2001 - America's Forgotten Families: Voices of Welfare Reform

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project
Americas Forgotten Families

Voices of Welfare Reform
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee

130 Prospect Street, Cambridge MA 02139 617 868-6600
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary ............................................................ p. 2 II. Introduction ....................................................................... p. 6 III. Findings ............................................................................ p. 9 IV. Conclusion ...................................................................... p. 37 V. Footnotes .......................................................................... p. 41 Appendix A: Glossary of Terms ........................................... p. 44 Appendix B: Brief Statistical Overview ............................... p. 45 Appendix C: Methodology .................................................... p. 46 Appendix D: Universal Declaration of Human Rights ....... p. 49
I. Executive Summary
Since President Clinton signed the federal welfare reform law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), millions of U.S. families have left the welfare system. As a result, welfare caseloads are at their lowest point in 30 years.1 However, missing from this statistic are the voices of the people most affected by welfare reform: current recipients and their families, people who have recently moved off welfare, and the people and communities who form their support system. The goal of the Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project, a program of the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC), is to enhance the current welfare dialogue by adding the voices of people who receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and anticipate moving from welfare to work. The welfare monitoring program, begun as a pilot project in Massachusetts in 1996, has compiled more than 3,000 case studies in six states to date. The testimonials of 2,500 of these stakeholders, drawn from Massachusetts, California, New Jersey, and Washington state for this particular report, reflect remarkably common themes and experiences. Welfare recipients representing extremely diverse backgrounds, education levels, communities and goals all report similar problems that are intensifying over time.
This report formally introduces the voices of adult welfare recipients into the debate that will culminate in congressional reauthorization of welfare reform by September 2002. Most of the collected testimonials are the voices of single mothers who anticipate moving themselves and their children off of welfare and out of poverty. Other voices describe the day-to-day struggle of providing care for a child with a physical or mental disability. And some report struggles with their own mental or physical limitations. Those who shared their lives with UUSCs monitors have presented candid insights into a world prescribed by poverty. The generosity of those who participated in the study calls each of us policy makers, advocates and voters to review welfare reform policies in light of the data contained within this report. Just as Congress hears appropriate response from those affected by other new laws, it will hear the voices of families affected by welfare reform as it contemplates TANF reauthorization again in 2002. This project is unique in that it is focused on state welfare practices as seen through the lens of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which sets international human rights standards. UUSC monitors conducted interviews with adult welfare recipients and direct service providers mindful of those articles of the declaration that address equality, discrimination, privacy, social security, standard of living, work and education. The
resulting data are qualitative and do not represent a statistical analysis. Nevertheless, these voices from within the welfare community in the United States tell us more than statistics can about the human impact of recent welfare changes in several states. Staff of UUSCs partner agencies with a history of welfare work at the community level conducted the interviews in UUSC-specified geographic areas within prescribed time frames. The findings are based on interviews conducted in 1998 and 1999 primarily with single parent adult females who were receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families under new state welfare systems with time limits for benefits. There were many challenges in the data collection for the project. UUSC supervised the process by conducting weekly telephone conference calls with all monitors. Two of the most important considerations were the resolution of family crises encountered in the course of the interview process and protection of every individuals privacy. A more complete description of the methodology may be reviewed in Appendix B of this report. The data compiled by the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee document five key findings about the far-reaching effects of welfare reform on families receiving assistance who were included in this study.
Study Findings
1. Congressional reauthorization of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or welfare, at the present funding level is critical. While flawed, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is critical to the well-being of millions of U.S. children and their families and should be reauthorized by September 2002. Surplus funds resulting from declining case loads should be used by state governments to provide families with assistance for child care, health expenses, transportation and other services which will allow them to adequately provide for the needs of their families. 2. Welfare reform is placing more U.S. children at risk.2 Two-thirds of the recipients of welfares cash aid are children and the punitive effects of welfare reform are having their greatest impact on them. These children are first to feel the effects of reduced aid and are the most vulnerable to the damaging consequences of deprivation. Growing up in families facing greater strains and deteriorating living conditions places their futures at risk.
3. Changes in federal welfare law are increasing housing instability and homelessness.3 The end of welfare assistance is pushing people already in precarious housing circumstances over the edge into homelessness. The number of families at risk for homelessness is increasing as well. 4. Changes in federal welfare law are pushing parents into jobs that do not pay enough to support their families. A significant number of the people who manage to move off of welfare are moving into low-paying, often temporary jobs that do not enable them to support their families or stay off welfare. In addition, many recipients are not able to get the educational and training opportunities they need to obtain jobs that will support their families. Too often, mandatory job training programs do not adequately prepare recipients for a competitive job market. Barriers to employment must be better addressed, with more opportunities made available for education and training. 5. Burdensome government rules and regulations exist which obstruct due process for welfare clients, impose unlawful sanctions, and invade the privacy and dignity of recipients. Recipients must navigate a bureaucratic maze to get needed
services. In addition, some are being sanctioned when they do not comply with the multiple and often conflicting rules rules about which they are often uninformed. Waivers are not being granted to those who are eligible, and requirements and sanctions are also being used to threaten and punish recipients. Finally, far too many recipients cite being subjected to degrading or abusive treatment, and are being forced to comply with stigmatizing requirements which violate their privacy.
Recommendations
UUSCs findings illustrate the urgent need for change in the implementation of welfare programs. They also demonstrate how far a number of welfare recipients are from realizing the rights guaranteed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In light of the findings detailed in this report, UUSC proposes the following measures to help the families who are dealing with the welfare system succeed: 1. Reauthorize Temporary Assistance for Needy Families at the current funding level by September 2002 and require states to monitor families leaving welfare. There is no evidence as yet available that tells us what happens to families when they
reach the lifetime limit for cash benefits since no families have yet reached that limit. 2. Strengthen the safety net for children. Families need adequate supports in place to protect their children and ensure that they will grow according to well-established criteria for child development. Increased child care and health care options, annual or more frequent family assessments, and assessments prior to any termination of benefits should be routine in every state. Flexibility should be promoted with respect to time limits, and individual family assessments should be considered in the application of such limits. State agencies should also streamline the forms and processes that families must complete when applying for benefits. 3. Promote strategies that will combat housing instability and homelessness. States should use Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Maintenance of Effort (TANF MOE) funds to reduce the possibility of homelessness. Also, the supply of permanent, affordable housing needs to be increased. States should move beyond emergency help, such as the McKinney Act,4 to strategies that are designed to eliminate homelessness in the United States.
