-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/c95c5eca2d4e73f4cbcb2ceae120d16b.pdf
fba2393cf74a4bc80c9a14b93d14adaa
PDF Text
Text
Clinton Presidential Records
.Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by t~e William J. Gl~nton :President'ial Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a publication.
Publications have not been scanned in their ~ntirety for the purpose
of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or
visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.
�PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
Re ort
Office of Child Support Enforcement
Vol. XVIII, No. 10, October 1996
Reform: For the Sake of the Children
David Gray Ross
W
en I was appointed operating head of the
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE)
a little over two years ago, welfare reform
was an important issue. I was very excited about the
prospect of its passage, in part because child support
enforcement was a critical element in that proposed
legislation. It would mean new resources for us in the
child support community, enabling us to provide bet
ter support to our ultimate customers: children and
families in need. It would also mean new tools for our
partners in the states and localities, so that those who
refuse to accept responsibility for the children they
bring into this world would have less success in evad
ing those responsibilities.
.
On August 22, I was privileged to be present when
the President signed The Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996-wel
fare reform. With that action, new demands and new
responsibilities were placed on us, which, upon
reflection, are really new opportunities.
We must never forget that the support of children
is the essence of our work. The banner that I placed
over my office door my first week at OCSE is still
there: a banner that reminds me each day that I have
just one job and that is to put "Children First."
On signing the welfare reform bill into law, Presi
dent Clinton said: "There is no area where we need
more personal responsibility than child support." He
was referring to the responsibility of parents to meet
their obligations to their children, to pay their legally
and morally obligated support.
But his words apply as well to those of us who
work in the program. There is no job where a daily
personal and professional display of responsibility is
more needed: the kind of responsibility that says,
U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services
Adminislration for Children and Families
Office of Child Support Enforcement
"Whatever it takes to get the job done, whatever is
needed to put children first, that's what I'll do."
This bill is good for child support enforcement
there can be little doubt about that-and that's excit
ing to think about. We can be sure that in years to
come millions of children will live better lives and
have expanded opportunities because of this legisla
tion.
As child support enforcement professionals who
have labored hard to improve the program, you can
justifiably take pride in knowing that part of the credit
for this historic change belongs to you. Many of the
new enforcement tools derive from lessons learned in
the field.
On behalf of all us here in OCSE and, more impor
tantly, on behalf of our nation's children, whom you
have consistently and generously put first, let me say,
"Thank you."
This issue of CSR carries several articles about the
new legislation and how it will affect your work. After
you have read them, won't you take a moment to drop
us a line to let us know your views? We'd like to hear
from you .•
�·i
•
October 2, 1996
Dear:
The Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, which the President signed
September 30, 1996, makes a significant change to implementation of the food stamp eligibility
provisions for noncitizens of Public Law 104-193, the Personal "Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996.
Under Public Law 104-193, all currently participating noncitizens were to have the new
provisio'ns for food stamps applied at the time of the household's next recertification. The
Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act delays these new eligibility, provisions (Section
402(a)(1) of Public Law 104-193) until April 1, 1997, for individuals who were receiving
benefits on August 22, 1996. The Act requires State agencies to redetermine the eligibility of all '
noncitizen recipients between April 1, 1997, and August 22, 1997.
'
This new provisio~ is retroactive to August 22, 1996. Thus, any immigrant who was
determined ineligible at recertification on or after August 22, 1996, as a result of the application
of P.L. 104-193 shall be reinstated to eligibility and any household containing a reinstated alien
is entitled to restored benefits for ,the period during which benefits were denied.
I also want to respond to questions about the 120-day "hold harmless" period provided for
quality control error measurement purposes under the Food Stamp Act which applies whenever
there are changes in program policy. such asthose enacted in- Public Law 104-193.
Since the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act did not change the effective date of the
noncitizen eligibility provisions for new applicants, the State is entitled to the 120-day hold
harmless if it implemented on or before September 23. If it implemented after September 23, its
120-day hold harmless period would be reduced by one day for each day beyond September 23.
�2
Enclosed are· a copy of the relevant provision of the, appropriations act and a description of· '
how the quality control':hold hannless works. The FeS regional office staff will be able to
answer any questions specific to your State.
.
.,
Sincerely,
Bonny O'Neil
for
Enclosures
YvetteS. Jackson
Deputy Administrator
Food Stamp Program
�Sec. 510.
.
.
TRANSITION FOR ALIENS CURRENTLY RECEIVING BENEFITS
UNDER THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM
Effective as if included in the ,enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of .1996; subclause (I) of section 402(A)(2)(d)(ii) (8 U:S.c.
.
,
1612(a)(2)(D)(ii)) is amended to read as follows:
I!(I) IN GENERAL.--With respect to the specified Federal program described in
paragraph (3 )(B), ineligibilitY under paragraph (1) shan not apply until April 1, 1997,
to an alien who received benefits under such program on the date of e'n'actment of this
Act, unless s'uch alien is determined to be ineligible to receive such benefits under the '.
Food Stamp Act of 1977. The State agency shall recertify the eligibility of all such
aliens during the period beginning April 1, 1997, and ending August ~2, 1997.".
�o
120-DAY QC VARIANCE EXCLUSION PERIOD
Attached is a one-page chart depicting the 120-day "hold harml'ess" period
that is provided for QC under the Food Stamp Act.
• The top line shows the time frame if a State implements' timely and gets
the full 120 days.
• The middle fine shows that if a State implemented earlier, the 120 days
would begin when it actually implemented.
• The bottom line shows .that if a State is late in implementing, ,it loses
part of. the ,120 days.
• In summary, if a State ,implements these PRWORA provisions, which
are effective upon enactment on or before September 23, it would be'
, "held harmless" for any errors reSUlting from thoSe provisions for any
cases certified .or recertified during a 120 day period following
implementation. The '~hold harmless" would endfor a case'once it is
certified or recertified outside of the 120 day period.
• Several of the provisions of the PRWORA, including the updating of
the Thrifty Food Plan (to be implemented October 1,\ 1996) and the
adjustment to the cap for the Excess Shelter Deduction (to be ,
, implemented,January 1, 1997) are mass changes. There is no 120 day
variance exclusion period for provisions which must be implemented as '
.
mass changes.
,
,
This provision went into'effect in 1990.·
�/.JI'
120 nAy QC VARIANCE EXCLUSION PERIOD
(Example For Provision Effective Upon Enactment)
8122196
9123/96
IMPLEMENTATION AT 30 DAYS
9/12196
rl--~~----------------~------~------------------------------'
120 Day Variance Exclusion Period- Sept. 12 through Jan. 9
IMPLEMENTATION PRIOR TO 30 DAYS
10/15/96
I
I
.
99 D.y v.,;••"
<,"",... P,dod. 0<1. ISlh,,".h J••. 21
IMPLEMENTATION AFTER 30 DAYS
II
c
�October 1996
WELFARE REFORM IMPLEMENTATION_
SUNDAY
TUESDAY
MONDAY
WEDNESDAY
I
2
Senate Judiciary
Subcommittee on
Immigration
(Simpson) will hold
a hearing on the
implementation of
immigration and
'naturalization laws
10 a.m. Dirksen
Rm.226
,
-
SATURJ)AY
FRIDAY
THURSDAY
4
3
,Coalition on Human
Needs and other
Human Services
Groups Briefing pn
5
Welfare Reform
IffiS/ACF •• John
Monahan. Ann
Rosewater, Olivia
Golden remarks
(Washington, DC)
University of San
Francisco Family
Support Council.
Presidential Forum
, on "The State of
Welfare versus the
Welfare State"
"
,
.
.
Sharon M. Fujii, ACF
Regional
Administrator
remarks
..
'
USDA/FCS
Midwest Region
Welfare Reform
Meeting, (Oct. 3·4)
Chicago,IL
,
7
6
National Assoc. of
Exec. Com'!1ittee
ofthe Nat. Assoc.
State Medicaid
Directors Annual
of State Medicaid
Conference
Directors,
HHS/HCFA,
(Oct. 7·9)
and various
intergovernmnt'I
National League of
groups meet to
Cities Conference
discuss
on "Achieving
implementation of World Class Local
Welfare Reform
Economics." There
and Kennedy
will be discussion on
Kassebaum Bill
issues related to
local economic
growth and job
creation.
Columbus, OH
(Oct 7-10)
8
~'
..
..
II
I
~~
~.~.
0nJ.
The Smith Center
for Private
Enterprise Studies.
California State '
Univ., Hayward,
features Eloise
Anderson, CA
Directorof Social
Services, speaking
on Effective Welfare
Reform, 2:45 p.m .
;
10
9
National
Association of
Counties (NACO)
. Teleconference on
welfare reform .
implementation
(Washington. DC)
,
13
14
1.5
16
17
18
Nafl Assoc. of State
Budget Officers
Fall Meeting
(October 19.20)
Washington, DC
19
20
21
22
23
Women Work,
The Nat'l Network
for Women
Employment
24
25
26
'.
Coalition on Women'
and Job Training I
Meeting
i
..
�~
. UPCOMING EVENTS:
••
•
Nov. 7 -- Casey Foundation & APWA Impact ofWelfare Reform on Recipients (Washington, DC)
. Nov. 10 -- Council of State Governments Southern Legislative Can! (SLC) Fall Committee Mtg. (White
Sulphur, NM)
.
•
Nov. 16-19 -- Council of State Governments Western Governors' Annual Meeting (Santa Fe, NM)
•
Nov. 19-20 -- National Governors' Assoc. (NGA) Workfirst on "It's Not Just About Welfare" (Cleveland, OR).
•
Dec. 6-10 -- Council of State Governments Annual Meeting and State Leadership Forum (Cleveland, OR)
•
Dec.7-10
•
Dec 7-11 - APWA Winter Meeting (Washington, DC)
•
Dec 10-12--National Association for State Community Servic:es
Nat'l League of Cities Annual Meeting (San Antonio, TX)
�...
. 10/2 / 96 4: 3 0 PM
. DRAFT
TANF.· STATE PLANS TRACKING
SUBMISSION AND COMPLETED DATES
STATE
DATE
RECEIVED
DATE OF
LETTER
CONFIRMING..
C9MPLET;ElfESS
WISCONSIN
8/22/96
9/30/96
MICHIGAN
8/26/96
9/30/96·
OHIO
9/19/96
VERMONT
·9/20/96
.FLORIDA
. 9/20/96
MASSACHUSETTS
9/23/96
MARYLAND
9/27/96
OREGON
9/27/96
OKLAHOMA
9/30/96
TENNESSEE
·9/30/96
MAINE
9/30/96
,,'
.
KANSAS
9/30/96
KENTUCKY
9/30/96
MISSISSIPPI
r10/1;1'96
ALABAMA
10/1/96
UTAH
9/30/96
CONNECTICUT
10/1/96
NEW HAMPSHIRE
10/1/~6.
TEXAS.
..
10/1/96
INDIANA
10/1/96
NEBRASKA
10/2./96
MISSOURI
10/i/96
LotiI SIANA .
10/1/96
1·
�THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
'o·::l1·9~
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASH INGTON
..
.95 OCT £2 'Po: tl8
October 22, 1996
MEMORANDUM FOR TIlE PRESIDENT
~
FROM:
Carol H.
SUBJECT:
Waiver Status .Report
You had asked for a report on the number of waivers approved by this Administration in four
. categories. Attached is a chart that lays out this information.
'
In sum, we have approved:,
o
o
o
o
79 welfare waivers in 43 states
43 food stamp waivers in 35 states
13 state-wide Medicaid waivers in 13 states
2 child welfare waivers in 2 states
Not all of these waivers have been implemented by the states; some plans put forth by
Governors and approved by HHS are still awaiting state legislative approval.
Welfare: As you know, the intersection between the welfare waivers and the new welfare
reform law is complex. The law includes a grandfather clause for waivers granted befor~ the
law was signed, allowing states to continue to operate waiver programs with time limits and
work'r,equirements that vary from the terms of the new law. HHS has told the states,
however, .that the Administration believes that all state programs should comply with the law's
provisions on time limits and work partiCipation rates. HHS also told states that, .if they do
not follow the new law, Congress will almost certainly act to limit the grandfathering
provision, and we would support this action.
Food Stamps: Almost all food stamp waivers are part of a larger welfare reform waiver
package (although not all welfare waivers affect food stamps).
Medicaid: Included in the Medicaid category are only major state-wide reform
demonstrations. In addition to these, HCFA has granted hundreds of other, more minor
waivers, waiver renewals, and waiver modifications. These inClude "freedom of choice"
waivers, which .let states experiment with managed care; "home and community based
services" waivers, which let states serve people with disabilities in communities instead of
institutions; and research waivers that cover only part' of a state or are not comprehensive in
. nature.
'--_....... -..-.--.---..._-
'-'~"""'--'-'-.-'."
.-...
--~
.
�-2
Child Welfare: Child welfare waivers were first authorized by Congress at the end of 1994.
Congress created a new special waiver authority (section 1130) for HHS to allow up to 10
states to conduct cost-neutral demonstrations, with waivers of IV-B and IV-E allowed.
After 'HHS issued guidelines, 14 states applied. Minnesota since· dropped out.' .States that
have applied are: Oregon, Delaware, D.C., North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, New york,
Indiana, Illinois, California, Michigan, West Virginia, and Maryland. HHS required all
applicants to produce a cost-neutral plan.
Delaware and Illinois have been approved~ Three more -- Ohio, North Carolina, and Oregon
-- may be approved in the ,coming weeks. As part of our review of the overall child welfare
system, we are working with HHS on how the remaining waivers can best be utilized for
testing various ideas.
cc: Leon Panetta
�STAlE
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
D.C.
Florida
Georgia
waH
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentuckv
Louisiana
Maine
Marvland
Massachusetts
Michil!an
Minnesota
Mississiooi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hamoshire
New Jersev .
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Orel!on
Pennsvlvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virl!inia
Washinl!ton ..
West Virl!inia
Wisconsin
Wvominl!
Total
WAIVER STATUS CHART
Welfare
Food Stamos
Medicaid
1
imminent
1
1
6
1
Child Welfare
1
1
1
1
I
2
1
I
3
2
2
1
I
1
4
1
2
2
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
4
3
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
1
1
2
1··
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
2
79 (43 states) .
