five-year lifetime limit that began in 1997. Some state officials acknowledge that there remain many recipients who have cooperated with the rules of their program and yet remain jobless, have returned to welfare, or earn less than a living wage at their Welfare-to-Work jobs. Various states' responses include proposals of state-funded initiatives such as a six to twelve month extension of benefits, non-time-limited cash bonuses for working families, and a pass-through of a percentage of collected child support to the custodial parent. Advocates for the poor, researchers, and businesses with workfare employees are calling for measures such as more frequent and forgiving time-outs from the time limits and increased financial supports for working families, citing time limits as a potential cause of widespread hardship if time limits are not addressed. -AL See: http://web.thestate.com/content www.pioneerplanet.coms www.dallasnews.com/texas_southwest www.startribune.com/viewers http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer http://philainq.infi.net/content Wisconsin Audit Finds Few Former Welfare Recipients Earning Above Poverty Wages A recent report by the Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau finds that, for a sample of 2,129 W-2 participants who were tracked since leaving the program during the first quarter of 1998, only two-thirds filed state tax returns. Only 34% of those who filed returns were earning incomes that exceeded the federal poverty level. With the Earned Income Tax Credit factored in for those families who qualified, about 47% of those who filed tax returns were above the poverty level. The audit also expressed concern over the disparities in the use of sanctions. Milwaukee County, with the greatest percentage of W-C caseload, sanctioned clients at a 10% higher rate than the rest of the state. The county's sanctions were also more frequently overturned on appeal than was the case for other counties. The audit recommends changes to the program such as:
Summary of Congressional Hearings On Workfare Available from NOW-LDEF The NOW-Legal Defense and Education Fund has a useful summary of hearings on work and welfare held by the House Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee on April 3, 2001. The summary provides an analysis of the testimony, which was, with few exceptions, intended to support even stronger work requirements, full family sanctions and the repeal of worker protections for workfare participants. NOW-LDEF is encouraging advocates and policy analysts to testify on the effects of harsher penalties and work requirements by sending testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee by April 17, 2001. You may contact Heather Ronovech at hronovech@nowldef.org, for a copy of the summary. Full testimony can be found at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/humres/107cong/hr-2wit.htm. -AL Regulation to Establish Grievance Procedures for Child Support Program Are Issued A memorandum prepared by Paula Roberts of the Center on Law and Social Policy (CLASP) is available on the CLASP website, www.clasp.org. The memorandum provides a useful analysis of the regulation, and the role that advocates could play in ensuring that grievance procedures will meet the needs of their constituencies. The memorandum addresses the minimum regulatory requirements for an acceptable grievance process, and additional protections that could be promoted, among other issues likely to become part of a state's establishment of the procedures. The process established by the State of California is used as an example of a grievance procedure that provides protections for noncustodial as well as custodial parents. -RM Please note: The Policy Briefing is now available via e-mail. For subscribers who currently receive the briefing by fax, and who would like to change, simply contact Rebecca May at 608/257-3148 or rmay@cffpp.org. E-mail saves us time and money, allows you to print out multiple copies, and provides access to attachments contained in the text. If you are adding your name to our subscriber list for the first time, please provide as much of your contact information as possible for entry into our database. Thank you! AL - Allison Lipscomb RM - Rebecca May |
|
|
 |
||
|
Copyright 2001, the Center on Fathers, Families, and Public Policy. All rights reserved. Privacy Statement | Copyright Statement | Disclaimer |
|
|
|
|||