4. Expand and improve skillbuilding services that will lead to jobs that will enable parents to support their families. Both surplus and Maintenance of Effort (MOE) funds should be used to sustain families newly engaged in work. Furthermore, states should be encouraged to support career education and job training which fulfill the work requirements for families moving from welfare to work and provide families with the skills they need to succeed. The success of welfare reform should be measured by calculating the number of families moving out of poverty, not simply off of welfare. 5. Streamline the application and renewal processes for benefit programs. Transparent and effective processes will better serve agencies and clients. Agencies must be accountable for any conduct that denies human dignity, invades client privacy or denies due process. Agencies that distribute these critical benefits should implement currently acceptable corporate standards for customer service and be accessible outside regular business hours to meet the needs of working people. Welfare workers should receive substantive training that will update and expand their knowledge of benefit programs.
II. Introduction
Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places close to home so close and so small they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet, they are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerned citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world. Eleanor Roosevelt, from a speech to the United Nations, 1958 More than 50 years after the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we are still trying to make the leap from human rights on paper to human rights in action. While many in the United States are able to enjoy access to justice, educational opportunities and the basic needs of survival, the achievement of such universal human rights remains only an elusive goal for others. UUSCs data show that the task of making human rights a meaningful reality is still a daily struggle for the families most affected by welfare reform. In their homes, neighborhoods and workplaces, many are denied the basic human rights that most U.S. residents take for granted.5 For many,
the rights to privacy and equal justice are violated through the implementation of punitive rules or abusive treatment. Welfare-to-work families are often denied equal access to educational opportunities and services. They try to survive in often substandard living conditions on wages at or barely above minimum standards. Viewing their experiences and testimonials through the lens of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights illustrates the harsh impact that welfare reform is having on their families and futures. Instead of improving their lives, welfare reform often is creating larger problems for recipients as they attempt to leave welfare. Their testimonials make clear that we must act to save a generation of families and children from the effects of poverty and deprivation. For the sake of these families and U.S. society as a whole, we must address the issues raised in this report thoughtfully, consistently and, most of all, expeditiously.
Background: Welfare Reform and UUSC

The Early Phases UUSC began to monitor welfare reform law prior to enactment of the federal law in 1996, as Massachusetts implemented its version of welfare reform in 1995. Based on shared experience with respect to welfare
issues, UUSC and Professor Vicky Steinitz of the University of Massachusetts then formed a collaboration to conduct the initial pilot phase of the Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project in Massachusetts in 1996. The collaboration continued for another year and the project expanded to several states. As responsibility for welfare systems moved from the federal government to the states, UUSCs advocacy strength in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington state framed an opportunity to enhance the strategic value of two program initiatives: monitoring new state welfare systems through the lens of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and then conveying the results to state legislators who were writing new welfare laws. A third and important component of this program has been the added value of working in strong statewide and national coalitions. Volunteer advocates in every targeted state have long allied themselves with major statewide child advocacy organizations and groups focused on welfare reform issues. In addition, UUSC has worked in large coalitions with many colleague organizations. UUSC has provided major organizational support for the National Welfare Monitoring and Advocacy Partnership which is comprised of direct service providers, advocates and adult welfare
recipients. More recently, UUSC has worked with the Center for Community Change, the National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support and the Welfare Made A Difference Campaign. Thus, the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee has promoted volunteer advocacy by its members and constituents to ameliorate the unintended consequences of welfare reform. Many changes have been made to reduce those negative consequences, but there is much more to be done. Welfare Relegated to States In August 1996, President Clinton signed the federal welfare reform law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA).6 At that time, any opportunity to affect changes to welfare law in the immediate future moved to state legislatures. States then began to write their own laws implementing the federal directive. In essence, the United States 60-year-old compact that provided a federally assured, consistent safety net for the poorest among us had disappeared.7 Because of these developments, the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee has promoted volunteer advocacy by its members and constituents to state legislatures to ameliorate the unintended consequences of welfare reform.
Recent Program Notes Now that we have entered the new millennium and anticipate congressional reauthorization of federal welfare appropriations by September 2002, UUSC will focus its efforts once again at the federal level. Together with an array of colleague organizations around the country, UUSC will endeavor to make the process of reauthorization a transparent and inclusive one engaging the voices of welfare recipients and grassroots organizations as part of the dialogue. To further that objective UUSC sponsored From Surviving to Thriving: A National Conference about Welfare Reform in September 2000 in Washington, D. C. The conference included the release of UUSCs latest findings from the Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project. Presentations were also made by the U. S. Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, local housing authorities, the Welfare Made a Difference Campaign, homeless service providers, welfare recipients, the Connecticut Permanent Commission on the Status of Women, research and policy organizations such as the Urban Institute and Center for Community Change. The three keynote speakers were Dr. Valora Washington, executive director of UUSC, Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California, and Cheri Honkala of the Kensington Welfare Rights Union. On Monday September 18, 2000, more than 50 advocates from the conference breakfasted on Capitol Hill to prepare for visits to their member of the House. Rachel Gregg, legislative aide to Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota advised advocates as to the current stage of the welfare debate in Congress and answered many questions.
III. Findings:
Finding 1: Congressional reauthorization of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or welfare, at the present funding level is critical.
While flawed, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is critical to the well-being of millions of U.S. children and their families. The congressional reauthorization process for TANF expected to take place by 2002 should allow for input from current and former recipients, service providers and other key stakeholders in order to improve the current system. TANF needs to be funded at a level which allows low-income families to move out of poverty as they move from welfare to work. This means that surplus funds resulting from declining case loads should be used responsibly by state governments to provide families with assistance for child care, health expenses, housing, food, transportation, and other services which will allow them to adequately provide for the needs of their families.
Finding 2: Welfare reform is placing more U.S. children at risk.

Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. Article 25 (2), Universal Declaration of Human Rights Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Article 2, Universal Declaration of Human Rights Children, especially those living in poverty, are among the most vulnerable members of our society.8 Recognizing this, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights emphasizes that all children, regardless of their parentage and family circumstances, deserve special care and protection. However, the reform provisions of PRWORA, while ostensibly targeting parents, are actually having their greatest impact on the children of recipients. It is the children who suffer the most when family assistance is reduced, when parents are penalized for not meeting obscure or conflicting requirements, and when children are forced into substandard or often dangerous child care arrangements
because their parents are unable to obtain more reliable child care while they are at work.9 Moreover, participants in the UUSC study almost universally agreed that the family cap provisions directly target and harm children who were born after PRWORA was instituted. These family cap rules are intended to penalize parents who have children while receiving welfare assistance by denying families any increase in benefits after the birth of a child. These rules effectively punish the children instead, depriving them of the assistance and benefits they would have received had they been born prior to PRWORAs implementation or before their parents began receiving welfare assistance. Consequently, many children are suffering from inadequate nutrition, health care and the lack of other necessities at the most crucial stages of their growth and development.10 Such provisions and their discriminatory implementation are even more shocking in light of the vast amounts of scientific research that show how devastating the effects of poverty can be for children.11 Poor nutrition, for example, has been shown to cause cognitive impairments and to reduce brain development and growth. (See information on p. 14 regarding poor nutrition as it relates to cognitive development.) Without immediate attention to their needs and problems, we are in danger of losing a generation of children and families to the combined effects of
poverty and deprivation. To make human rights a reality for these children, we must take steps to ensure that they have access to the care, services and opportunities they need to climb out of the cycle of poverty. Punishing parents can mean punishing their children. Time limits, family cap rules and sanctions that seem harsh when applied to adults only intensify the already severe problems their children face. Such policies, which penalize children because of their parents status, fly directly in the face of the human rights articulated in Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which guarantees equal rights and treatment for children, regardless of their birth or other status. For instance, assistance to many families is being cut off as soon as they reach the new time limits,12 even though they still remain mired in poverty and may be eligible for time limit extensions because of their meager earnings.13 In Massachusetts, as in other states, many working parents are being denied time limit extensions for aid, even though they do not earn enough money to pay for basic necessities like toothpaste and toilet paper.14 Throughout the country severe time limits put many in the difficult situation described by one Washington mother: I have to choose between paying bills or having my
10
children go without food for several days. [WA # 472*]. These conditions also prompted a service provider to ask, In an industrial nation so concerned with future generations, how can we justify the success of welfare reform when parents are being forced into WorkFirst programs paying substandard wages, directly affecting how the needs of children are being met?15 [WA #359]
Other families have been unfairly sanctioned for not complying with complex requirements or because the waivers they were eligible for were mistakenly denied or ignored. However, an often-used method of sanctioning parents in such circumstances is to reduce, delay or cut off child care assistance. Naturally, this sanctioning system directly impacts children the hardest.
Current Scientific Research Links Nutrition and Cognitive Development Studies show that undernutrition, along with environmental factors associated with poverty can permanently retard physical growth, brain development and cognitive functioning. The longer a childs nutritional, emotional and educational needs go unmet, the greater the likelihood of cognitive impairments. In addition, there exists a strong correlation between family income and the growth and cognitive development of children: Iron deficiency anemia, affecting nearly 25 percent of poor children in the United States, is associated with impaired cognitive development. Poor children who attend school hungry perform significantly below non-hungry, low-income peers on standardized test scores. Fortunately, improved nutrition and environmental conditions can modify the effects of early undernutrition: Iron repletion therapy can reduce some of the effects of anemia on learning, attention and memory. Supplemental feeding programs can help to offset threats posed to the childs capacity to learn and perform in school, which result from inadequate nutrient intake. Once undernutrition occurs, its long-term effects may be reduced or eliminated by a combination of adequate food intake and environmental (home, school) support.
Source: Dr. J. Larry Brown, The Link Between Nutrition and Cognitive Development in Children, Center on Hunger, Poverty and Nutrition Policy. Medford, MA, 1995.
11
A father of three in Washington state found this out when he was struck by a car and was unable to work while he was recovering from his injuries. Though he had a broken collarbone and ribs and suffered other serious injuries, the state welfare agency felt that he was not complying with requirements because he was not working. Consequently, to penalize him, his child care assistance was immediately cut, even though, as he noted, Im unable to take care of myself. I cant even tie my own shoes right now! Im completely unable to cook for, bathe, and dress my children and myself. His child care assistance was cut at the very time he and his children needed it the most. [WA #349] Other parents have found that they and their children are being severely penalized for the smallest deviations from the rules. In California, a woman found out that her aid worker had denied her education plan because the recipient wanted to transfer to a fouryear university rather than a vocational program. Her child care payments were immediately cut. Though her education plan was later approved, she was forced to use her rent money to pay for child care, had to fight for months to obtain retroactive child care payments and is now facing eviction. [CA # 22].
Those who attempt to follow every rule strictly also find that this may create additional hardships for their families. A woman in Washington reported, I was 7 and a half months pregnant and forced to walk 2 and a half miles to the bus stop to get to work. I worked 20 hours a week cleaning rooms in a hotel for $5.70 an hour. I did not earn enough money to be self-supporting, but saw a decrease in TANF and food stamp benefits. In February, our food stamps decreased to $137.00. Thats not enough to feed my husband, my baby or me. [WA #338] This woman found that instead of receiving special care and assistance during pregnancy, as mandated by Article 25(2) of the Universal Declaration, she was forced to comply with rules that actually endangered the health of her child; moreover, for her compliance efforts, she and her child received a reduction in assistance.16 The experience of this mother and child show how far current welfare reform requirements fall short of the standards articulated in the Universal Declaration. Thus, rather than being protected, the children of recipients are being penalized by misguided or misapplied sanctions, time limits, and other rules that reduce assistance regardless of whether parents are able to support their families.
* Identification codes listed in this report refer to individual testimonies referenced by state and case number.
12
Many recipients are having difficulty in obtaining adequate child care. Limited Options Even when recipients do receive child care payments, they often face significant hurdles in obtaining quality child care. Parents at every socioeconomic level are finding child care options to be both expensive and scarce.17 And, of course, this has the most profound consequences for families with the fewest resources. Almost every recipient participating in work programs reported great difficulty in finding and paying for child care that would meet their families needs.18 Though parents are being trained and required to work, their efforts to find and retain jobs are often undermined by the lack of affordable child care options. PRWORAs emphasis on work has not been supported by a much-needed expansion of day care or other programs. Though funds for child care have been increased, the allocation must rise to meet the need or it will remain insufficient. In Massachusetts, for example, child care funds have been increased substantially but there are still 14,000 children awaiting day care slots.19 Many parents cannot find vacancies at any of the approved child care centers or licensed agencies. A Washington child care provider commented, Its a crime! Ive been working in the child care industry for 26 years and this is the worst Ive ever seen it 50,000 children in need of care in Pierce