2
43 (35
state~
13
2
�10128/96
17:39
litJOOi 1010
I
! ,
I,
t~
1
Social Security Administration Letter Sent to State Hu,man Services Directors,
October 24, 1996 Describing New EligibilityRequirem~:nts and Timefratfles for Non-citizens
.
Dear Human Services DireCto,:
'
I
I
!
On August 22, 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996 was signed. This law contains several provisions affeCting the payment 6f
'
Supplemental Security Income (5S!) benefits to noncitizens. The Administration is
committed to working to ensure the new law is implemented in a manner that fully protects
the rights of those affected.
" ",
:
,
These provisions affect noncitizens who are curreritly r,~ceiving SST benefits, as well as
noncitizens who may apply for benefits in the future. 'We want to inform you of our plans
for implementing the major provisions of the law so your State is equipped to provide help to
~~osewho may have questions or concerns.
,i,
l;:.-
•
t
The new law prohibits payment Of SSI to many, but not all; noncitizens'. '
The law is effective upon enaCtment for noncitizens applying for 55! benefits after August 22,
1996. For those currently receiving SST benefits, their benefits will continue until we have
reviewed their case, which will occur next Spring and',Summer. Only the following
noncitizens remain eligible for 551:
''
'
.:ii
Refugees, asylees and noncitizens whose deportation has heen withheld (subject
to 5-year eligibility limit).
'1
;~~i
Certain active duty Armed Forces per~pnnel and honor~bly discHarged
veterans. Their spouses/children also rhay qualify.
!
'..
LaWfully admitted aliens who have 40. qualifying work quarters (quarters
earned by spouse/parents m..1.y also colint).
.
,Y
1:
Weare asking for your help in informing your const~tuents who are irhmigrants about the
new law. In particular, to avoid alarming SSI beneficiaries that their benefits will terminate
immediately under the new law, we are asking for ypur help in making sure that noncitizens
currently receivIng 55! understand that their benefits will not be stoPRed until the fol1owi'ng
.' .
..
!
steps have been followed:·
I
•
.
. .
They receive a notice (sometime in: Februari,~or March 1997) f~om the Social Security
Administration (SSA) telling them we ,will b€ reviewing their citizenship or
immigration status and they have 90. days to (~espond.
.
f
�10/28/96
17:40
,::~
.
!
il!
[f1] 008/010
i'
i~'
i::
1.
•
After the 90-day-period, if they are not in one o(~he eligibility cat~gories! they will
receive another letter from SSA telling them when their benefits will be stopped. This
letter will explain how they can appeal the decision and. how they I'can have their
benefits continued during their appeal.
:
A general informational fact sheet describing how the. ' affects noncitizens is enclosed.
new law
,
,
;
Sin~~rely, .
. 1
./
Car~lyn W. Colvin
Deputy Commissioner
f6r Programs and Policy
I,'
i
I
,
Enclosure
t.'
�10/28/96
17:40
l4J 009/010·
,.
Social Security Administration Letter Sent to Advocacy:Groups, October; 24, 1996 Describing
New Eligibility Requirements and Timeframes for Non-ci~izens
·1
Dear Colleague:
On August 22, 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity. Reconciliation Act
of 1996 was signed. This law contains several provisions affecting the payment of
Supplemental Security Income (S5!) benefits to noncitizens. The Admin;stration is
committed to working to ensure the new law is imple~ented in a manne,r that fuiIy protects
the rights of those affected.
:.
'
These provisions affect noncitizens who are currently n~ceiving SSI benefi~s, as well as .
noncitizens who may apply for benefits in the future. :,We want to inform you of our plans
for implementing the major provisions of the law so y~u are equipped t9 provide help to any
legal immigrants with whom your groups works.
The new law prohibits payment of SS! to many noncitizens. The law is ~ffectiveupon
enactment for noncitizens applying for SSI benefits af1;er August 22, 1996. For those~c:urrendy
,receiving SS! benefits, their benefits will continue until' we have reviewed their case, ';"'hich
. will occur neXt Spring and Summer. Only the followj.ng noncitizens remain eligible for SS!:
',!
'
.
Refugees, asylees and noncitizens whos'e deportation has been withheld (subject
to 5-year eligibility limit) .
. Certain active duty Armed Forces perl§nnel ~nd honorably discharged
veterans. Their spouses/children also ~rnay qualify.
\ ~. ~
Lawfully admitted aliens who have 40 ,qualifying work quarters (quarters'
earned by spouselparents may also count).
. H
' .
~
,
,
I
.
It would be help~l if you would inform your constit:~entswho are immigrantS"'aoout the
. new law. In part'ieular, to avoid alarming 55! beneficiaries that their benefits will terminate
immediately under the new law, you can assist us in:informing noncitizens currently receiving
SST that:their benefits will not be stopped until thef<;>l1owing steps have been followed:
,I'
•
•
,
They receive a notice (sometime in February or March 1997) from the Social Security
Administration (SSA) telling them we will be;reviewingtheir citizenship or
. immigration status and they have 90 days to;'~espond.,
.
After the 90-day-period, if they are not in on~ of the eligibility categories, they will
receive another letter from SSA telling the1l],when their benefits will be stopped. This
letter will explain how they can appeal the ct~cision and how they can have their
benefits continued during their appeal.
:/:,;
' " " .',:';,
,
\
�17:40
@010/010
.
"
, ''''.1,.
A general informational fact sheet describing how the nJ;' law:'affects
.
.~.
non.~itizens is en~Yosed.
SincJ~ely,
j
:' ;:{
Joa~~\vainwright
,
Dep~ty Commissioner
for: Communications
k:
'
.
I
Enclosure
·'11,'
..
1',
.,'
'.')
, "'!
.!
,I
�10/28/96
17:38
!41 001/010
MEMO TO WELFARE IMPLEMENTATION SUBGRQUP
l !\
f
W'
FROM:
SU~JEct:
Jeremy Ben....Ami
Diana Fortuna .
Domestic Policy Council
'HJ
If
~\
t~
t;
At~ached, !--etter for Distribution
I"
.!
:.'~ ",,~, !,:,
Attached please find a letter from the Social Security Admi~listratioll that ha~ b~el1 widely circulated
to provide infonnation to advocacy organizations and state: governments abopt the welfare law's
impact on legal immigrants' receipt of SS!. "Please distribute this'letter as widely as appropriate both
within your agency and to interested organizations to ensure that the correct; information regarding
the impact of welfare reform is as widely shared as possible.
I
~',!
'j
~-;
.
'f
'l' •
Please call Dorothy Craft at (202) 456-5571) if you exper,fcllce any problems in receivillg this fax.
Thank you.
.
.'.
. ' ':);
.'
.!,'
:W
DISTRIBUTION LIST ill! Page Fax):
Louise Sheiner, Treas.
ph:' 622-0563 .
,.
fax: 622-2633
Glen Rosselli, Treas.
ph: 622-0090
fax: 622-2633
~.
,.
VI ~ •
Mike Compsol,l, Treas.
ph: 622-2351.·
fax: 622-1294
Randy Moss, Justice
ph: 514-3745
...
fax: 514-0539
Kevin R. Jones, Justice
.
ph: 514-4604
·1
fax: 514-9112
.'
Robert Bach, INS
ph: 514-:--3242 or 616.:..7767
fax: 305-0134
'.
,
.
rlbgov@aoLcom
·tt
it;
{,':'
~!
Carolyn Colvin, SSA
ph: 410-965~4512
fax: 410-965-9063··
carolynw . col vin@ssa.gov
K~f
t:
,.
~~
...
f",;:
'. ,
v "
�10/28196
. 17:39
."
bany .eigen@ssa,gov
Barry Eigen, SSA
ph: 410-965-2528
fax: 410-966-3372
Diane Blackman', SSA
ph: 410-965-3571
fax: 410-965-8582
brian.coyne@ssa.gov .
Brian Coyne, SSA
ph: 482-1128 '
fax: 482-7105
'.'.
i
Judy Chesser, SSA
ph: 482-7148
fax: 482-7153
.
judy.chesser@ssa.gov··
"
Joan Lombardi, HIiS'
ph: 401-6947
fax: 690-5600
Ann Rosewater, HHS
ph: 690-7409'
fax: 690-6562
..
,
i
~,
1;
i' ,
1
,
141002/010
�10/28/96
17:39
14I 003/010
Jeff Merkowitz~ FIBS
ph: 690-7858 :
fax: 690...7383 ;
jmcrkow@osaspe.dhhs:gov
Ann Segal, HHS
ph: 690-8410 .
fax: 690-6562 .;
asegal@osaspe.dhhs.gbv
John Monahan, HBS
ph: 690-6060
.
fax: 690-5672
jmonahan@os.dhbs.gov
I
;
I
Judy Moore, HHS (HCFA)
ph: 410-786':'3230
. fax: 410~786-0025
Dennis Hayashi, HBS
ph: 619-0403
fax: 619-3437
jmoore@hcfa.gov@inct
dhayashi@os.dhhs.gov
t r',
Mary Boilrdette, HBS
ph: 690-6311
fax: 690-8425
(?
Helen Mathis, HHS
ph: 690-7627
fax: 690-7380
Dan Williams, HHS
ph: 401-6614
fax: 690-6562
.
'~
.
'.
,
Cheryl Tates-Macias, USDA
ph: 202-720,,:,7095
fax: 202-720-8077
Yvette Jackson, FNS
ph:
703~305-2026
•
.i
Yvettejackson@FCS.USDAGOV '
fax: 703-305-2454
Steven Carlson, FNS
ph: 703-305-2133 .
fax: 703-305..,..2576
Stacy Dean, FNS
ph: 395-4686
fax: 395-0851
Stacy.Dean@FCS.USDA~GOV
I
•
�10128/96
17:39
I4J 004/010
Bonnie O'Neil, FNS
ph: 703-305-2022
fax: 703-305-24?4
Bonny_ONeil@FCS.USDA.GOV
,
I
Arthur Foley, FNS
ph: 703-305-2490
fax: ,703-305-2486 ,"
Jon Weintraub, DOE
ph: 205-5602
jon.....weintraub@ed.gov
,
. i
.
fax: 260-9183
Jessica Levin, DOE
ph: 401-3389
fax: 401 ~4353 .
t
jessica_levin@cd.gov: .
t.:
,
,
,.
Gerri Ratliff, DOJ
ph: 514-3392
fax: 514-9077
·i~
i .
i .
. i
David Ogden, DOJ
ph: 514-6909
fax: 514-9368
I
Mark W. Morin, DOL
ph: 219-8065
fax: 219-6896
Paul Leonard, HUD'
ph: 708-3896 ext. 240
fax: 708-0309 .
. Peggy Lewis, FLOTUS .
ph: 456-6266
fax: 456-6244
Emily Bromberg,
Intergovernmental Affairs
ph: 456-2896
fax: 456-6220
. J
.!
,
LEWIS_P@A1.cop.gov
. BROMBERG_E@A1.eop.gov
Debbie Fine, Polito Affrs.
ph: 456-5572
fax: 456-7929 or 6-7163
Elena Kagan, Gen. •Counsel
ph: 456-7900
fax: 456-1647
I
J
�J.Ulll:l/96
11:39
~ 005/010
Anne McGuire, Cbilt. Affes.
ph: 4,56-2572
fax: 456-6704
MCGUlRE_A@Al.eop.gov
.,.,
,
,
,
·Barry White, OMB
; .
WHlTE_B@Al.cop.gov
ph: 395-4532
fax: 395-7752
GREEN_R@Al.eop.gQv·
Richard Green, OMB
I;
ph: 395-7398 .
fax: 395-0851
"
,.
Keith Fontenot, OMB
FONTENOT_K@Al.eop.gov
ph: 395-4686
fax; '395-0851
I
,
I
i
I,'
.J
I
Jeff Farkas, OMB
ph: 395....4686
fax: 395-0851
FARKASj@Al.cop.gov
Matthew McKearn, OMB
MCKEARN_M@A1.eop.gov
.
ph: 395-4686
.
fax: 395-0851
~ \~
,
.Cindy Smitb, OMB
SMITH_CM@A1.eo'p.gov
ph: 395--4686
fax: 395-0851
""
Wendy Taylor, OMB
ph: 395-7316
fax: 395-6974
TAYLOR_W@A1.eop.gov
Dan Cbenok, OMB
CHENOCK_D@Al.eop.gov
,
ph: 395-7316
fax: 395-6974
Laura Oliven, OMB
"
,
','
OLIVEN_L@Al.eop.gov ,
ph: 395-7316
fax: 395-6974
Debra Bond,
OMB~'
BOND_D@ALcop.gov
I;,
ph: 395-7316
fax: 395-6974
Steven M. Mertens
ph: 395-4935
fax: 395-0850
,!
. t
I'
,
�lO/2~<96
17:39
~_
@006/010
MYERS_B@Al.eop.go.v
Betsy Myers
Women's Office
ph: 456-7300
fax: 456-7311
!
i
I
i
I
Mark E. Miller, OMB
ph: 395-4930
fax: 395-3910
Jac~ Smalligan~
I
I,
OMa
, !
ph: 395-7759 '
fax: 395-4875
Paul Dimond, NEe
ph: 456-2800
fax: 456-2223
Jennifer Klein
fax: 456-2878
Nicole Rabner
fax: 456-6244
,
:,'
Beverly Godwin, NPR
ph: 632-0150
fax: 632-0390
.\
Molly Brostrom
ph: 456-2216
fax: 456-7028
,
.,
i
�September 30, 1996·
Welfare Refonn Act - Issue Paper
Application ofthe 20% Cap on Vocational Education and Teen
Heads.of Household
Issue.;. How should States apply the_20 percent cap on vocational education training and eligible
teen heads of households for purposes of calculating a State's minimum rate of participation in
work activities?
Discussion~ Section 103 of the Act replaces Part A (Aid to Families with Depe~dent Children)
of title IV of the Social Security Act (SSA) with the Block Grants for Temporary Assistance for
Nee~y Families (TANF) program. T ANF requires that States establish mandatory work
..
requirements for reCipients of assistance.
