Bill: SB 226
Hearing: March 8, 10:45 AM
Speaker: Mary Anne Broshek, of Children’s
Alliance of NH, and the Governor’s TANF Advisory Council, in support
My name is Mary Anne Broshek and I
am testifying in support of SB 226. In
1996 I led the development team for the original Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families (TANF) program and served as the administrator of TANF until 2000 and
as the Director of the Division of Family Assistance from 2000 – 2004. I have been involved in TANF and its
predecessor, Aid to Families with Dependent Children since 1975 and served as
the lead for welfare reform for Governors Sununu and Merrill. I currently work for the Children’s Alliance
of NH and am the co-chair of the Governor’s TANF Advisory Council. I am
representing both the Governor’s Council and the Children’s Alliance of NH in
my testimony.
Overview of TANF
I would like to begin by giving you an overview of what TANF
is in NH. TANF provides financial
assistance to low income families with children and has two distinct programs
in NH.
The Family Assistance Program -cases where no able-bodied parent
receives assistance such as when a child lives with a disabled parent or with a
grandparent. As of January 2007 these
cases number over 2200 and represent about 40% of all TANF cases. There is no work requirement for these cases.
The NH Employment Program (NHEP) – cases where there is an able
bodied parent or relative who is receiving assistance. These cases have a work requirement, though
some exemptions are made, such as when cases include a child under the age of
one, and when a parent is disabled of is caring for a disabled family
member. As of January, there were 3,159
NHEP cases of which 1093 were exempt and 353 were sanctioned for non compliance
with a work requirement.
These are the cases affected by SB 226.
What is Behind the
Need for Legislative Change
Deficit Reduction Act
of 2005
After years of proclaimed TANF success and controversial reauthorization
proposals, The DRA became law in February of 2006, and TANF was reauthorized
with no real debate or discussion.
·
Incentives - removed the financial rewards for
high performance.
·
Ignored - the ten years of TANF evaluations
that proved the best way to long term self sufficiency was a full array of
activities designed to address client needs, remove obstacles to employment,
and support the transition to employment.
HB 1331
·
Changed focus - Last year’s law, in response to the
DRA, changed TANF focus to meeting the participation rate, and away from
long-term self-sufficiency.
·
Repeat Federal law – Changed state law to include
federal wording on how the participation rate was calculated, and removed the
full array of activities that had led to NH flexibility and success.
·
Sanctions were tightened and employment
program orientation was made a condition of eligibility.
·
Lost flexibility - Because of the strong link to
federal wording, HB 1331 limited the state’s ability to use a wide variety of
approaches to meet the mandates of DRA.
What does SB 226 Do
and a Review of the Changes
The real goal of TANF in both state and federal law is to
move clients to long term self sufficiency through employment. This goal in state law did not change.
SB 226 is an improved response to the Deficit Reduction Act that reinforces this
goal, brings flexibility back into state law, incorporates the incorporates the
wisdom obtained from ten years of TANF evaluations and the recommendations of
the National Conference of State Legislatures.
SB 226 provides options for DHHS to strengthen the TANF program and establishes accountability. There are very few new mandates, and a short
list can be found in the right pocket of your folder.
Specific changes under each of the
three major categories of changes are shown below. A full list of changes and the reason for the
change is located in the right pocket of your folder.
Flexibility –We know that the TANF federal
regulations have not yet been released and that there are currently federal
hearings and studies on how DRA has impacted states abilities to run effective
TANF programs. A quote from Senator Max
Baucus (D-Montana) “If changes from the budget bill left our welfare laws less
effective, Congress needs to know that and make proper adjustments.”
We also
know that states are using innovative programs to increase participation rates
while producing successful client outcomes.
·
167:77
a is a new item that describes five different actions that DHHS can take to
meet the participation rate rather than rely solely on putting clients into
federally defined activities.
·
167:77
e – provides additional flexibility to move cases that cannot meet the
participation rate into the state funded program created under 1331 for two
parent cases. Examples are cases with disabled clients. It also allows DHHS to shift two parent cases
back to TANF when they meet the participation rate.
·
167:79
III -. Removes the mandate of employment
orientation as a condition of eligibility and makes it optional to allow for
changes if the process is not cost effective or does not promote TANF goals.
Long Term Self Sufficiency - The Federal work participation rate does not measure
whether a program was successful in moving families to self sufficiency and
success in meeting that rate does not mean NH has a successful program.
·
167:77
IV (c) - focuses on the true goal of TANF – to move low income families into
jobs and out of poverty so they can support their families without reliance on
public assistance.
·
167:85
- clearly states that the goal must be to move families out of poverty while
meeting the federal work participation rate.
·
167:77
– requires analysis of caseload changes to ensure that families are not moved
off TANF only to have their care assumed by towns and cities using 100% local
funds.
·
167:82
V – increases the time frame for level two sanctions from 2 weeks to four weeks
so that clients are not moved to a higher level sanction when they are
complying
·
167:91
– allows applicants to continue training and post secondary education when they
are vocationally specific and approved by DHHS.
NCSL recommendations
·
167:77
c – Mandates the use of outcome measures to evaluate program success. These were previously optional.
·
167:82
V – adds a statement that sanctions are
a tool to increase compliance
·
167:77
·
167:77 (e) Reduces recidivism and increases
the state’s participation rate by encouraging additional services to employed
clients.
·
167:85
I.and II. and IV- Maximizes state flexibility by removing federal wording
and providing options for a full array of activities.
·
167:77
Caseload Decrease
Caseload numbers show a decrease of
608 NHEP cases from 10/1/06 through 1/07 which appears to be caused by a 100
case per month decrease in openings. This is a 16% decrease that needs an explanation.
In all of my years of experience with
TANF and AFDC, I have never seen a decrease of this magnitude that was not
related to economic recovery. This bill
seeks to address this through a required analysis of caseload decreases and
reporting of outcomes to the HHS Oversight Committee.
Fiscal Note
I have reviewed the fiscal note and found a number of areas
that need to be addressed. These areas
fall into the following categories:
·
costs
assigned to provisions that are optional
·
costs
assigned to provisions that are current law
·
costs
associated with items that, while not in law, are in DHHS rules
·
computer
changes
·
costs
based on an assumption that the changes would result in not meeting the
participation rate when DHHS has full authority to design the optional program.
Summary
I urge you to support SB226 and
provide a flexible and reasonable framework to meet the needs of