County and only 17,000 available slots! [WA # 383] As Washington recipients are now required to go to work when their children are three months old, the demand for adequate child care is only increasing. In the absence of affordable options, many families have been forced to make do with informal, often dangerous arrangements. A mother of a 3-year-old and a 1-year-old reported that she was denied child care assistance, because her husband worked the night shift and slept in their home during the day. He was also on medication that knocked him out. She explained, My worker told me it was OK to leave my kids at home with him while I went to work. I said to her, well, they might as well be home by themselves, and she said, thats fine. [WA # 391] Others, when forced to choose between their jobs, aid and children, simply stay home and concentrate on their children. They are then swiftly penalized for failing to meet work requirements, although they may have no other options. A family support worker in Washington revealed, The majority of my clients have been sanctioned because they could not afford child care and didnt attend a meeting or work. The overall outcome is the sanctioning of the child not the adult. A woman raising a child with special needs noted, If my son was sick on a workday, I would not be able to take him to just any day care. I would miss days of work and when you are on assistance or just starting a
13
job, you cannot miss any days of work without consequence. [WA #360] Inflexible Arbitrary Rules Child care rules are often inflexible, forcing parents already stretched to their limits to deal with highly inconvenient and expensive child care arrangements. For example, many recipients cannot find any acceptable child care at night, though they may have to take night shift jobs. Others find that the work they are already doing does not qualify them for child care assistance, so they must take on an additional job or jobs simply to qualify for assistance (and this in turn means they need more child care assistance). One woman who was studying in a nursing program learned that her required clinical hours would not qualify as work under Washingtons welfare program. She noted, I had to have a minimum wage job in addition to my clinicals to satisfy the work-study hours required to receive child care assistance. In class or clinical work from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. each day, she took on another job from 5 to 9 p.m. every evening. However, she soon found that no day care center would care for children after 5 p.m., placing her in an impossible situation. [WA #343] The rules are often arbitrarily applied, and assistance is sometimes denied even when parents are able to find child care that meets their needs: I was denied child care services because my child care provider lives in the same building but has a different address. The child care [administrator]
assumes we are cohabiting. This I feel is unfair the reason they give us is that we share a common kitchen. Every bit of my grant goes to child care... [CA #48] Without adequate child care and support options, parents are not able to pursue and maintain jobs that will support their families; and without parents that can support them or child care that can help fill the gaps, the future of these children is at risk. One woman articulated the crucial issue: I think a question policy-makers need to ask is, Does it make sense to throw someone into poor child care or none at all and expect them to do good as an adult? [WA #359] Welfare reform has been shown to increase stress and reduce the resources for already vulnerable children. UUSC testimonials overwhelmingly report that reform measures are trapping at-risk children in poverty and reducing the opportunities they need to succeed. Here again, the failure to meet the needs of disabled, ill or otherwise troubled parents creates a corresponding failure to meet the needs of their children.20 For example, when parents who are dealing with mental health or domestic violence issues are not properly screened or given the waivers or services they need, their children also suffer.21 Support providers in every state surveyed stated that large numbers of recipients are not being screened for issues such as domestic violence, and thus do not
14
qualify for, or are not referred to the programs and health services available to help them. As a result of these lapses, many families are simply slipping through the cracks, physically or mentally unable to meet requirements, yet also unable to obtain the help they need. One service provider described her clients as sinking into despair and hopelessness as they were repeatedly sanctioned because of their inability to meet requirements, and that these problems were affecting their children, some of whom had begun lashing out in anger at their helplessness. [NJ #380, #387] The director of a New Jersey homeless shelter stated that his clients were not receiving meaningful assessments of their health and other problems when they applied for welfare, and that as a result, none of their existing barriers to social and economic progress were being addressed. In addition, the lack of services provided by the welfare system acted to further disengage his clients, entrenching these families in poverty instead of providing a way to improve their current living conditions. [NJ #348] A service provider in Washington echoed these concerns, noting that even if recipients were adequately screened, there are no resources available for those most in need. The provider explained, We do not have a plan in place for the 10 percent of the population that have major issues to deal with and have a high probability of not being placed [in jobs] by 2002.
What are we going to do with the children orphanages? [WA #362] Welfare reform can rob children of their greatest resource their parents. Beyond the reductions in food stamps, housing support and child care assistance by law in some states and by faulty implementation in others some study participants noted that welfare reform takes away the only resource many of these children have their parents. As mentioned in the earlier section Difficulty in Obtaining Adequate Child Care, in Washington state, mothers who receive welfare assistance are now required to go to work as soon as their babies are 3 months old, although there is often no adequate child care for these babies. Other parents, strained by working two jobs and attending school, find that their time caring for their children is the first thing to go when they have to meet assistance requirements. Welfare reform directly interferes with these families attempts to provide the special care and assistance their children need, as required in Article 2 of the Universal Declaration. Many parents facing increased work and assistance requirements express concern that they are unavailable to their children when the youngsters need them most. They worry about the lack of supervision and care their children are receiving as a result of increased requirements. One mother in New Jersey was unable to attend an important meeting at her daughters school because she would have been
15
sanctioned for missing work. Without the mother present to advocate for her daughters needs, school officials decided to transfer her daughter to a school in another district with far fewer resources. [NJ # 385] A mother in California who was often homeless described the dilemma of having to decide between paying rent, working or caring for her son. I wanted to be with my son when he was young at any cost really... If I earn too much more, Ill lose the help [welfare assistance] completely. Even if I worked all the time at a low-wage job I couldnt afford the rent, and then where would my son be? Hes so young, he shouldnt have to be without his mom all the time just so we can keep a roof over our heads. [CA # 31] Ironically, the jobs many of these mothers are forced to take are lowpaying positions taking care of other peoples children, jobs which do not even pay enough to cover the cost of child care for their own children. In Washington state for example, the average child care worker earned $6.78 an hour in 1996, for a yearly income of $14,102. This is significantly below wages that the average worker in Washington state earned, which was $11.22 an hour for an annual income of $23,337.22 Women who are already enrolled in training or vocational programs, or who had experience in other areas, are being pushed into joining early childhood education programs which steer them into these
low-paying jobs. A California woman describes an often-repeated complaint, Currently, Im in school, doing an early childhood education program. I wanted to do a nursing program but was told it wouldnt be approved... [CA # 37] Many of the testimonials reveal the stories of women who were compelled to sign up for early childhood education programs, though they wanted and had the skills to pursue other programs.23 A Washington woman who had managed to obtain an adequate education and was successfully supporting her family noted, I have learned that motherhood and education are no longer respected, at least not for welfare mothers. Our society seems to criticize career women for not staying home with their children yet the system is pushing welfare mothers away from their babies and into the workforce. It seems to me that these are the children who are most in need of the care a mother can give to her child. These children are already vulnerable and have many more stressors that have negative outcomes on a childs wellbeing. Children living in poverty, children of single parents, and children who live in a violent environment to name a few situations, are more susceptible to adverse effects which will undoubtedly affect their social, physical, emotional and/or psychological outcome. Hasnt our society seen enough children turn into dysfunctional juveniles and adults? [WA # 419]
16
Finding 3: Changes in federal welfare law are increasing housing instability and homelessness.