Under new section 407(a) oftl!e SSA,States are required to achieve a minimum rate of
participation in work activities .of 25 Percent'in 1997, increasing to 50 percent in 2002, for all
families, and 75 percept in 1997, increasing to 90 percent in 1999, for 2-parent families "Work
activities" is defined, under s~ction 407(d), to include the following educational a<?tivities: (1)
vocational educational training (not to exceed 12 months); (2) job skills training directly related
to employment; (3) education directly related to employment for those who have not received a
high school diploma or its equivalent; and (4) satisfactory atten~ce at secondarY school or a
course of stl:ldy leading to a general equivalency certificate for those who have not completed
. secondary school or ~eceived stich a certificate. Thus, recipients of assistance under TANF .
.participating in one of these educational activities are also engaged in a work activity and,
therefore, counttoward fulfilling the State's work participation requirement. .
,
Section 407(c)(2)(D), however, limits the credit given these educational activities. That
section provides that for purposes of determining morithly participation rates: "not more than 20
percent of individuals in.all families and in 2-parent families may be determined to be engaged in
work inthe State for a month by reason of participation in vocational educational training or
deemed to be engaged in work by reason of [being a single head of a household under 20 years of
age and maintaining satisfactory attendance at a secondary school or its equivalent or
participating in education directly related to employment for the requisite number of hours]."
Section 407(c)(2)(D) is not explained in the conference report; nor is it mentioned in
House and Senate reports· of the bill. While the section ch;~arly limits a State to counting only a
certain number of recipients in vocational training and eligible teen heads of households as
working; it is unclear, 01) its face, how many such individuals the States can count as working.
The language "individuals in all families and in 2-parent families" in the section could refer
dther to: (1) all individuals receiving assistance under TANF; or (2) all individuals required,
under the minimum participation rate schedule~, to participate.in wor~activities under TANF.
Under the first reference, 20 percent of all recipients could be enrolled in vocational education
training or be an eligible teen head of household and enrolled in secondary school or its
�equivalent, and count for the State as working. Under the second reference, only about 5 percen~
of such individuals could count as working ..
OPTION 1. Encourage HHS to pennit States to count more individuals in education as work
participants (Le., by interpreting section 407(c)(2)(D) as applying the 20% limitation against the
encourage States to do so.
State's total TANFcaseload base)
and
Pros: (l)Would encourage. education (especially for teen p~ents) by making
education a more broadly available meartsof satisfying the work requirement,
Jhereby:
.
,- creating an im;entive for State~ to appropriate more'funds for
vocational and other education programs;
;; encouraging recipients of assisttmce under TANF to p~r~ue and
continue their education (e.g., New York indicates that.about 20%
of its AFDC base are teen parents); and
.
-enhancing opportunities to ~cquire enough education to gain
higher-paying, higher-skilllev~l jobs.
(2) It is a legally ~upportable interpretati~n.
.
'~
(3) If States define "vocational ed~cation training" broadly, adult education, ESL,
and family literacy options under TANF could also increase (see the Adult
EdlEven Start: Adult Work Require~ents issue paper).
,
'
Cons:' (1) Counter to the overail approach of the bill (as reported by some
congressional staff) that States should take a bottom-line approach and move
recipients to jobs as quickly as possible. ' .
(2) Might strain the.vocational education system,'especially ifno additional
appropriations were forthcoming ...
(3) High enrollments of disadvantaged students might make it difficult for
vocational programs to achieve the goal of educating vocational education
students to challenging academic and technical skill standards..
OPTION 2: Leave interpretation to the. States without Federal guidance (which would make'
more likely an interpretation ofsection 407(c)(2)(D) that would counrfewer individuals in
education as work participants).
Pros: This is'clearly consistent witli the philosophy oftJ"te Act. (Note: Section
,2
.
�417 prohibits the Federal government from regulating "the conduct of Stat~s .
under this parL.except to. the extent expressly provided'! in the Part.)
Cons: (1) May limit educational options of recipients and force some who are
.participants in current vocational and adult education and literacy progr~s to
drop out of those prograins as work and family responsibilities increase.
(2) May result in a confusing array of State policies ..
. (3) It would make it very difficult to demonstrate the national impact of
vocational educatiQn investments.
.
Recommendation: Sllpport Option 1. Numerous reports document: (1) the educational
. disadvantages faced by low-income families (e.g., those now receiving assistance under AFDC
and about to receive assistance under TANF); and (7) the. n~cessity of education in securing .
meaningful employment (especially higher-paying, higher-skill level jobs). To require work-for
assistance without also facilitating educationai opportunities to gain, and advance in, such work
.'Yill discourage our m?stvulnerable citizens from choosing and continuing their education.
"
.,'
3
�, September 27, 1996
Welfare Reform Act - Issue Paper
Adult Education: Adult Work Requirements
Issue: Mayan adult's participation in an adult secondary education program. presented in a
vocational education ,context (either under the Adult Education Act or the adult education portion
of a family literacy program such as Even'Start) qualify as a "work activity"?
Law: Section 407( d) defines work activities to include "vocational educational training (not
'to exceed 12 months)." This is the major "work activity" for adults (persons other than
single teen parents under age 20) thatcouid include an adult education program (and only
, to the extent the program.is presented in a vocational education context).
Policy: The following national positions 'should be taken to maximize participation of the
nation's low-income adults who,lack a secondaiy-Ievel education in educational programs:
o
A broad interpretatio~ of 'ivocational educational training" (see,related issue paper) that'
includes adult secondary education programs to the extent those programs ().I'e presented
in a vocational coritext ,Under the Adult Education Act (and the adult education portion of
the Even Start.family literacy program).
'
o
Clarification to States that adult secondary education programs under the Adult Education
Act may be'presented in a vocational education context as appropriate (and under Even
Start so long as the focusremainsliteracy);
,
Pro: Provides maximum incentive for low-income adults who lack a secondary-level
education to continue their education~ (Because an adult secondary/voc program may not
be available for the minimum number of work hours required (20 hrs/wk for a single
parent), an adult may still have to combine this educatiomil activity with another work
activity.) Problems evenwith this interpretation: n~ither adult basic education (ABE) ,
nor ESt training qualifies as a "work activity," so even,this broad interpretation will
result in an increasing class of persons with such low-literacy and limited job skills that
they will not qualify for vocational-education programs (e.g., a community college AA
program).
Con: 'Emphasis on voc ed CQuid shift Adult Education funds away from OED to adult
,secondary education (ASE) programs with a vocational focus for welfare populations,
and shift Even Start funds away from ABElESL to ASE with a vocational education
focus.
'
4
�•
'I
Action:
•
Encourage'HHS to interpret "vocational educational training" broadly to include' adult
secondary education programs ~hen presented in a vocational 'education context under
the AdultEducationAct (and the adult education portion of the Even St~ family literacy
program).
'
. ,
•
Notify States that adult seconp.ary education programs under the Adult Education Act
may be presented inavoc~tional education context (and under the.Even Start family
literacy program 'so long as the.f~cus remains literacy).
•
Propose including language in an amendments package to expand major work activities
for adults to inClude adult. basic education; ESL, and adult secondary education programs
that meet for a minimum number of hours per week. (A similar amendment was
proposed in the Senate (Simon) but was rej~cted in conference.) .
.
.
,
,
5
.,
�September 27, 1996, .
Welfare Reform ACt - Issue Paper
Adult Education: Secondary School !'Equivalent"
Issue: Do adult secondary education programs (either under the Adult Education Act or.the
adult education portion of a family literacy program such as Even Start) qu~lify as a "work
activity" for a single parent,under age 20 (teen parent) who i~ not pursuing a GEDprogram?
Law: . Section 407(c)(2)(C) allows a single parent under age 20to meet the work participation
requirements if that teen satisfactorily attends. secondary school or the "equivalent."
Section 407(d)(1l) (generally applicable only to these teen parents) defines "work
activities" as attendance at a secondary school or "in a course of study leading to
certificate of general equivalence" (GED) .. Section 408 requires .unmarried parents less
than age 18 to attend high school or its."equivalent" (or an alternative program approved
.'
.
.
by the State).
a
Policy: Taking a national position that adult secondary education programs under the Adult
Education Act (and the Even Start family literacy law) are the Itequivalentlt of secondary school
would encourage teen parents to participate in these programs even if the student is not working
toward a GED. This serves the goal of keeping 'teens involved in secondary education programs
as long as possible, even if less participation hours are required than for secondary school or
GED classes. States'otherwise may interpret the work activity provisions to exclude secondary
,level programs that are not secondary school or GED classes. (Adult basic education (ABE) and
ESL training do not currently appear to qualify in any event asa "work activity.")
Pro: Would encourage maximum teen parent participation in adult secondary education
programs, even if a teen is not attending secondary school or GED classes. Could be
considered consistent with the spirit of the legislation. Congress desired to exempt from
work requirements, to a degree, students in school orworking toward a GED, and may
. npt have realized that some secondary-level programs are ~ot technically OED programs.
Con: Could enable a teen parent's receipt of a small amount of educational services to count as
if it were full-time attendance at secondary school. If these secondary education
progr~s were not considered as the "equivalent" to secondary,school, teen parents might
have an incentive to attend 'secondary school or GEDclasses to meet their work activity
requirements, thereby obtaining a more intensive secondary education.
.
.
Action:
•
Encourage HHS to interpret the WRA to include adult secondary education programs
under the A~ult Education Act (and the adult education portions of an Even Start family
6'
�literacy prOgram) as the "equivalent" of secondary school for the purpose of single teen
. parent work requirements, whether or not a participant is engaged in a course of study
.. leading to.a GED.
.
•
Propose including language in an amendments package to expand this provision to allow
adult basic education and ESL programs that meet for a min,imum number ofhours per
w~ek to count as "work activiti' for single teen paren.ts. . .
a
7
�,
1
September 27,1996
,Welfare Reform Act - Issue J>aper
Definition of "Vocational Education" for Purposes of Calculating,
Participation Rates to Fulfill the Statewide' Mandatory Work
Requirements
..
Section 407 of Title IV, Part A of the Social Security Act, as amended, establishes minimum
work requirements fo.r the new Block Grant to'States for Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families. The so-called"TANF" program supersedes the Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC) program.
'
.
,
Section 407(;a) establishes the minimum Statewide participation rate for mandatory work
requirements, which constitutes one of the most notable changes in TANF from AFDC. The
minimum participation rate for all families is 25 percent for fiscal year (FY) 1997; the rate for
two-parent families is 75 percent for that year. These rates increase incrementally to a maximum
of 50 percent and 90 percent; respectively, by FY 2002.
'
Section 407(d) defines "work activitie,s" to include-
(1)
unsubsidized employ~ent;
(2)
subsidized private sector employment;
(3)
subsidized public seCtor employment;
(4)
work experience (including work associated with the refurbishing of publicly assisted
housing) if sufficient private sector employment is not available; ,
.
"
(5)
on-the-job training;
,
(6)
job search and job readiness assistance;
(7)
community serVice programs;
(8)
vocational educationaltraining (not to exceed 12 months with respect to any
individual);
(9)
job skills training directly related to employment;
(10) education directly ~ela~ed to employment,in the case of a recipient' ~ho' has not received
8
�a high school diploma or a certificate of high school equivalency;
(11) 'satisfactory attendance at s~condary school.or in a course of study leading to a certificate
of general equivalence, in the case of a recipient who has'not completed secondary school
or received such a certificate; and'
,(12)
Jhe provision of child car~, services to an individual w,ho is participating ina community
servi.ce program. ,
, For purposes of the minimum hou~ per week of work activity,re<Iuired by section'
407(c)(I)(A) and·(B) for all families and the first spouse in a: two-parent family, only those
activities listed in paragraphs (1) - (8) and (12) of section 407(d) can be counted for 20 hours
for all families of the minimum weekly hours (which.increases from 20 in 1997 to 30 in
2000) and for 30 of the 35 hours for the first spouse. For the second spouse in a two-parent
family, paragraphs (6), (8); and (12) are excluded from the above-listed activities for pUrposes
of the minimum 20 hours.
Section 407(c)(I)(C) allows teen heads ofhousehoids to be considered to be engaged in work
for any month that the teen either maintains satisfadoryattendance at secondary school or the
equivalent or participates in education directly. related to employment for at least the'
minimum average nUmber of hours per week required for all fami'lies (20 hours' for FY:1997).
Issue: Can the apparently overlapping and inconsistent provisions of section 407(d) be
interpreted to allow teen heads of households and other recipients to receive;vocational andother
education and job training for more than 12 month?
Law: The provisions of section 407(d) are ambiguous as to whether the 12-month limitation on
"vocational educatiomil training" is applicable to all-re¥ipients. Section 407(d)(8) makes
"vocational educational training" an ,allowable work activity for only 12 months with
respect to the first 20 or30 hours of work required, d~pending on the category in which a
" recipient falls., Section 407(d)(lO) makes "educatio~ directly related to employment" an
allowable work activity for recipients who have not received a high school diploma or
the equivalent without a 12-month liJ?1itation,and section 407(c)(I)(C) J?1akes
participating in education directly related'to employment an allowable activity for
recipients who are teen heads of households without a 12-month limitation. Yet,
"education directly related to employment" is the generally accepted definition of
vocational education. Furthermore, none of these provisions indicates expressly when
paragraphs (9), (10), or (11) of section 407( d) are allowable work activities even though
they are included within the definition of "work activities."
Policy: The Department should encourage'an interpretation of section 407(d) that maximizes
recipi~nts' opportunities to receive adequate vQcationaland other educational opportunities in
',9
�order to prepare these recipients for high-wage, high-skill jobs.
Pro: Although the work ~ctivities listed for teens appear to overlap with the 12 months
of vocational education training permitted for otlter recipients, these provisions
"can be read harmoniously to allow the teens to participate in the activities listed in
section 407(c)(l)(C) without regard to a 12-month limitation. Under this
interpretation,teen heads of households may complete their secondary education
under section 407(c)(1 )(C)(I), including a secondary vocational component, and
then receive additional "education directly related to employment" until the
recipients reach 20, years old or an additional 12 ~onths of postsecondary ,
vocational education training under section 407(d)(8), which would be counted
fully toward the minimum 'number of hours required per week, ifthe recipient has '
.reachedage 20.
'
, ,
"
Moreover, although the work activities listed in paragraphs (9)Gobs skills
training directly related to employment), IO(education directly related to
employment, in the case of a recipient who has not received a high 'school
diploma or a certificate of high school equivalency), and l1(satisfactoiy
attendance at secondary school or in a course of study leading to a certificate of ,
general equivalence; in the case of a recipient who 'has not completed secondary
school ,o'r,received such a certificate) are not listed as anallowable activity for the '
first 20 hours for all families or a,second spouse or for the first 30 hours for the
first spouse in two-parent families, section 407 could be interpreted to allow these
activities (essentially vocational and other education) to be counted for any
required work time over these amounts. For example, the first spouse ina 2
parent family is required to work 3.5 hours per week. Such a recipient could not
courtt vocational education for more than 12 months toward the first 30 hours
worked. However, since such a recipient must work at least 35 hours, vocational
education could be counted for the last 5 of the 35 required hours even after 12
months of vocation~ education.
Con: Congress'may have intended'the 12-month'limitation on "vocational educational
training" to be absolute for all participants even though it is not be clear how this,
is distinguished frQm"education,directly related to employment." ArlY attempt by
HHS or this Department to interpret the 12-monthlimitation broadly may result in
, ~ specific amendment resolving this and other ambiguity against the above-stated
interpretation. If the Federal government is silent, States may adopt these'
interpretations' by the~selves.
Action: The Department's policy to maximize opportunities to all individuals to receive
adequate vocational and other educational opportunities in,order to prepare these recipients for
hig~-wage, high-skill jobs is so fund~ental to the Department's mission that it favors taking
10
�action to encourage HHS to issue guidance interpreting the abov~ provisions as extending
vocational education beyond secondary school for teen heads of households at least until they
reach 20, and aiIowing vocational and other educational participation to 'count as an allowable
work activity for thy minimum hours required above 20 and 30 hours a week for the respective '
"
,
'categories of other recipients. ,
Iss,ue: Should "vocational educational training" be defined?
..
Law: Section407(d)(8) does not d~fine "vocational educational training."
:
I
•
"
'
Policy: An interpretation of "vocational educational training'~ that includes basic skills and other
academic, education that is integrated with'vocational training would encourage States to give '
recipients broad education options. (See related issue paper on adult education and Even Start.)
.
,
,
.'
'
,
.
j
','
.
'
"
.
.
,
Pro: A broad interpretation of vocational education-would encourage States to '
encourage higher..:quality educational 'programs, which in tum would prepare
'
recipients for highe~-skiJI,higher-~age jQbs. ' "
Con: This interpretation would result in States' limiting adult education or other basic
skills partiyipation to 12 months because this is the limitation on vocational
education. Without a definition that includes basic skills, adult education could
.
.
not be pursued by'thoseindividuals counted toward the 20 percent cap Unless the
" individuals were teen heads of households, 'which ~reates no incentive for States'
to' provide adu,lt education o~ for individuals to seek adult education. Rather, by
allowing States to penalize persons aged 21-50 for not working toward aGED if
, they do not have 'secondary degrees, ,section 404(j) provides a disincentive to
States to provide adult education because the State could decrease the benefits to
' ,
, , these persons; ,:", '
. " "
Action: Although HHS is prohibited from regul~ting, this Department crin encourage HHS to
promulgate non-'regulatory guidance, including a definition o("vocational educational training"
that iilcludes'a broad range ohiducation programs, basic skills, academic majors,certificate, and
.' degree programs so long as the overall thrust: is vocational educ~tion -- not just basic skills and
, ,academics by t4emselve~.
'
'
Issue: Should the 12-month limitation o~ counting "vocational educational training" as a "work
,activity" under a State's minimum , . extended to 24 months?
participation rate be
.
'
Law: Section 407(d)(8) indicates that ''vocational educational trainfng" c~ be consi4ered to '
be an allowa,ble work activity for "not to exceed 12 months with respect to any
individual."·, ,,'
' , '
11
�..
\
'
,Policy: The Departm~nt strongly supports the Stales' providing recipients with broad~~.and
higher-quality educational options that would be more likely to lead to high~wage, high-skill
jobs. '
Pro: Extending the time that recipients can participate in vocational education would
provide an incentive for States to encourage more education as a means to
recipients' finding higher-wage, higher-skill jobs after the end of welfare
.eligibility.. Existing vocational education programs to train persons for such jobs
typically requir~ 24 months' of vocational education after secondary school. ,.
UltiI!lately, this would save publjc funds by decreasing recipients' future
dependence on publicly subsidized serVices, such as housing, child care, food
stamps, and reduced-price school'lunches, which continue for individuals in
. minimum-wage jobs ..
Con:
The 12-month limitation is consistent with the overall aim of the welfare act to.
place recipients into jobs as fast as possible. The conference committee rejected a
proposal to substitute "educational training (not to exceed 24 months ... )" for the'
, 12 months ofvocatio.nal education allowed by-the welfare act. Additionally, there
are existing vocational programs that could be completed in 12 months (i.e., 2
semesters + a surn.rner session). These would qualify recipients fOl'entry level
, jobs (e.g., medical hilling and records) even though an individual would need'
. additional vocational education to advance beyond that level.
Action: Because the welfare act is clear that vocatiorial educational training, can count as a work
activity for only 12 months, the Department should request that HHS to include in its proposed
legislative changes an amendment to section 407(d)(8) to allow vocational education to count as
. a work activity for at least 24 months: (Note: This would not be a "technical amendment" but
would be included in'the Administration's package of amendments to improve the program.)
Issue: Should the requirement that recipients who are' in vocational education as an allowable
work activity be in that activity for 20 to 30 hours per week be amended to simply allow .
r~cipients to be in a full-time vocational education program even if it provides less than 20 hours
ofvocational education per week?
.
Law: For purposes of whether the State has met its minimum participation rate in a particular
year, section 407(c) (1) (A) and (B) defines the minimum number of hours that an
individual'must be participating in voca.tional education or a~other allowable work
activity to be counted as working. For all families, the number of hours is not fewer
than 20 hours a week for (FY) 1997, and, for 2-parent families, the number of hours·
for the first spouse is not fewer than 35 hours a week. If a 2-parent family is receiving
Federally-funded child care assistance, then the second s(Jouse must be in allowable
work activities not fewer than 20 hours a week.
12
�Policy:, The Dep~ment should encourage an interpretation that maximizes reCipients'
opportunities to receiv'e adequate vocational and other educational opportunities in order to
prepare"these recipients for high-wage, high-skill jobs. '
..
,
Pro: Although section 407(d)(8) allows vocational educational training to count as an
allowable work activity'for certain recipients for up to 12 months, the recipient
must be engaged in 20-35 hours of allowable, work activity a week to be counted
toward the' St~tewide .minimum participation rate. While vocational education
programs afthe postsecondary level typically involve this ~any weekly hours,
'
. part of those hours are spent in courses to develop basic skills related to the
vocational training. (One study estimated the ratio of vocational courses to non
vocational course is 2-to":I.) It is not clear whether the non-vocational hours
would be counted toward the work requirements. If they are not, a recipient also '
would have to be engaged'in another allowable work activity'to make up the
shonfall in hours. An amendment to recognize that a full-time vocational
education course does not typically involve this much instructional or classroom
time but makes demands on a student's time outside of the classroom would allow
recipients to go to vocational education training full time.
Con: Congress may have intended for States to create a new means 'of delivering
vocational training at a faster, more intense pace than is the case in existing
programs. Thus, while ,typically the States have not delivered vQcational training
in this manner, the 12-morith limitation on vocational trainingC'oupled 'with the
20-35-hour-per-week requirements would seem to dictate change on the States'
, parts. Additionally, removing the minimum entirely would'permit individuals,
,who are engaged in vocational training on a trivial basis (in addition to those who
, , are enrolled in full~time programs that meet less than 20:.35 hours per week) to
" qualify. For instance, a student might be enrolled in a correspondence course that
'takes no more than a few hours a week: This result would seem to defeat the "
purpose of the law, which is that more and more welfare recipients should be fully
involved in work or education toward work.
Action: The Department'~ policy to ,rnaximize opportunities to all individuals to receive
adequ~te vocational and other educational opportunities in order to prepare these recipients for
high-wage, high-skill jobs is so fundamental that the Department should encourage HHS to seek
a legislative amendment to modify the 20-35 hour requirement to make it more flexible for
recipients enrolled full-time in vocational education.
13
""""
·
�September 26, 1996
.. Welfare Reform Act- Issue Paper .
,
Welfare Reform:, Issues Affecting Children and Schools
Question:
What are the issues that impact children, particularly children with disabilities,
and what role should we piay in the continuing policy making process?
(I). How many children will lose benefits as a result of the changing SSI
definition of disability?
.
. I
(2)
How will reduced eligibility for SSI and thus Medicaid impactthe IDEA
program with regard to school support services?
(3)
What will ~ the effect 011 IDEA and,schools that have children who have,
,been Medicaid eligible bec'ause of AFDC and lose health.care coverage?
Background: Thenewly enacted welfare bill inchides: (I) significant changes to .the eligibility
requirements of the SSI program for disabled children; (2) replaces the AFDC program with "
TANF, a block grant to states which requires the head of families to .work within two years and
sets a lifetime limit of five years of welfare assistance, and decouplesautomatic Medicaid
coverage from welfare eligibility. Both the SSI and AFDC are programs that traditionally have
served as the gateway to Medicaid eligibility for disabled,and disadvantaged children. HCF A
estimates that 60% of the all children currently rec~iving Medicaid are linked as a result of '
AFDC or SSI eligibility.
"
Adequate health coverage for'these vulnerable populations is importan~ to t~e ed~cation
community as a means of attaining the Nation's first education goal of having "all children ready
to learn". Schools have undertaken an increasing role in providing health services -- much of
which are reimbursable through Medicaid -~ particularly for low-,income and disabled ~tudents.
In the case of children with disabilities, schools are required by law to provide health services
that are necessary for the child to benefit from their education. This requirement under the IDEA
has been critical in ensuring both the health and education of children with disabilitie~ -
however, schools rely heavily on'Medicaid-to p~y forthose services, given that: (1) 40-60% of
children served under the Individuals with Disabilities EducationAct.(IDEA) are currently
Medicaid eligible; and; (2) the estimated cost to local school districts for health related services
for combined Medicaid and lion-Medicaid disabled students is $1.8 billion.
'
Concerns: As a result of the changes to the disabled children's SSI program, ~BOestimated
thal315,000 children will require re-determination undet: the new rules. SSA estimates that 50%
or 157,000 children will be eligible under another SSI diagnostlccategory, thus retaining
,
14
�Medicaid coverage. HCFAesti'mated that'50 % 'of the remaining 157,000 or approx. 80,000
.children will be eligibl~ for Medicaid as a result of meeting one of the mandatory poverty
.groups --- initially.leaving 80,000 children without Medicaid coverage, all of whom are likely to
· 'be eligible forhealth-relate'd' services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) because of the expansive definition of disability in the ~DEA. There is significant room
for interpretation regarding the statutory definition of disability within the legislation, as well as
questions regarding the continuation of SSI benefits during an appeals process. Both of these
issues will heedJo be clarified, by SSA.
,
,
A second ~verall concern deals with the identification and iietermination of children whose
eligibility continues both under SSI and Medicaid'. The welfare legislation was amended to
require states to provide Medicaid coverage to families thatmeettheir states' July 1996 AFDC
. income and assets standards, thus linking coverage to the 1996 AFDC standards, not to receipt of
aid under the new T ANF block grant. However, ensuring that eligible families know they need
to go through the two, separate eligibility process~.$ will be a challenge.. This same concern holds
true for the redetermination process imder. SSI. Although SSA estimates that 50% of the 315,000
children will be found eligible for SSI under another diagnostic category, the . challenge will be
· 'getting them to the redetermination process.
'
This memorandumis intended to examine issues related to: (a) the chlIdren's SSI eligibility
requirements and appeal process and, (b) the de-coupling of AEDC and Medicaid',eligibility; and .
lay forth preliminary ideas for how to address these concerns as the Administration continues to
.
work with the implementation ofwelfare reform.
Impact of changes to the SSI Program for disabled children
Law
,
,
'A: As part of the eligibility process for children's SSI, the law repeals (under Section 211) the
use of the Individualized Functional Assessment, which is used ~o determine whether or not a
child is able to engage in age-appropria~~,activiiies of daily living, and the concept of
"comparable severity", as well as eliminating references to ~'maladaptive behavior" within the
personallbehavioraldomain ofthe medical listings -- replacing it with the ~ollowing:
J
· "An individual under the age of 18 shall be 'considered disabled for the purposes of this title if,
that individual has a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, which results in .
marked or severe functional,impairment, and which can be expected ~o result.in death or which
has lasted or Can be expc;;cted to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months; and no'
individual under the age of 18 who engages in substantial activity (determined in accordance
with regulations prescribed pursuant to subparagraph (E)), may be considered disabled."
B. Sec. 211(d)(1)(A)(I)(ii) is silent on whether payment of benefits will continue when an
individual haS requested an appeal ofan unfavorable decision;
15
�Issue:
How should the level ,of disability severity requir~d to meet the new"marked and
severe" functional impairment be defined?
Policy:
, The Department should encourage HHS to include in regulation,' an additional
step in the determination process (in addition to qiagnosticgroupings), that is
stricter than the IFA but properly evaluates children too young to test, children,
who have multiple impairI?ents, and children with unlisted impairments.
Pro:
The intent of the evaluation is to assess how an impairment affects each child~s
functional ability, using a higher level of severity or disabilitY threshold than was
, ,provided by the IF A~. ,Sole reliance on the listings-level severity standard would
not adequately meet that in,tent. An evaluation process that determines whether a
child has ail impairment that meets, or medically or functionailyequals~ a
category in the medical listings requires anadrlitional step in the process.