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Article 25 (1), Universal Declaration of Human Rights For many families in the UUSC study, the right to a minimum standard of living articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is far from the harsh reality that they face every day. Increasingly, families receiving welfare assistance are finding that they cannot pay for shelter, food and child care at the same time and are often evicted. Housing problems are often exacerbated by restrictions such as shelter time limits as well as rising rents.24 Some find refuge with relatives or friends. Others find increasingly scarce beds at shelters. And still others are forced to sleep in vacant lots. The number of these hidden homeless is difficult to measure because the group includes families living in makeshift or informal arrangements, families who are constantly moving, and families who simply fall off the radar
screen because they lack an address or telephone. Countless others, particularly the working poor, are just a paycheck away from homelessness. Welfare reform is removing the safety net that provided safe and adequate housing. For people without another safety net, the loss of welfare assistance often means that they cannot pay their rent. Welfare time limits, low wages or inability to work due to disabilities or illness are forcing recipients to choose between basic necessities or homelessness, living on the street or sleeping on relatives floors. UUSCs data show that the number of people in such situations appears to have increased since PRWORA was implemented. The manager of a Washington shelter provides some evidence of this: There has been a dramatic increase in the number of people needing shelter the past two years. In the summer of 1995, the shelter was completely empty. Since welfare reform, the shelter has been full every four week cycle. The manager also pointed out that despite rising rent prices, welfare assistance has not increased to adjust to the higher costs of living, putting even more families at risk. [WA # 357] Another shelter reported that increasing numbers of two-parent families are seeking emergency housing, and that many families who had been turned away were living
17
with friends or sleeping in their cars or outside. [WA #422] At the same time that welfare assistance is being cut, welfare reform is also reducing access to the services that are many families last hope before being forced onto the streets. Many people are not being screened for domestic violence issues25 or other problems, which would allow them to qualify for special emergency shelters geared to their needs. In New Jersey, there is a shelter cap that limits the amount of time people can spend in shelters to 12 months. A California woman came up against restrictions with similar effects in her state, Since welfare reform put a one-time limit on receipt of homeless assistance I havent been able to get into a place. I received homeless assistance five years ago, and now I cant receive it again. Months after obtaining a job, she was still homeless. [CA #19] There appear to be few other options. Service providers in every state surveyed reported long waiting lists for subsidized housing. Also, though many shelters struggle to provide their clients with a safe refuge, others have been described as providing unsafe, unfit, deplorable living conditions for the families relying on their assistance. With these safety nets drastically reduced or eliminated, increasing numbers of families will be left with no place to go.
Conflicting and cumbersome requirements leave many families homeless. Many families who are eligible for assistance are not receiving the aid they need due to conflicting or arbitrary rules instituted as a result of PRWORA. One woman explained, Now I cant pay my rent this month, yet they [welfare caseworkers] tell me to get my next check I must show a receipt for housing. How can I get the receipt if I cant make the payment? [CA #38] Another California woman reported, A couple of months ago I received a three-day notice from my landlord. I immediately contacted the welfare department to inquire about emergency homeless assistance to try to conserve my housing. Unfortunately, they told me I didnt qualify until we were in the streets for two weeks. I think they should be more flexible. [CA #7] Similarly, families who do not have mailing addresses are told they cannot get aid because they lack an address. [NJ #345] Rules designed to help those in need may also have unintended effects. A pregnant woman reported, Ive been chased away from many shelters because I dont have a drug or alcohol problem or because my kids arent living with me. This system does not work right! [WA #342] Another woman had the opposite experience. She was told that she would have to give up custody of her children in
18
order to be eligible for benefits including housing assistance. She refused to do so and discovered that because she was ineligible for benefits she was also ineligible to live in many shelters. [NJ #345] Sadly, many other families are unable to avoid being split apart. Often, families are forced to send children to live with relatives or friends because they cannot afford a place to live.26 The right to shelter is a basic need and right articulated in the Universal Declaration; UUSCs data show that welfare reform falls far short of making this right a reality for many families caught without safety nets.
Everyone has the right to an education... Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. Article 26, Universal Declaration of Human Rights The primary intent of PRWORA was to encourage work and end dependence on the state by moving recipients into the workforce. Instead, welfare reform is removing the safety net that allowed recipients access to affordable food, shelter, and health care, at the same time that it is moving recipients into jobs that do not pay enough to obtain these basic necessities.27 Contrary to the mandates of Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, no matter how hard they work, most recipients are earning far below the just and fair remuneration needed to ensure an existence worthy of human dignity for themselves and their families. The testimonials reveal that most recipients are taking low-paying, temporary or dead-end jobs with little or no advancement prospects or benefits.28 The 1999 data show that 56 percent of those surveyed reported that they had obtained temporary jobs, and only 25 percent of those working reported receiving benefits. Also, the majority earned only between five and nine dollars per hour,29 far below the living wage level needed for survival. In comparison, the average worker in Washington state earned $11.22 per hour.30
Finding 4: Changes in federal welfare law are pushing parents into jobs that do not pay enough to support their families.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. Article 23, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
19
In addition, many recipients report that they are being steered into lowpaying service sector jobs, (usually child care or assistant positions), or are pressured into taking the first job they are offered, though they want and are eligible for higher-paying jobs with career possibilities. Gearing welfare-to-work programs towards such minimum wage, short-term jobs offers a stark contrast to the rights embodied in Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. Most people working in minimum wage jobs are not successfully moving off welfare or becoming selfsufficient. The director of one welfareto-work program stated that about 60 percent of the people who obtained jobs were back on the system within a year.31 Ultimately, welfare reform appears to be a strategy that gets a lot of people off the rolls quickly, but thats not the same as keeping them off welfare or moving families out of poverty.32 Welfare reform is essentially creating a new class of working poor who are no longer eligible for welfare assistance for the basic needs they cannot afford. In most cases, as a Massachusetts state representative noted, Were not taking anyone out of poverty. Were just putting them in a higher level of
poverty...in the end were going to end up with a larger problem.33 Reducing assistance to families in need can contribute to greater societal problems. With their safety net gone and with nowhere to turn, these families lack the resources to provide for their children or their futures, and risk developing even greater problems both for themselves and society. Many of the recipients surveyed reported that they could not afford health care, child care, housing or food and that their families were beginning to suffer from the effects of this deprivation.34 One mother poignantly described how her situation went from bad to worse, I want my own place to get away from my abusive boyfriend and his family. I need to get away from the abuse, but have another problem my boyfriends mother and grandmother take care of my 3-year-old because I cannot afford child care. My 3-yearold son has picked up the bad behavior, hitting habits of my boyfriend. He now hits me, my boyfriends mother and grandmother all females. He never hits my boyfriend. [WA #344] Many of the support providers surveyed reported clients who were overwhelmed with despair and hopelessness as they came up against welfare time limits or other requirements that were impossible for them to fulfill. They often described how these feelings were severely affecting their children as well. One
20
support provider expressed her fears about a family in danger when she wrote, The children are suffering...and [t]hese children will eventually hurt someone from their intense anger which they do not know how to manage. [NJ #387] Most of the testimonials described families who were struggling to pay for food or shelter. Some families managed to survive by eliminating the items that most people take for granted. A 39-year-old mother of two in Washington state, who began working at a job that paid less than the states poverty level, saw her benefits cut dramatically when she began working. She wrote, My daughter and I were just discussing that we are waiting for the day when toilet paper and plastic trash bags are not a luxury. We havent had those things in weeks! [WA #337] Some families get by only with the aid of food banks or generous neighbors. Food banks in Washington are reporting increases in the number of people using their services. [WA #358] Other families describe being forced to borrow money for food. [CA #20] Many families are forced to split up or live on the streets.35 For almost all families, the loss of assistance compounds the deprivation they already face. The Massachusetts documentation revealed that within nine months of implementation, over 5,000 children of working parents had lost their Temporary Assistance to Families with Dependent Children