,
- Con:
. Issue:
Policy:
Pro:
,
1
The intent of the Congress was to serve only severely disabled children in this
program. The sUbjective nature ,of a "functional" approach may be perceived
loophole to s,erve'less disabled children in the program.
'
as a
, Will there be a period of benefits continuation if the family appeals?
The Department' shouidencourag~ SSA to include in regulation, the continuance
, of SSI benefits through a hearing and a decision by:an Administrative Law Judge.
Given that a new standlifd' will be in place, and the impact ~f loss ~f benefits for
those who may be found eligible as a result of adjudication, maintaining benefits'
. throughout the process should be considered part of the due process requirements.
-'-'
Con:
For those children who are not found eligible via an ALJ hearing, the issue
remains of recouping dollars already paid to familie,s.In addition, the savings
, realized from the lack of payment during the hearing' process may be significant,
,as ~here is no mention of retroactive payment in the legislation.
ISsue:
What mechanisms will be p'lace to identify 'and support children' and
'. families who need redetermination for SSI, ,or who are eligible for Medicaid
regardless ofTANF after'1I9??
Policy:
in
The Department should encourage the Administration to set up an iQteragency
ta,sk force, including, at a minimum, SSA, HHS, HCF A, and ED, to determine
how best to support ~he children and families who are both eligible or no longer
.16
�eligible for'benefits under these programs, as welfaiereform is implemented..
'Pro:
The issue ofeligibility determination and/or re-deter.n1ination under the various
programs will be complicated. It is in the interest dfaII cQncemed to work
together to ensure that those intended to 'receive benefits' under the reform are \
assisted in the process, and that those who no longer receive'. benefits are directed
to other existing resources. At present there are prelIminary discussions occurring
iri HHS about using ,school-based clinics or schools as a site for public program '
outreach. This is an area where the Department of Education needs ~o be involved
in the discussion.
Con:
If the process of eligibility is difficult for families, then fewer families may apply'
-:-thus saving Federal and state dollars. As private industry begins 10' contract with
. states to manage their welf~e reforn1 systems, there is less incentiv,e to ','find",
eligible individuals from a financial perspective .
. Conclusion:
As welfare reform becomes implemented, it will ultimateiy be the synergy afforded by the
aggregate effect of coordinating public programs such as IDEA, SSI, Medicaid, and TANF that
will support the vulnerabl,e children" whether they are disabled and/or disadvantaged, to receive
services and supportS in their homes and communities,.incl,uding schools, to achieve positive
..
educational r~suIts and a Pro9uctive future in a global economy.
17
(
�September 27, 1996
Welfare Reform Act - Issue Paper
Eligibility of Unqualified Aliens for Department Programs
,
,
Issue: Are unqualified aliens eligible to participate in and receive the benefits of Department
.programs?
Law: Welfare Reform Act.:. Section 401 (a) prohibits unqualified aliens froql receiving any' ,
Federal public benefit. The definition of "Federal public benefit" in section 401(c)(I) includes
any "grant, contract [or] loan: . ,.provided by ...the United States or by appropriated funds of the
United States" and any "postsecondary education" benefit or "any other similar benefit for which
payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit" by the
United States or,by appropriateli funds of the United States. Section 433(a)(2) provides that the
Act should not be construed as addres~ing eligibility ofaliens for a basic, public education under
the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe.
Case Law - Under Plyler v. Doe, states may not deny a free public education (K-12) to
undocumented immigrant children.
'
Policy: With the exception of postsecondary education programs that provide ~enefits such as
Pell grants directly to individuals, the Department's programs do' not fall within the definition of
"Federal public benefit." The rationale for this position is that while grants and contracts by the
United States are included in the definition of"Federal public benefit," the Department does not
typically provide 'grants ~d contracts under the Department's programs directly to individuals, '
but, rather, to entities that pro'vide services under the~e programs. Nor does the Departmen~ ,
typically provide payments or assistance directly to individuals, households or family eligibility
: units under its programs (again, with the exception of postsecondary education programs). Thus,
individuals participating in these programs are not receiving a "Federal public benefit" within the
meaning of the Welfare Reform Act, and unqualified aliens remain eligible for services under the
bepartment's programs. This position serves the Department's mission of. providing access to
education. (Note: To the extent that, in the 'implementation of any of the Department's
programs, grantees or subgrantC!es provide stipends, vouchers or other assistance to individuals;
such assistance could be interpreted as a "Federal public benefit" and, thus, prohibited for
unqualified aliens.)
.
"
,
With respect' to any postsecondary education programs that provide benefits liirectly to
individuals, households, or family eligibility units, however, it appears that unqualified aliens are
not eligible for such programs under section 401 (c)(l)(B) of the Welfare Reform Act. (Note:
Under current law, qualified aliens (as defined in section 431(b) of the Welfare Reform Act),
. with the exception of those able to provide evidence from the Immigration and Naturalization
Se~ice that they are in the United States with the intention of becoming permanent residents, are
18
�not currently eligible for these postse~ondary education programs.) ,
In any event, the Department sho~ldtake the po'&ition, consistent with section 433(a)(2) ofthe
Welfare ,Reform Act,'that the Act'sprbvisions were not intended to deny undocumented
immigrant children the rig~~ to a free public education un~er Plyler v. Doe.
Action: (I) Confirm that the Department and HHS are interpreting the term "Federal public
benefit" in the same manner. '
(2) Notify the Department's grantees'through guidance that unqualified aliens remain eligible for·
.all Department programs, except for postsecondary education programs that provide benefits
'
.
I
, directly to individuals, households or family eligibility units. Also, notify grantees that the
'provisions of the Welfare Reform Act do not ch~ge the eligibility of undocumented immigrant
children for a free public education under Plyler v. Doe.
19
�I V/
1:J/:l0
u',+ • .;)Or-I"I
.
,.
'.
,rH"~UI'1
I~
:'
MQL-
UUL
VI
~
}) A New Initiative'of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Project on State-Level Child Outcomes: ' Eilhancing Measurement of Child Outcomes
in State, Welfare Evaluations and Other State Data Collections
The, Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) are starting a new initiative to work together with states on
measuring child outcornes in state welfare evaluations and in other state data systems. ACF will
provide grants to states instituting welfare reform demonstrations to augment'their demonstration
evaluations with measures of child outcomes and also expand their data capability to measure and
track child outcomes on an ongoing basis. Under ASPE funding, the states will receive technical·
support on these activities from leading researchers in the areas of measurement of child outcomes,
. impact evaluations of social programs and policies, and research methodology. lbese researchers
a're a part
the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Research
Network on Family' and Child Well-Being, and their technical support effort' will be led by Child
Trends. In addition to the core funding to be provided by, ACF and ASPE, we anticipate that other
federal agencies and private foundations will provide supplementary funding, and the scope of the
overall effort will depend on the magnitude of this additional support.
or
I'
Context for the Initiative
.
Innovations in welfare policy were occurring even before enactment of national welfare reform.
Since January 1993, over 40 states have received federal waivers to implement welfare reform
demonstrations. The current initiative depends in large part on augmenting the evaluations of some
of these demonstrations. The new legislation eliminates the need for these states to have waivers to
cOntinue the innovative policies they have implemented. There is" however, reason to be optimistic
that many will maintain the evaluations they have established for the derrionstrations. The welfare
reform legislatiol1 directs the Secretary of-Health and Humari Services to encourage states to
continue to evaluate the effects of their waivers, and the Depa11ment intends to pursue approaches to
implement this. vigorously. Also, several states,' in~luding some that have be~n selected to
participate in the planning phase of this initiative, have indicated that they intend to continue their
waiver evaluations
//
To gauge the effectiveness of welfare reform innovations in relation to children'S well-being and
development and to guide further innovations in policy, child outcome data are needed at the state
leveL National data sources which are currently available do not allow adequate, understanding of
the effects of state-specific programs. National surveys may not measure concepts that are the focus
of state policy-making efforts and, from a technical perspective, the surveys 'tend not to have designs
'
that permit state-level estimates or assessments of causal relationships.
Though rigorous evaluations of state welfare reform demonstrations are being' conducted which
contain child o'utcome measures, these evaluations focus primarily on adult behaviors. and outcomes
such as changes in earnings and welfare dependency, and the child measures typically lack depth
and uniformity. However, because children may be as affected as adults by some of the welfare
provisions which are being implemented, it is important t,o obtain more systematic and uniform
information on the effects of welfare reform on children. For example, some provisions require the
development of a "social contract" which covers all family members. Others have specific
requirements regarding immunizations for children and school attendance standards . .Time limits .
and provisions to limit or reduce cash benefits for additional children are directed towards parents, .
but might also have effects on children. Provisions designed to increase parental empl9yment, such
UVJ
�. ..
I V,
1~':lV
V-... . ..J :11- 1"'
I
nAL.oUI'.
I
nUL-
VV~
VI
:~)
as tougher JOBS requirements or increased earned income disregards may affect children~ The
effects of these changes on children --positive or negative --will not be known unless appropriate
measures of child health and well-being are consistently included ,in the demonstration evaluations ..
These research, needs which relate directly to changes in welfare policy combine with broader
research needs to measure and track child outcomes at state as well.as national levels.
Children are affected by the social, physical, and economic environments in which they live in
innumerable ways; it is not possible, therefore, to capture the total picture of how children are
faring through specific program evaluations. To gain a 'broader sense of the trends in child health
arid well-being, child measures need to be institutionalized into state data collection systems. This
initiative will provide states with assistance in developing and utilizing state data ,on child well-being'
from administrative data bases and state surveys.
Deta;L<; of the Initiative
The initiative will have two phases, a one-year planning phase and a three-year implementation
phase. The twelve states selected for the planning phase, which began on September 30,1996, an!:
California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon,
Vermont, and Virginia. Core support is to be provided by ACF and ASPE for technical support
activities and for grant awards to these states to participate in the planning phase and to
approximately five states to continue into the implementation phase where additional child data will
be collected and analyzed. We anticipate that other federal agencies and private foundations will
provide supplementary funding. The scope of the, overall effort will depend on the magnitude of
these additional dollars.
During the planning phase, state welfare administrators and their evaluators and state staff involved
with other child service systems and data bases will work with researchers from the NICHD
Network and federal 'staff to develop plarisf6r augmenting their state welfare evaluations and
improving their state data system capacities, The primary goal of this phase is the selection of a
core set of measures, developed and agreed upon by the participating states, which will be used to
augment the state welfare evaluations during the implementation phase. In addition, states also may
receive assistance in identifying other supplementary child measures appropriate to their specific
demonstrations. The data capacity work will entail identifying improvements to or linkages between
existing state adininistrative data bases or other state surveys for tracking child well-being on an
ongoing basis. States will submit competitive applications approximately eight months into the
planning phase for consideration for continuation funds to implement additional data collection
activities over the three-year implementation period.
The initiative, then, will result in waiver evaluations which capture the effects of welfare reform on
the development of children and in .enhanced state capacity to track trends in child outcomes in at
least five states. If the remaining six states are not funded through implementation, by the end of
planning phase, they will at the very least be poised to pursue these enhancements through other
venues. And, finally, ASPE will fund the NICHD researchers who will have worked on this
initiative to summarize and synthesize states' efforts in reports for use by additional states or other
audiences.
For 'additional information, contact:
.
Alan Yaffe, AeF, (202) 401-4537, ayajj'e@acfdhhs.gov
Martha Moorehouse, ASPE, (202) 690-6939, mmooreho@osaspe.d/zhs.gov
VV~
�\....
,;;.
.
Nevada
1.
How much new child care money will Nevada receive from the
Feds under the new welfare reform law?
In FY 1997, Nevada is eligible to receive a total of $6,878,492
in Federal Mandatory and Matching funds.
Based on the latest
reports for FY 1996 (Federal expenditures for AFDC Child Care and
Transitional Child care of $1,688,141, and Federal expenditures
of $1,433,868 for At-Risk Child Care) the Federal FY 1996 share
for title IV-A child care in Nevada is $3,122,009. Thus, if
Nevada accesses all of its Matching Funds, it will receive a
projected increase of $3,756,483 in Federal Mandatory and
Matching funding over what it received in FY 1996 Federal funds
from the former IV-A child care programs.
Additionally, it should be noted that on September 30, 1996,
Nevada received $3,824,970 from the Child Care and Development
Block Grant, which, under welfare reform, we are calling
Discretionary funds.
Nevada also will receive $79,047 in FY 1997
Discretionary funds as a result of the funds set aside for
school-age care and child care resource and referral programs in
the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997. There is no
matching requirement for these funds.
Thus, if Nevada accesses all of its Matching funds, it will
secure a total of $10,782,509 in Federal child care funding this
fiscal year.
2.
How much new money will Nevada have to spend, that Nevada is
not currently spending on child care, to draw down the maximum
amount of Federal funds available?
The State would have to spend $3,756,483 in new money, as
explained below. The State's total commitment of its own funds
for FY 1997 would be $6,878,492.
(This consists of $2,580,422 in
estimated Maintenance-of-Effort expenditures and $4,298,070 as
Nevada's share of the Matching Fund.)
Based on the most recent
financial reports from the State, Nevada's share of its FY 1996
title IV-A child care funds was $3,122,009. Thus, to access the
maximum amount of Federal funds available, Nevada will have to
commit $3,756,483 in additional funds.
3.
By what date will Nevada have to spend the new money to draw
down all of the available Federal funds?
To access all available FY 1997 Federal funds, the State must, by
the end of Fiscal Year 1997, i~e. by September 30, 1997:
a.
Obligate all FY 19.97 Mandatory funds.
b.
Expend from its own funds an amount that equals the
State's Maintenance-of-Effort threshold.·
c.
Obligate all FY1997 Matching funds.
(Note:
Matching Fund obligations must be liquidated by
September 30, 1998.)
These
�~
~
"'----""...
..
THE WHITEHOUSE
.
l~~
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
I"
.~ ---'1
~
ME~
.'"
FOR THE
'96 NOV 12 PM12:57
WASHINGTON
.
(f-~b-rc
November II, 199f(f)=-u.-.lik.