(TAFDC) benefits because of time limits; as the surveyors described the situation, [a]ll of these children were poor before the time limit hit, and they are even poorer now.36 With fewer resources and growing problems, these families are losing the social protection mandated in Article 23(3) of the Universal Declaration, when they need it most. Welfare reform has been shown to penalize the working poor. Ironically, welfare reform also further penalizes the people it is intended to support, the working poor. For many of the people whose stories have been documented in this report, the Universal Declarations tenets promising the rights to equal pay for equal work and to just and favorable remuneration ring hollow. Recipients who work at minimum wage jobs may lose assistance when they begin working, even though they earn far less than needed to support their families, and earn less than the amount needed to replace the assistance they have lost.37 In Massachusetts, for instance, people who work more than 30 hours a week at minimum wage jobs are usually automatically denied extensions of the time limit, regardless of how little they earn, how much they work, or what it costs them to earn wages. The end result is that [w]orking poor families with low wages who have done what [the state welfare agency] asked of them found a job, any job are left substantially below poverty.38
21
Another woman eloquently described the obstacles that welfare reform is creating for the poorest workers, I have learned that this so-called welfare reform is not about helping people become self-sufficient but just about shifting the statistics from those on welfare to those of the working poor. It is incomprehensible to me that a successful welfare story is someone who is earning $6 an hour and cant earn enough to support her children, doesnt have medical/dental insurance, cant afford quality and nutritious food for her children, and will not be moving up the economic ladder out of poverty. She still qualifies for food stamps and for child care assistance but somehow is a success story because she is off the dole. [WA # 419] Making the situation worse for these workers is the fact that welfare assistance is cut off as soon as a person gets a job, though it may take a few weeks for the worker to get the first paycheck. In addition, for workers still eligible for welfare, benefits are immediately reduced for the next month based on increased earnings for the past two months, creating serious problems for people who work at temporary jobs or whose incomes fluctuate. Most do not have the resources to go for a month or two with reduced benefits. A woman in Washington state described some of the harsh effects of this system, The very day I got the job, the state cut me off assistance. I didnt get my first paycheck until the
10th of the month and had no money to pay my rent or feed my children. If it werent for my brother loaning me money for rent, my family would have been homeless! [WA #361] Another woman struggling with the effects of this system reported, My only problem was whenever Id find a job, before I got my first paycheck, the system would deduct money from the welfare check. This deduction would keep me going backwards instead of moving forward. [WA #381] A 32-year-old mother of four reported, Since my husband started working, our benefits have been reduced greatly. Due to buying equipment for his job, we are further in debt than before he started working. Since he does work, we are no longer eligible for additional benefits. I dont think its right for a person to go to work and still not have enough money to keep the power on. Now, the only thing that matters is getting us off assistance whether we can survive or not. [WA #346] Recipients are denied the educational and training opportunities that they need to obtain jobs that will support their families. Many recipients recognize that they lack important skills necessary in todays job market. They also realize that most stable and high-paying jobs will be out of their reach unless they can obtain additional education, training, or experience. To address these problems, the framers of
22
PRWORA provisions instituted mandatory job training programs for recipients. However, PRWORAs emphasis on getting recipients to work as soon as possible forces them to sacrifice these long-term goals, denying them the chance to build the foundations needed for selfsufficiency. Here again, the rights to education and training articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights remain illusory. Failing to Address Barriers The testimonials collected by UUSCs Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project illustrate that the mandatory job training programs provided by welfare agencies are inadequate and inflexible. Participants are not being screened for the problems that are hindering their efforts to obtain jobs and are being pushed into jobs and programs that do not take into account their work histories or experience. Many report being placed into positions almost arbitrarily, without any regard to their expressed preferences, skills, or goals. Thus, rather than promoting work, recipients feel that these programs often sabotage those who want to work and become self-sufficient.39 Undermining Success with One-SizeFits-All Approach By ignoring the differences between people, and implementing a onesize-fits-all approach, most programs fail to provide recipients with the skills they need. For example, people who have extensive work histories
and experience, and only need to update their skills find being forced to take courses on basic hygiene and proper attire demeaning and a waste of time. This is true also for people who are already working but need to find higher-paying jobs that can support their families. At the same time, people at the opposite end of the spectrum, who lack basic education or language skills, feel that they are pushed into looking for jobs requiring skills they do not have and cannot obtain in short training programs. Furthermore, the emphasis on moving people off of assistance quickly often comes at the cost of lasting success. Most employers want more experience and training in specific areas than three-month-long programs can provide and will not hire people who come out of short programs with few skills. Without substantive training, recipients are not being prepared for jobs with advancement or career opportunities or benefits.40 Ultimately, the lack of appropriate programs can make recipients job searches more rather than less difficult. A mother of four in Boston described her frustrations with her job training program: The job search worker told me to put computer training down on job applications, even though I dont have any. They told me to dress better, when I had no money for new clothes. They told me to go places, but didnt give me any real help. [MA #D-5]
23
Another woman noted, [s]omething is not working with job training when folks are unable to land a job or when they do, still cannot afford to take care of their families basic needs due to low wages and little chance for promotion. Pre-employment classes are substandard, only instructing individuals on how to dress for an interview, but not on how to access clothes needed for an interview. [WA #359] Providing Inadequate Screening The training and placement programs also fail to help people with multiple barriers or help people lacking basic skills to become functional. Because participants are not being screened for existing problems, people who are addicted to drugs or alcohol, or who are unable to read or write, are not getting the help they need to address these issues first. Unless and until these problems are overcome, job training programs are meaningless.41 One service provider expressed her frustration with the problems caused by lack of screening, Welfare reform is supposed to assist people from the system, not force them out with no job skills...Without prescreening, skills assessments, and an emphasis on education and adequate training, people will not successfully make it out of the system. In order to be more productive, recipients need basic education and must have more than 13 weeks of on the job training. The WorkFirst approach forces people into a highly competitive work system with virtually no skills.
Even more outrageous is that many of the WEX* individuals I work with [at organization] have mental health and drug/alcohol issues to work out. These factors of unemployment are not being assessed or prescreened. First, we need to work on granting extra reinforcement for addicts and people with mental health concerns build up self-esteem. Then, we need to assist with job training and education. WorkFirst only assists people into jobs flipping jacks for minimum wage with no benefits. Well see many of these people back on welfare in a short amount of time.42 [WA #358] Other groups with significant barriers are also being ignored. For example, women who have been homemakers for many years are not being given a chance to learn the skills they need to enter the workplace. [WA #397] Sometimes their problems are condemned rather than addressed: When a recently divorced woman in Massachusetts, who had been a homemaker for years, asked her case manager for job training, the response she got was to be asked why she had wasted her life by staying at home with her children. [MA #E-4] Also, there are many reports that recipients who do not speak English have been forced to participate in training programs taught only in English, leaving them frustrated and confused and wasting their time.