P~IDENT
~
@~_') ~ ~~
From:
Carol H. Rasco
Subject:
Report for October· 22-November 11, 1996
UPDATES ON KEY INITIATIVES
WELFARE REFORM IMPLEMENTATION
State Plans for TANF Block Grant -- HHS plans to certify TANF state plans in Kentucky,
Nevada, and New Hampshire today, bringing the total number of state plaris certified to 11.
Twenty-two states have applications pending with HHS. Connecticut's plan is expected to
be certified soon. In their plans, most states are indicating that, for now, they will operate
their programs as they ,were under'the old law or under their waivers. More changes are
expected in the spring when state legislatures convene.
Welfare Waivers with Transitional Medicaid -- The Administration should make a decision
soon about whether to allow states to cORtiRU@ waivers. that offer an extra year or two of
transitional Medicaid to people leaving the welfare rolls for work.· Many welfare waiv~rs
include this feature. Under the law, we are able to continue the v7aivers but there is a
problem because of our requirement that waivers be budget neutral. We always assumed
that transitional Medicaid benefits were "paid for" through savings in the AFDC program,
but the new block grant does not afford the opportunity for such savings. We are working
with HHS and OMB on options.
Guidance to States on "40 Quarters" Exemption -- USDA released guidance to states on
how to determine whether legal immigrants still qualify for food stamps because they have
worked for 40 quarters in this country.
Options on Medicaid/SSI Linkage -- Legal immigrants on SSI could lose Medicaid even in
states tl~At take advantage of their option to continue Medicaid coverage of legal
immigrants. This is because they are eligible for Medicaid by virtue of their SSI eligibility,
and they may not qualify for other entry points to Medicaid such as having dependent
children. HHS is investigating whether it is possible to construct a mechanism by which
legal immigrants could automatically keep Medicaid, but has not yet determined whether
this is legally feasible.
�Housing Issues -- One of the areas of most serious concern among service providers to low
income communities is the impact of the welfare bill on affordable housing. On the one ~.
. hand, they are worried that those families losing income -- e.g., immigrants;1OOd stamp
~
.recipients -- will have greater difficulty paying rent and will lose their ho~g. On the ~
other hand, they au: worried that bousing. rent P?licies ?O not S!lP~ox:t welfar~-to-:w:ork
' ~~
efforts. Those leavmg, welfare for work m pubhc housmg or SectlOn 8 housmg wIll find
their rents increasing and a large percentage of their disposable income going toward
housing costs. HJ In is looking at possible act jon to address botb of tb~se probl~ms. '
Welfare to Work -- OMB has convened a working group to develop the specifications of
the $3 billion Welfare to Work plan announced at the Convention. They hope to have the
details finalized for decision meetings in early December. There will be some difficult
issues concerning the extent of public vs. private sector jobs. targetjng. and wbo should
administer the progra,m. DPC, NEC, and OMB will be preparing issue papers and decision
memos to move the program forward.
'
Department of Education Outreach -- The' Department of Education has been working with
HHS and constituency groups in the education and disability communities to discuss
provisions of the new welfare law affecting them. Disability groups are concerned that
schools may have reduced access to Medicaid funds in the face of the children's SSI cuts
..~d the changeover from AFDC to TANF. Mas;' srhools rely on Meqicaid to fund speci!l
education therapies EducatjoD groups are rODeemed about restrictions in the law on the
amount of vocatjonal training n.dlich can seOO:t ~e',J,card the 2!.Q!,k participation reCjUlrements.
.
-
Letter to Advocacy Community and States on Timing of SSI Changes -- On October 24, a
. letter went out to advocacy groups and to states to clarify that SSA will not drop legal
immigrants or children from the SSI program until the middle of next year at the earliest.
There has been some misinformation in communities that the cuts could be coming much
sooner.
IMMIGRATION
Illegal Immigration Enforcement and Welfare to Work -- On November 1, the INS
agreement with the Commonwealth of Virginia to replace illegal workers with
unemployed legal workers who are on welfare rolls in jobs that they want, need and are
qualified to perform. Unckr tbjs first-ever agreement with a state, INS will immediately
notify officials of the Virginia Department of Social Services when the INS removes
unauthorized workers from an employer's workplace in the state. This early notification
:;.11 giy:~. the Virginia Employ~~nt Commission an opportunity to .refer qualified workers
--.t announced
,
/'"
/
~
.
~'0 are unemployed and reCOlvlI1g state welfare benefits to these Jobs.
.,,·Gi
�CHILD WELFARE
Child Welfare Chat Sessions -- On Oct. 31, we completed a series of seven· small two-hour
discussion sessions in my office over the past four months. We talked with a total of 35
child welfare experts from atoundthe country. In addition, in October we visited the
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges in Reno, Nevada during the fall
training session, sitting in on classes and meeting with faculty and participants. We will
now begin working to propose action steps in this field.
CRIME AND DRUGS
I4lAMA
:
:::
Medical Marijuana -- DPC staff is working with the ONDCP, Department of Justice, and
Department of Education to begin to coordinate an Administration response to the medical
m1ll"ijuana initiatives passed last week in Arizona and California. The ballot initiatives
passed in both states (Propositions 200 and 215, respectively) would legalize marijuana use
for a variety of medical conditions. Both ballot initiatives are loosely worded and V{Qllld
make enforcement of laws prohibiting unauthorized marijuana use difficult. It~ns
Unclear "'rbetber federal laws will preempt the new state laws.
<
President's Remarks to the IACP -~ Because you were unable to attend the annual
conference of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (lACP) in Phoenix on
October 29" 1996, we provided them with your taped remarks. The video was shown
before 2,000 police chiefs at their general assembly. IACP was very grateful and your
. remarks were well received.
.
Drug Testing-Driver's Licenses -- DPC staff is providing guidance to ONDCP, DOT and
other relevant agencies on their response to your October 19, 1996 directive -- tlReducing
Teenage Driving under the Influence of Illicit Drugs." The directive instructs agencies to
report back by January 17, 1997.
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
Human Radiation Experiments -- This week, the Department of Energy plans to announce
it has reached final settlement with the families of 11 people injected with plutonium and
one person injected with uranium. These families of experimental subjects represent 12 of
the 18 that the President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments
.
~ recommended for compensation. The settlements include an agreement for the Secretary of
~"!~:~f::;:O meet with ti1e families. We may send a White House representative to that
..
�HIV/AIDS
v (
~
African American Meeting -- October 22, a group of about 90 African-Americans met at
the Harvard AIDS Institute to discuss the growing AIDS epidemic among blacks and what
can be done to turn it around. Blacks are disproportionately affected by the epidemic.
From 1990 to 1994, the annual AIDS i.ncidence grew 69 percent among African-Americans·
compared with 14 percent among whites. B"y the year 2000. more than half of all AlPS
cases in the U.S. are expected to be amon black Patsy Fleming, Alexis Herman and
represen ves 0 many natlOnal black organizations attended as well as providers· of care
and prevention services. The outcome of the meeting was a call to action for the African
American community including clergy, the media, the government, community-based
organizations, educators and all others who can intervene in this. deadly disease. .
EXTERNAL ACTIVITIES
MEETINGS AND SPEECHES
Wednesday, October 23, I keynoted a Child Care and Economic Diversification Policy
Summit in Reno, Nevada sponsored by The Children's Cabinet, a child advocacy resource
center which also provides services to children and families in the area. The conference
was designed in conjunction with the DPC to bring together about 25 business people in
that state with an equal number of child-serving agency personnel in Nevada to discuss
child care and business within the context of welfare reform. Glenda Bean of Arkansas
was also brought in to discuss the state's experience designing quality early childhood
experiences through collaboration with all sectors, including the business community.
Sen. Bryan as well as Gov. Miller were present for parts of the day. It was an excellent
format for talking about what business can do, and what business must be aware of as they
accept their share of responsibility in welfare reform. The group left with a defined set of
. next steps for improving early childhood experiences for low-income children and involving
businesses in welfare reform.
J
.
Thursday, October 24, I visited the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
training program which is based at the University of Reno. I met with the Dean and
facuity/project managers and held a roundtable with jUdges/probation officers and staff from
state social services from around the country in for training on various facets of legal
matters regarding children and families. I also attended four class sessions. The
information from this visit will be invaluable as we further review initiatives to undertake
in imp}.wing the child welfare and juvenile justice systems.
Friday, October 25, I met with the Police Chief in Reno, Nevada to discuss his
department's comprehensive community policing and youth development programs.
Among the youth programs is the GREAT program (Gang Resistance Education and
Training) which is overseen nationwide by the ATF Bureau. This is a middle school
program that in a comprehensive system follows upon DARE in the elementary schools.
then visited a seventh grade classroom where a Reno police officer was leaching a class:
�followed this with a full class discussion as well as a smaller roundtable with four students,
the officer and the teacher.
Thursday, November 7, I attended a Welfare-to-Work Programs and Substance-Abusing
Populations seminar sponsored by' the Annie E. Casey Foundation, American Public
. Welfare Association (APWA), the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Directors, the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University,
. the Legal Action Center, the Urban Institute and the Welfare Information Network. It is
important to address substance abuse issues as we implement welfare reform given that a
significant percentage of welfare recipients have substance abuse problems. Failure to
address the substance abuse problems of current welfare recipients who will also be faced
with time limits' on assistance could have negative effects on child welfare.
Last week, I also met with Liz Robbins and her clients from LexislNexis who are starting
to work with states on electronic search programs for parents who owe child support
arrears. Jeremy Ben-Ami of DPC will continue the dialogue with Liz and the company.
�;
2
.
.
1·
I
�.,
.
.
SPECIAL ANALYSIS
. Will There Be Enough Jobs for Welfare ,Recipients?
An important concern following the enactment of welfare refonn is whether those
who leave the welfare rolls because of work requirements. and time limits will be
able to find jobs. Supply and demand analysis suggests many will, but their en'!!y
may reduce wages in the less-skilled lahor market, Moreover, these jobs are likely
(
to be highly sensitive to cyclical fluctuations.
,
~
Impact on jobs and wages. Millions of jobs are created during economic
expansions-far more than the number of new job seekers who will be coming off
welfare. But welfare recipients have fewer skills than the typical worker and they
. will have to compete in the more limited market for less-skilled workers.
T~main
impact of welfare refonn will be to increase the number of less-skilled
eo Ie looking for work at any given wage an outward ShIft In the su t curve).
Because finns do not fin It profitable to hire more workers at the prevailing market
wage, ~ wage wjll have to fall to induc
,
Effect of Welfare Refonn on Less-Skilled Labor Market mare hiring. But some workers will no
&
longer wish to work at a lower wage.
~
Thus, the net increase in employment
will be smaller than the outward shift i
the supply curve (see chart).
{U I~>
~
l.u. J
much more so than that of the workforce as a whole. For instance, the share of
Weekly Economic Briefing
3
November 22. 1996
"
~ ~ ."
~ I.
.
~(_
\f1,~
Simulations based on plausible demand and supply curves suggest that if 2 million
additional less-skilled, welfare recipients seek work, c:IPEloyment in the less-skilled l~
labor market would increase by over 1 million and wages for less-skille'd workers
would fall by abQ}.l1: 11 percent. Under assumptions that are more optimistic about ,
job growth-but still within an empirically plausible range-employment.would
Increase by 1.8 million and wages would fall by 12 percent.
Cyclical sensitivity of employment. Because roughly half of all welfare recipierits
.
~ ~'0
The actual outcome will depend on the
slopes of the supply and demand curves.
If, for example, employers are very
willing to hire more workers when the
. wage drops just a little (a relatively .flat
demand curve), most of the new job seekers will be successful and wages will not
drop much. But if employers are reluctant to hire more workers even in the face of
a substantial lowering of the wage (a relatively steep demand curve), employment
will not increase much even as wages fall. The magnitude of the supply response of
workers matters as well.
~e younger high school dropouts, therremployment is likely to be highly cyclical,
,
iI,
~~ 4
."'"
�,.
•
Cyclical Effects on Employment by Education
15
.r-------:...........::....--....:;...-.----,
f
a10
I
5
~
I
0
I"
younger high school dropouts with a job
fell almost 10 percent in the recessionary
years of 1982 and 1991, compared to
about 2 percent for the population as a
whole (see chart). These employment
losses were reversed in the subsequent
economic expansions.
,l;
1"10
Job loss following employment spells as
short as 9 months to a year may qualify
101\1
many of these fonner welfare recipients
for unemployment insurance. These benefits would reduce some oftheir income loss
but could put additional strains on the unemployment insurance system.
U.l$
11111
1...
1M2
11184
Weekly Economic Briefing
1_
1_
10C10. lt1l2
4
November 22. 1996
�.'
To:
Virginia Cox'
Anna Durand
Liz Hyman
Betsy Myers
Joan Silverstein:
From:
Lyn Hogan
Debbie Fine·
Date:
September 13, 1996
Re:
Domestic.Violence Initiative
Attached is the draft options memo Debbie and! prepared.
I have
.__.___._.. :f..~x~d. _a._<:::c>py to Wendy Jacobson in Ann Rosewater I s office at HHS.
Jeremy Ben-Ami asked Wendy to. attach the m~mo to a larger welfare
reform issues memo she is coordinating. That memo will go to
Leon Panetta. However, before the memo goes.to Leon, the draft
will circulate to the appropriate people for comment.
.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Thanks!
-cc:
Lsco
Bruce Reed
Jeremy Ben-Ami
Wendy Jacobson
�'t ,
September 13, 1996
MEMORANDUM FOR
FROM:
SUBJECT:
I.
Domestic Violence Initiative for Welfare Recipients
PURPOSE
. Throughout the welfare reform debate, domestic violence activists and women's groups have
raised serious concerns that battered women and victims <;>f sexual assault could be penalized
under the new welfare system. We feel it is important that the Administration take
appropriate action to encourage the states to recognize the special circumstances that battered
women often face. Additional resources ·or flexibility in meeting requirements under the new
law would help recipients with a history of abuse successfully and safely move off of welfare
and into the workforce .
.In this memo we will outline several options for Administrative action that wou.ld e~courage .
states to help battered women make the transition to work without weakening enforcement of
the new welfare law. These options would also allow the President to underscore his
longstanding commitment to fighting doillestic violence. .
.
II.
BACKGROUND
As you know, domestic violence has a devastating impact on families and communities".' For·
all women, including wornen on welfare, it often seriously undermines the self-sufficiency
and independence of its victims. I:n addition to the profound mental and physical effects of
domestic violence, abusers frequently ipterfere directly with their victims', efforts to pursue
education and employment. This tendency could have se'rious implications for successful
welfare-to-work initiatives if special efforts are not made to address it.
While there is no comprehensive or federal data that tracks' the incidence of domestic violence
among welfare recipients, there are some i,ndependent studies that show high . levels of
incidence:·
,
•
. A r~cent study by the Taylor I:nstitute estimates that 50 to percent of women
receiving AFDC 'are past or current victims of domesti~ abuse. Further, the ·study
1
�reports that 50 percent of employed battered women lose at least three days of work
. a month due to domestic violence,· that 70 percent report· difficulty in job
performance because of abuse, and 'up to three-quarters experienced on-the-job
harassment from their abusers.
•
An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (figures to come)
In order to promote the safety and self-sufficiency of welfare recipients who are survivors of
domestic violence, the. new welfare law includes an important provision: the Family Violence
Amendment (FVA). The FVA is a state option to increase services and to waive
requirements in cases of domestic violence and sexual abuse. Specifically the FVA:
.'
.
•
All~ws states to Certify standards and procedures to screen for and identify domestic
violence in their state plans.,
.
Invites states to provide increased services for battered women through their welfare
programs, including: screening and confidentiality provisions, referrals to shelters,
counseling, legal representation, and other important supportive services.
.
•
Permits states to implement temporary and flexible "good cause waivers" of any
program requirements, if complying with those requirements would make it harder
for recipients to escape violence' or where the requirements would unfairly penalize
past, present, or potential victims of physical abuse or sexual violence. Such
requirements include: mandatory participation rates, the two .and five-year limits,
child support cooperation, child exclusion, and residency.
The FVA originated as the Wellstone/Murray Amendment to the Senate version of the
welfare bill as a requirement for states to provide these services and make necessary waivers,
but was converted to a state option by the Conference Committee. Whileiinplementation of
tpe Family Violence Amendment is an essential tool to help battered women and their
families safely transition from welfare to work, it is currently an optional provision without
any strong incentive for states to choose to implement the Amendment. .
.
lll.
OPTIONS
OPTION 1: The President would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the
Attorney General to assist and encourage states to implement the Family Violence
Amendment. The President would further direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to commit to learn more about' the linkages between welfare and domestic violence with a
study. The components to the directive follow:
1) The President would direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of HHS to develop
guidance to assist states with the implementation of the amendment. HHS and 001 would
2
�consult with victims services, women.'s advocates, law enforcement, medical professionals,
and others involved in fighting domestic violence. The guidance, which would be non:-;
binding, would. address ,~he following:
•
The standards and procedures that should apply when when screening for
,a history of domestic vi?lence;' ,
'
'
•
•
i
'
'.
.
'
.
"
.
The standards and procedures that should apply for determining what is
good cause to waive the requirements of PRWORA.
2) The President would direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of HHS to provide,
states with t~chnical assistance to develop standards and procedures to screen, identify and
assist victims of domestic violence as part of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
programs.
3) The President would direct, the Secretary ofHealth and Human Services to provide
discretionary funding to study the incidence of violence in the lives of welfare recipients; the
impact of domestic violence on welfare program rules and requirements; and the best
assessment, referral, and deli~ery models to improve safety and self-sufficiency for welfare
recipients who are victims of domestic violence.
, OnION 2: The President would propose an HHS regulation on participation rates to provide,
a regulatory incentive for implementation of the FVA illld would direct the Secretary of
Health and Human Services and the Attorney General to assist and encourage states to
implement the Family Violence Amendment: Further, the President would direct the"
Secretary of Health and Human Services to commit to learn more about the 'linkages between
welfare and domestic violence with a study. ,
In addition to directives, contained in Option 1, the President would 'direct the Secretary of
, Health and Human Services to:
1) Propose regulations providing the states that fall below the required participation rate will
be found to have reasonable cause for failing to compl)i with the participation rate
requirement and will not be penalized if the reason for the low rate is the number of domestic '
violence victims exemptedforn1 the work requirement and if the state has in place adequate
programs to assists victims of domestic violence.
2) Propose any other regulations necessary to ensure, to the extent allowed by law,that the
penalty structure under section 409 of the PRWORA does not operate inadvertently to. '
, discourage states from exercising their option under section 402 (a) (7) of the PRWORA '(the
Wellstone!Murray amendment) to screen, identify and assist victims of domestic violence.
3
�"
'''!
OPTION 3: Highlight the FVA state option with a statement by the President, a letter to the
states, and a commitment to a federal study. A description of these components follow:
1) The President would make a statement.to the states encouraging them to implement the
FVA, and to establish adequate programs to assist the victims of domestic violence. .
2) Follow the President's statement with a letter from the President to the Governors
challenging/encouraging them to take advantage of the Family Violence Amendment. The
letter would outline the linkage between domestic violence· and securing empl'oyment, and
str4;:ss the importance of providing additional services and flexibility for women in those
circumstances. The letter would further outline the kinds of services he is challenging them
to increase 'and· monitor; including screening, counseling, service referrals and support
services.
-3) Announce the study described above in Option 1.
IV.
RECOMMENDATION
4
-.
-.
�DRAFT·
FEDERAL AGENCIES' TOP ISSUES
ifiIs:
o
How to design work programs and post-employment supports
o
How to assess families coming into the system
o
How to ensure that there are sufficient child care funds for
TANF families, working families, and families that need after
school child care
o
General clarification of Medicaid eligibility for immigrants
o
Specific clarification of Medicaid eligibility for immigrants
within the context of TANF
USDA:
.
.
o
How will the requirement for a three-month time limit on food
stamps for able-bodied childless adults aged 18-50 be
implemented? ~ow will waiver to this provision work?
"
o
How will waivers that were in effect· when law was enacted be
affected?
o
How can states implement the law in a timely way, especially
those provisions effective on enactment -- particularly given
. states are simultaneously 'implementing TANF, and conversion
requires
substantial
systems modifications
and· worker
training?
o
.What steps are required to. implement the "40 quarters,i
exception to the ban on food stamp· l?enefits for legal
immigrants?
o
Timeliness of regulatory clearance process
SSA:
How will SSA process requests from states and other agencies
o
regarding
the
40 quarters of coverage exception
to
restrictions on alien eligibility for public benefits?
o
How will children currently receiving SSI disability benefits
affected by the legislation? (Issues include definition;
due process: when will children be terminated from the rolls;
how many children)
o
How can Federal and State agencies work together to prevent
fraud due to false alien documents and other sources?
be
�~~PF'96
P.2/3
09:48RM NRT'L GOVERNORS'RSSOCIRTION .
lUy~ond C:'Sch~p~ch
. Bob,MilIer ',"
Governor of Nevada
GOViRNoPS'
Executive Director'
Chainn~n
ASSatlATION
Hall of the SCQtc.!
444 North C:l.llitOl Strm
W;shington. D.C. 20001-1512
Telephone (202) 624·5300 .
George V. Voinovich
Go~Ctri~r ofOhio
Vic:c Chairman
September 17, 1996
MEMORANDUM.
To:.
Diane Fortuna
From: Evelyn Ganzglass and Susan Golonka
Re:
OUT Top
Five Issues on Welfare Reform'
1. Clarify which issues will be addressed through regulations and which not. Reach agreement on a'
.
.
timetable and proce'ss for consultation with the states regarding the development of federal
.'
regulations and the timely resolution of non regulatory issues such as the foHowing:
• . State concerns about being penalized {or actions taken prior to the promulgatiol'l of .
.
.
regulations or other federal guidance;
• What the Secre[ary's interpretation will be regarding what "inconsistent with the act"
. means for purposes of states' ability to continue certain provisions of existing waivers;
• What will be included in the definition of administrative costs for purposes of federal
audits and penalties..
.2. Establish a: process for developing outcome-based measures for use in awarding bonuses from the
performance fund.
3. Clarify issues related to the state plan
s~bmittal
process including the tinie frames for certification
"
of completeness; when do the TANF fundin~rand requirements for time limits and penalties beiin .
in states' that are found not to have submitted a complete plan?
4. Establish
an interagency working group on information systems.for TANr.the child care block
grant, the new food stamp work requirement and the child support enforcement program to
coordinate efforts. develop a system that will allow cost sharing among programs, and provide
technical a~sistance to states to en~ure that one system may meet multiple purposes
"
"'.'
�""" .... ~,
SEP 17 '96
'..
09:49AM NAT"L GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION
'"
Page 2
'
.
.~.
. '
' .
,
..' 5. Try to reach agreement on areas which,require technical amendments. Our current iist includes
the following;
•
Permit transfer of Targeted Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant funds directly into
$
the Social Services Block Grant.
-
Allow states the option to count as a single-parent fami,Iy for purposes of the work requirement '
.
t~ose
.
two-parent fa'milies in which one spouse is incapacitated.
• Modify the reconciliation and MOE provisions of the contingency, fund so needy states ~il1 be
able to access the fund.
-Reconcile the effective dates for eliminating the federal,' contribution to the $50 child support
pass-through and repealing the actual pass-~hrough., '
.
.
,
.
• Clarifythatstate spending on immigrant families
wh~
'
'.
,
become ineligible for TANF will count as
qualified spending for purpose of meeting the TANF maintenance-of~effort.
• Permit adjustments in the maintenance of effort requirements for state SS! supplements when.
caseloads decline.
-
Reconcile the "look back" dates to state AFDC programs for child welfare and Medicaid
eligibility.
We look forward to discussing these 'issues with you at our next meeting.
�amen
.U!}!~~y··
.. lhe
.
MEDICAL CENTER
.
CENTER FOR HE.aJ.TI1 POUCY RESEARCH
,
MEMORANDUM
To:
Dennis Hayashi, OCR
From:
Sara Rosenb(ium
Subject:
Proh~bitions
Date:
~
.
September 13. 1996
on Aid to Non~Citizens under Welfare Reform
The provisions ofthe Act that deny coverage for undocumented and
,future legal entrants (Section s 401 and 403) are drafted in such a way that most public
health programs (and I would guess many ~ocial service progra,ms) should not be affected'
because they do not 'serve individuaisbut instead are community-wide programs.
.
•
..'
' , $ '
..
, Despite this fact. HHS seems to be running into real problems With the justice department. .
As people fromHHS havecalled'm~ to getmy read on·thestatute. I have suggested a '
"Law 101 n approach that ,entails preparing·a side-by,,:,side chart which compares the
lang'4age of.sectIon 401 cmd 403 to each program about which there is disagreement.
Section 401: Section 401 applies tofederal public benefits that are
furnished to individuals. Specifically, Section 40 1(a)provides that "[a]ny alien who is,not
a qualified alien is nO,t eHgi~le for anyFe~eral public benefit," Section 401(c) defines a
c'Federal public benefit" as "any grant. .. provided by an agencY, ..or by appropriated funds
ofthe United States; and any·· ·benefit for which payments or assistance are provided to
an individual, household or family eligibility unit**"'''; Thus, in order to be a prohibited,
federal public benefit; the benefit must flow to an individual via an individual gT8nt or to an
eligible assistance unit:
The exceptions list in 401 does not suggest a contrary result. Inmy
opinion the exc~ptions list merely pulls out ofthe prohibited group those individual
benefits that Congress either desired to exempt or that it authorized the Attorney'General
to exempt. The exceptions categories under section 402 add nothing to the meaning
the definition under section 4 0 3 . <
.
'
,
of
9/S;"d
2021
K STREET, N.W. • SUITE 800 • WASHINGTON, DC 20006
0
.
(202) 29~9l2. FA'X (20'),) '.M.no,,,,
tldHJ rlM::l Wd8v:10
96. E1 d35
�.. '..
Dt.-nni.s Hayashi
Page 2
S<.:ph:mber 13. 1996
Section 403. Section 403 'bars future legal entrants from receiving ''federal
. means tested" benefits. There is no definition of what constitutes a federally means tested
benefit. Therefore, the Attorney General must derive a meaning for the phrase based on a
.
common-sense reading ofthe statute.'
The purpose ofthis section of the statute appears to be to end aid to
individuals who are not U.S. citizens (or whO do not fall into classification exceptions for
, qualified aliens) under programs that are designed to assist eligible individuals. The
Attorney General would be acting within ~er djscretion if she. were to derive a meaning
based on existing welfare Jaw. Under existing entitlement and welfare law, afederal means
.tested benefit would consist of benefits (whether cash or in~kirid services) that are
furnished to eligible individuals, famili~s or household units, and for which individual
eligibility is conditioned on income, Nothing about the exceptions list in Section 403
suggests a contrary result; once again, the list indicates exceptions to the individual benefit
prohibition and does not provide direct aid in defining what constitutes a federal means
tested benefit" .
Programs under the Public Health Service Act (and 1 presume other federal
programs as well) are aimed at ~Qmmunities not individuals, The 3.idflows to
community and not to any particular individual inthe commuruty. None of the programs
creates any individual right or" ~xpectation of assistance in the sense of either' Suter v Artist
M.. or Virginia HQspital Association v Wilder, In the absence of the ability of any
individtialto claim a right assistance, coupled with a statutory structure that targets
program aid to communities, J would conclude that the prohibitions do not reach these
.
.
programs.
a
to
In sum, the wording ofthe statl!te and the sparse legislative history indiCate
that neither sections 401 nor 403 describe progr~s that are appropriated to communities
rather than individuals, I can find nothing in the law that would prevent the Attorney
General from dra'Wing such a distinction under her administrative" discretion. A side-by
side comparison of the eligibility requirements of laws aimed at &QmmunHies ill
populations (e,g" health profes~ions shortages, medica] underservice, primary care
underservice) would" help the Justice Department distiIl,!,ruish between the two types of
programs"
~dHJ nM~
Wd8v:10
96, El d3S
�,;
'\,
"
&~S
,..