* WEX: paid or unpaid work with a nonprofit agency or federal, state, local or tribal government district
24
In many cases, it seems that job training and placement programs are creating more burdens for recipients rather than helping them overcome the ones they have. As one activist put it, Its like we toss a deflated life jacket to these individuals overboard, but havent taught them how to inflate the jacket or put it on. [WA #363] Training and work requirements are sometimes unrealistic and counterproductive. Though ostensibly designed to push recipients into the workforce, many of the additional training and work requirements implemented following the enactment of PRWORA may actually have the opposite effect on families already stretched to the limit.43 Many recipients report exhaustion, stress, and other health problems from trying to juggle lowpaying jobs, school, training, child care, transportation, and the additional paperwork, meetings, and appointments required by the agencies charged with implementing PRWORA.44 Falling short in any one of these areas may mean losing food stamps, health benefits, or even lead to homelessness. A job training provider in Massachusetts believes that it is impossible for most families in his training program to complete additional community service requirements. He stated, Their lives are so full, that this would make it impossible for them to complete the program. [MA #E-2].
Another Massachusetts case file related the following story: Fear for the physical safety of her two youngest children who were previously kidnapped by their father prevented one mother of three from northeastern Massachusetts from participating in training programs outside of school hours. She was facing the time limit, and felt that training was essential for her to support her family, but DTA [welfare program] required her to do community service. Most important, she had to assure the safety of her children when she had no other secure caregiver. Each of these three things was critical to the maintenance of her family but she could do no more than two.45 [MA #E-5] Other rules defeat rather than promote their intended purpose. For instance, recipients who find jobs or training programs on their own are often told that their jobs are not approved and that they must quit and join those run by state agencies. In addition, though unemployment benefits pay more than welfare, at least in one state, people receiving unemployment are only required to send out three resumes a week, while welfare recipients may be required to send out 30 a week. [WA #4] Many recipients reported that they were going to have to use unemployment benefits in the future rather than welfare. This invites the disturbing question of whether this has been part of the design to reduce the number of children and families receiving TANF benefits.
25
Creating an added burden on families struggling to meet the expanded requirements is the fact that many types of jobs no longer qualify as work approved under the new rules. Community service which used to count as work often does not fill current requirements. For instance, a California woman reported that, though she was required to do community work for a nonprofit 25 hours a week with no compensation as part of her educational program, the welfare agency refused to recognize any of this time as work. [CA #35] Time spent on homework or schoolwork does not count under the mandatory work requirements, meaning students must work an additional 20-25 hours a week while in school, even those studying for GEDs. A woman in California who worked the mandated hours and attended school related, The new Welfare to Work system gives a very short time period to complete my academic plans. Also, independent study time does not count toward my activity hours. I have no time to spend with my child. This troubles me majorly. I feel that this situation becomes a cause and effect of problems in families. I need time to educate my daughter. I want to bring her up, not a day care center. [CA #64] Another woman stated, It has been hard under welfare reform to attend college full time and meet the required activity hours... I feel I have to be a
full-time student and then some to meet the required hours... I think it is extremely unfair that homework hours or studying done at home is not counted part of the 32 hour required activity. Homework is not an option, you have to do it, it shouldnt matter if your time is being supervised or documented or if it is done at your local library or at home. [CA #51] Welfare reform is forcing many people out of educational programs although education may be their only path out of poverty. Education is one of the few proven methods of enabling people and their children to climb out of poverty. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the fundamental importance of education, emphasizing in Article 26 that everyone has the right to an education and that, moreover, higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. Without education, many recipients will not be able to obtain jobs that can support their families and will not be able to permanently end their need for welfare assistance.46 In the testimonials collected by UUSC, recipients overwhelmingly report that their higher educational efforts are discouraged or denied under the new welfare system. Many recount being forced to drop out of college entirely or being forced to switch into vocational programs or programs that will only lead them to low-paying jobs that will keep them in poverty. In fact, many recipients are specifically
26
punished for attempting to pursue an education. Many testimonials gathered by UUSC also reveal that recipients who choose to attend school are deliberately denied support services. Others who explain to caseworkers that they would like to attend school are not told of the opportunities available. The welfare time limits also discourage recipients from pursuing longer-term educational goals since benefits expire before students have time to complete their programs. These new rules are greatly reducing poor peoples access to education, violating the Universal Declarations mandate. One recipient commented that while there were previously about 100 students receiving welfare attending her college, after PRWORA was implemented this number dropped to two. [WA # 394] A California woman reports, Initially, my education plan was denied by my worker because Im planning on transferring to the university rather than settling for a vocational program. Because she informed caseworkers that she was pursuing an education, she also had great difficulty trying to get support services, such as child care, that she was eligible for. A woman in Washington says, I had to drop out of college because of welfare reform. [The welfare agency] told me that I had to work first. The reason I was attending college was to get a career so that I wouldnt be on welfare any longer. At the same time, I
was told that if I didnt have a high school diploma, then I would be allowed to go to college. Why should I be punished for graduating from high school? I should be rewarded for my accomplishments! But, instead, they are rewarding those people who didnt graduate. I feel they should help all of us increase our skills so we can improve and get off welfare. [WA #378] Another woman described her story: They dont tell people about education as an option, just work. Because I am going to school and am transferring to [a four-year program] they are giving me no help. I think they also want things to be more difficult. For example, when I got a small scholarship last year they cut my benefits.47 [CA #28] A 37-year-old mother reported, The welfare department cut my benefits and told me I couldnt go to school for longer than 18 months. And then they told me I couldnt even do a sixmonth program, but must go right to work. Im in school, doing an early childhood education program. I wanted to do a nursing program but was told it wouldnt be approved. I dont understand why I cant do a longer program. By the time my 18 months was up, my son will be 18 anyway and so I wont get any assistance. I just want to go to school without feeling like Im doing something that could cause trouble. [CS #37]
27
A 20-year-old student stated, The new two year rule is unfair, unrealistic, and its like it sets us up to fail. I tried taking on a full load because it was the only way to get my educational time limit to work and I ended up failing some classes and was absolutely stressed to the maximum which affected my parenting, my school work and emotional being. [CA #42] With educational costs rising, welfare assistance is some students only chance to obtain the education they need to support themselves and contribute to society. Reducing access to education for the poorest students will also have profound implications for their future employers, children, and society. PRWORA penalizes, rather than supports, these students, falling drastically short of the rights to education articulated in the Universal Declaration.