"
,
_9{c
r:jJ)\ t, ,
',
\~':
i'.
95 !,UG Zl
August 21, 1996
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PIWsIDENT
. FROM:
.
. SUBJECf:
carolR~~aCk~//
Status Of'?tlfare!efonn Imple,\entation
"This mem~ will update you on er0rts to ensure that welfare reform is implemented smoothly.
~<
and effectively.
e
/
.' '
. We have formed an inter-agency working grou,p!to coordinate implementation, which met for
the first time on August 9 and w ill meet on ~:.'~~ekly basis. We have established three
subgroups. One will monitor key' implen:!entation milestones, identify and resolve issues, and
ensure deadlines are met. A seco\,]D group is developing 'proposals, to expand job opportunities
for those leaving welfare. A third group will coordinate Presidential welfare events. Separate
~ork is going forward on developing proposals to~orrect the major flaws in ~elfare reform
which you have identified.
'1"
imPlem~ntatio1,iS
state~throUgh
. . .
Govern~rs' *~
ri""
One keY,element of
'':l:,ork lith·.!!)!;
the National
Asso~taUon (NGA), ~e .Natlonal C1nference of S~te Le~l~lators (NCSL), a~d t?e Arn,Wcan~~ L '
PublIc Welfare ASSOCIatIOn (APWAJ) to ensure smqoth federal'7 state commumcatlOn. , ~
Intergovernmental Affairs is coordi:b.ating Cabinet agency contact will,t state and iocal offiCials
~
qn all implementation issues. NGA\NCSL, and APWA will meet on ImplementatIOn issues ,~,
on September 9 and 10, iifuluding gOVf,rnors' senior policy staff, state legislative leaders, and
'J
state social service commissioners.' Intergovernmental Affairs is working with NGA to
negotiate the agenda of that meeting, irlhl1lding making Federal officials available for briefings.
~bgrouP
~Plementation.
·This memo summarizes the work of the
dealing with
There are a
trrmepdmJS Dumber ,Of difficult jmplergeptltjPll cMU,pges Iiised by the bill. All affected
! ! , .
f
agencies are at work developing· their own titpelines and workiplans. We will be compiling
these agency pla1\S so that there is one overaW{ramework for ¢onitoring implementation.
The following iSla list of some of the main deaalines and challenges that we have so far
identified."
\
.
,
,
,
.TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES (TANF) BLOCK GRANT
,
,
~
\'
"
As you know, the bill creates the new block gran(t<? replace AFDC and requires that states
.
,
~
,
transform their AFDC systems to T ANF by July 199\7~: There are ,several maj,or issiles that w.e
will be tracking as' HHS manages this transition:.
"
A
•
,
,
t
i
"i;
J
\
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION'
.
�.
'
o
,
,
§farm
',.
.".
o
o
o
""
Early Implementation -- States have the option of implementing the block grant
immediately, and it is financially'advantageous for them to do so. Some states
may be ready to go immediately on enactment. We will be working to clarify
with HHS the process and timetable for approving these plans. You should
insJudjPi CaUfgwia w;U peed to 87i1.k apnrQ:fAL~
know that,maw
+heir state Jegj§laO'ljG§ h;tore submitting plans. No states are expected to call
speCial sessions this fall on these issues.
Regulations -- HHS is preparing a prelirniilary list of areas in which it sees a
need to regulate under the statute. We will be working with HHS to ensure
.. , ~
that the new program is aEProeriately. byt not oViirlY..[e1ll!I~. (\l\CD>.No. ~
~
+:o~,!3.~~~
)\ro
GUIdance to States -- HHS IS also consldermg Issumg guld.!l:nce to states on ow ~
to construct their new block grant plans. We will be working closelY'with HHS ~ .
on this guidance to ensure that it is useful and helpful to the states.. .
. .' . ~
. '
.' . . .'.
"
Approved Waivers --The bill lets states continue to operate existing waivers.
However, the bill's language is unclear about the scope of these provisions,
especially the treatment of work requirements and time limits. It appears that
the b'1I's d r '
intend to exem t states fro th work partici ation "\ ~
.
es bu 0
.
•
. ••
in defirun w
ac 'vitie~)&
In ad Itlon, waiver~ that apply to only a.few counties in a state cannot b~~~~
extended to the entIre state.
.'
~.~.§:;;&::~
Michig~n
.<
~.~~
As for time limits,
has waivers that do not include a time limit on
benefits and has indicated it will continue on this course in the plan it submits,
~-?·r
rather than adopt time limits as required by the bill. New Hampshire may
follow suit. Whether the intent of the waiver provisions can be clarified by
t.
.
administrative action has yet to be deterinined. Deciding upon the best course ~
.
for clarifying' the intent of the waiver provisions -- seeking legislation or ~I~~
through regulation (which would be our first preference) -- will be one oithe . ~~:~~
implementation grOup's first major issues.
4~~.~
o
o
~~~
Pending and Future Waivers -- HHS has approved eight waivers in the past
days, three of which arrived after you announced you would sign the bill (D~C~, ~~
Idaho, arid Kansas). Wisconsin is not yet apprOved. HHS is prepared to act on ~ ~
future waiver requests until July 1, 1997 should states ask for them.
. "
Other issues -- There are a whole series of operational issues the group
be
addressing including the establishment and management of the Perf~e q~
will
ijonus Fund and 1M contiDgCOC: Funl!, .
____
~~
�CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
The bill requires an increased Federal role and significant state activity in this area. States
must have enabling legislation in place by the end of their 1997 sessions. Federal data
"'processing systems have be able to interact with state systems by October..!..997. We must
I,deyelop a registry of new hires and a case registry, and enhance the Federal Parent y?cator
, \ S~rvlce. HHS has scheduled training conferences and set up joint working groups with the
states. One change of interest is that states will no longer be required to pass the first $5~of
monthly support collections to th~ family receiving assistance as of October 1, 1996. --.J . . . .
IMMIGRANTS
lli
~_ .
~~~
Obviously,the cross-cutting impact of the immigrant provisions of the bill will be a central
concern on implementation. 'Among the key impacts:
o
Food Stamps -- Upon ,enactment, legal aliens applying for food stamps will no
longer be eligible. Immigrants currently receiving benefits will lose them at the
time of their regularly scheduled recertification. These recertifications would
. begin immediately upon enactment, with all such immigrants to be removed
~
(' from the program within one year of enactment. About 900,000 participants
'. ' 6 ~ ~
'(including 300,000 children) will be ineligible in the first year; approximately
'., 11.iu b"l\ •
250,000 Iflrticipants,williose benefits in the frrst three months after ,enactment.
~~~-"
.
o
Supplemental SecuritY Income (SSI) -- Upon enactm~nt, most immigrants who
apply for SSI will not be eligible. Current immigrant recipients wil.Lget
'pene
until th
.
ecurity Administration (SSA) determines they are no
lQDger eligible. By March 1997, A m ' 0 e 1.1 million
current recipients who IPay be leg~l immigrants and req!!.est evidence of th~:
citizenship status. If the immigrant provideS evidence that he or she is not .
eligible or fails to respond, SSA will notify the individual that benefits will be
".' . '
• :,JJJ...."\\u.
~. stopped. The amount of time the recipient has to respond to the firs~ notice ,
rro h . '»1 ~tM (' 'appears to be at SSA' s discretion, although all redeterminations mus.t,.be
.
~"
~
com,pleted With,in one ye.ar of enactment. SSA is exploring timing options, with
~,'
the intent of providing recipients as much time as possible within the law to
,
.
.'~.
.
naturalize. An estimated 300,000 to 400,000 recipients are expected to come
,
off the rolls.
,
"
,
, , '
~
~
We will be focusing on two overarching issues in implementing these and the other
immigration provisions:
o
Verification -- Developing a workable and fair system of verifying citizenship
status that meets the needs of the various systems affected is a daunting
challenge. The legislation outlines ambitious timelines, and an administration
workgroup is already at work putting proposals and options together:
3
�-.
,
.
.
..
<.'
o
Naturalization -- In anticipation of the restrictions on benefits, many immigrants
have already applied for citizenship and many more will apply as the restrictions
take effect.' INS has been working on initiatives to speed up the naturalization
,process.. The Citizenship U.S.A. initiative is designed to respond to the large 4
increase in applications and expects to naturalize 1.2 million immigrants thA' ~ ,
,
. "f}scal year. INS isalso working with SSA and OMB on a new regulation that ~~~.
. ~, "'l will waive English and civics test requirements for immigrants with certain
,,'
and perhaps establish a special waiver for many disabled
IInnugrants recelvmg SSI.'
,
'"
'~ ,
,
,
,
~_
. \I~eri~us disabiliti~s.
~
FOOD STAMPS - NON-IMMIGRANT PROVISIONS
Eligibility for 18-50 Year-old Childless Adults -'- Most able-bodied adults without children will
now be limited to 3 months of food stamps in a 36-month period if they are not working or
participating in a work or workfare program. For current recipients, this limit is effective 3
months after enactment. One million current recipients will become ineligible within six' .
months. Households remain ineligible for the balance of the 36-month period unless they
"-::
obtain work or get a slot in a job training or workfare program.
Making tlte extensive changes to their computer systems to determine the eligibility of
individuals who are dropped from the rolls and to track new recipients against the time limits
will be a major implelllFntation challenge to states.
Benefit Leyels '-- Changes to the standard, income deduction and the excess shelter deduction
Will reduce benefits for nearly all of the 25 million monthly participanj!). Food stamp
allotments will still increase under these changes, but much less than under prior law. The
( impact increases over time -- by 2002, average benefits will be nearly 20% lower.
These prQvisions involve relatively simple computer changes. ' The'Department of Agriculture
(USDA) expects most states will be able to implement them on October 1 and January 1,
respectively, without delay. "
'\
'
OTHER KEY PROVISIONS
~
SSI for Children -- The bill tightens SSI eligibility for children with disabilities. Upon
enactment, new applicants who do not meet the new standard will be ineligible. Current
recipients will get benefits until SSA makes a redetermination that they are no longer eligible.
Children whose cases must be reviewed will receive notices by January 1997. Those found no
longer eligible will be sent a notice that benefits will be stopped. In certain cases, benefits
may continue until the first level of appeal is completed. The bill calls for all redeterminations
. to be completed within one year of enactment. An estimated 285,000 initial notices will be
sent and an estimated 190,000 children are expected to come off the rolls. SSA is working on,
the plan .for the timing of the release of the first notices and the subsequent processes.
,
L!
, :;j
~~'r~,
~c.:.~~~_
.
4
'
'
,---,--,'
.
�..
'
'~L~',~
"
."
v .....,
'.
t-:,...~()).s.,' \.)J \.. ~
~~~V~~~·~
~
~
Medicaid -- The Medicaid program faces two major challenges in implementation: (1)
deli~ing eligi~ili~y for ~edicaid from the welfar~ syst:m,. and ~2? as~~ssi~g the ~pac.!..on
pendmg and eXlstmg waivers. The Health Care Flnancmg AdmlDlstratlon IS' working closely
with other parts of HHS and with SSA to meet these challenges.
' "
,
"
,~,
c~ild
programs~
~
Child Care -- The bill block grants several
care
effective at the J?eginning c;f8",
the fiscal year. Whil~ these chan~es are mostly positive, the timeframe for implementation is ~ ~
challenging. .
•.•
..
~6fr,4 .
. ...
*~~
Monitoring and Evaluation -- One key overarching issuewilJ be to ensure that agencies are
......
aRd..
capabilities to identify
~~ ~tie~e llldllll.duals and tnStltutl0ns~
r~bljsbin~~ffect~~ ~~atigR,
JOB OPPORTUNITIES
,
~act o~~..t,'
.
m~n;~
%
,
The interagency working group on the welfare jobs issue is nearing completion of a packag~ of
options. At this point it appears that the components will likely be: about $1 billion in
enhancements to the Work Opportunities Tax Credit passed in the minimum wage bill; a $100
million expansion of the Community Develpoment and Financial Institutions program to
enhance economic development in distressed areas; a $1.bjUjOD spending pmgnp:n to place one
'<L, / miIJ jon hard-ta-employ welfare recipients in unsubsidiezed jgJ>s, with the key feature of
,.
~ withholding full paymen~ to States until successful job place~ent andJetention. -.. .
.e -\
'"
:'.','
.. ,',"
NEED FOR LEGISLATION
G.,~~~\j ~~ ~lk~,
Work has begun on developing proposals to correct the major flaws in the welfare reform bill:
Among those you have noted are: (I) the too-deep cuts in the Food Stamp Program, including the
cap on the amount that can be deducted for shelter costs when determining an individual's
eligibility; (2) the denial ofFederal assistance to legal immigrants and their children, and the
state option to do the same; and (3) the failure to provide Food Stamp support to unemployed
childless adults who are willing to work, but not offered a work slot.
------.
----..,.
v{, ( ...t
~
Additional issues requiring corrective action include: (l) the failure to provide sufficient
contingency funding for States that experience a serious economic downturn; and (2) the lack of
a provision for in-kind vouchers for. children whose parents reach the five-y~ar Federal time limit
without finding work.
~, '\1_ ~~
,... "
__
I>
~t-~~\j~
CONCLUSION
~~~,~
We will keep you up to date on developments as we go forward .
:e
. >•.
cc: Leon Panetta
5
J..,
'l
, '
'~~
.,.
~~
L. ~,
,
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Carol Rasco - Issues Series
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Carol Rasco
Issues Series
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36305" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763322" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2010-0198-S Segment 2
Description
An account of the resource
Carol Rasco's Issues Series collection consists of records relating to affirmative action, health care and reform, Medicare/Medicaid, immigration, disability, children, families and seniors, education, welfare reform, Middle Class Bill of Rights, and state and local economic issues. This collection consists of memos, letters, reports, schedules, itineraries, talking points, copies of legislation, and organizational material such as flyers and pamphlets.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
92 folders in 7 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Welfare Reform [2]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Carol Rasco
Issues Series
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2010-0198-S Segment 2
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 127
<a href="http://clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/2010/2010-0198-S-IssuePapers.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763322" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
12/4/2013
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
2010-0198-Sb-welfare-reform-2