Finding 5: Burdensome government rules and regulations exist which obstruct due process for welfare clients, impose unlawful sanctions, and invade the privacy and dignity of recipients.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 1, Universal Declaration of Human Rights All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Article 7, Universal Declaration of Human Rights No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Article 12, Universal Declaration of Human Rights The testimonials reveal that much of recipients time and energy is spent maneuvering through the maze of
28
new welfare reform rules and requirements, taking crucial time away from their jobs, education, and families. Many find that even after they comply with an exhaustive list of rules, bureaucratic errors or lack of coordination between agencies keep them from getting the aid they desperately need.48 While sometimes these problems only create inconveniences, in other cases the bureaucratic shuffle can have tragic consequences. A number of testimonials described people who had been denied emergency health care or other assistance that they urgently needed, simply because of bureaucratic errors or because they did not receive the waivers for which they were eligible. In other cases, emergency assistance goes through numerous delays and arrives too late to make a difference, forcing recipients into crisis situations that are more difficult to address than the original problems. Finally, many testimonials reported serious incidents of discrimination, where stereotyping and prejudice created additional obstacles for recipients to overcome simply to obtain the services they are eligible for. For these people, the fact that they are applying for welfare assistance becomes an excuse for others to treat them differently. Such treatment constitutes a serious violation of the rights to equal treatment, dignity, and freedom from discrimination enshrined in the Universal Declaration.
Punitive implementation of rules often burdens already vulnerable families. The testimonials show that caseworkers and welfare agencies often use the requirements as a stick to coerce recipients or punish them for their real or perceived inadequacies, often in a discriminatory manner. A Washington service provider came across many of these prejudices: The rhetoric is that these people are bad so sanctions are most useful in disciplining...participants are not being treated respectfully. [WA #362] A California organization working with welfare recipients reported that many caseworkers were withholding services to gain cooperation from recipients. It also discovered that access to support services is selective, based on who ones worker is and whether or not one is considered to be deserving.49 Such discriminatory treatment clearly violates the Universal Declarations mandate of equal protection. The following testimonials illustrate the punitive or improper application of requirements. A 36-year-old mother wrote, I have so many health problems and always have to jump through the hoops. I feel pressured and feel harassed. I believe that they are the cause of a lot of my stress which is not good for my health. I had a miscarriage and two days afterwards I went in to the office so they could determine a good cause for a missed appointment. I had missed the appointment because I was sick from being pregnant and then
29
miscarried. I went in there and explained this and they said, well, you arent pregnant now, and then they sanctioned me. [WA #389] A California woman reported, When I was homeless the welfare department reduced my food stamps from $90 to $60 they said I wouldnt be needing them because I didnt have a place to cook. [CA # 5] Recipients can be sanctioned for bureaucratic errors and for not complying with multiple requirements. Testimonials from all four states report that recipients are often caught between conflicting requirements from different agencies and can easily slip through the cracks and lose their benefits.50 One service provider attributed this to the fact that, [t]here are too many institutions ([state agencies], Congress, state legislatures) involved trying to implement and play by the rules. [WA # 362] Adding to the confusion is the fact that there are different systems and different rules in each state, resulting in 50 different systems, none of which were ready to handle the system when PRWORAs reform provisions were instituted. A social worker in California, describing some of the implementation problems, noted, nothing is made clear, particularly for hard-to-serve clients. The merging of programs has had a bumpy start... Nobody knows all of the programs and so peoples benefits get delayed, or dont match up. Ive had a hard
time getting some of my clients into CalWORKs because of paperwork mix-ups and miscommunication. This can be devastating for families who are in crisis and/or are trying to reunite... Its just difficult when the right hand doesnt know what the left hand is doing. [CA #72] The testimonials echo these portrayals. A woman in California stated, I feel like the only problems that exist are the unreasonable amount of proof papers that must be turned in and all of the different departments we must stay in regular contact with. Its very hard to keep track and when you miss a deadline, the ramifications are way too harsh. [CA # 13] Another woman described being unfairly sanctioned, ... I had a problem with my caseworker because according to her I made more money than I was supposed to get. After that, she found out she had made a mathematical mistake. But in the meanwhile they stopped my food stamps and because of that, I had to borrow some money to buy food from my relatives. [CA #20] A California woman wrote, Ive been trying to get retroactive child care payments for months now. My worker said theres nothing she can do because its up to the Voucher Project to take care of it. She says this even though it was their mistake for denying me for so long. I finally had to use my rent money to pay for my child care provider and now the landlord wants to kick me out. When I
30
told my worker that now Im having housing problems she gave me some phone numbers to call for help. She didnt tell me there was help available through CalWORKs because I am working. It seems like she never wants to tell me about resources that can help just what will happen to me if I dont do what they ask. [CA #22] In New Jersey, a woman who was nine months pregnant was kicked out of a homeless shelter because the state welfare department wasnt paying the shelter the money it was supposed to for its services. [NJ #371] Students attempting to combine school and work find themselves caught between welfare and school rules. Work study jobs run a maximum of 19 hours per week, while mandatory welfare work programs require a minimum of 20 hours per week. Some students are able to make up the additional hours by finding second jobs, while others have been told that they must have one job that is more than 20 hours a week. [WA #372] Sometimes multiple rules deliberately compound recipients problems. One woman in California was sanctioned by the state grant agency because she did not provide paternity information for her child, and then found out that her food stamps were also being cut. As she learned, under the new rules, the welfare department could count her as receiving the full cash aid she would have gotten if she had not been sanctioned, not the reduced amount
she was actually receiving, and had cut her food stamps accordingly. [CA #15] Constantly changing rules and caseworkers can disrupt recipients progress. Recipients are often switched between different caseworkers or agencies, increasing the chances of misplaced files and impersonal treatment during crisis situations. These transfers can also have punitive consequences. Recipients report that they have been sanctioned because caseworkers have lost their paperwork, or are unable to keep track of their situations, or are simply overworked. Several of the support providers surveyed noted that because clients may have three or four different caseworkers working on their case within a short period of time, caseworkers cannot provide meaningful assessments of their problems or track their progress or deterioration. This causes many serious problems related to mental health, domestic violence or other issues to be overlooked. A New Jersey woman reported, My caseworker always had an attitude and it never was the same one. The caseworkers change position every five or six months and they never tell you, the client, who the new one is or when the interview day is. You waste your time trying to call them and mailing them pay stubs or other important papers expecting them to return to you. Forget about it. Some of the caseworkers are nice but thats a
31
minority few. Others are bitter and wont help you for nothing. If anything theyll send you on a good chase. [NJ #403] A director of a homeless shelter, echoing the complaints of others, stated that the welfare system and their lack of services further act to disengage the residents. The constant abuse, shifting, bureaucratic treatment, displacement and separation of family, and the unfair sanctions all add to deprivation and a low socioeconomic level. The [welfare department] offers no true assessment of clients, no meaningful education or job placement. They do not deal with existing barriers... [NJ #348] In addition, both caseworkers and recipients report being confused and unable to keep up with the continually changing requirements. A woman in Washington state reported: The constant changes make it hard to stick to any one personal plan to get off the system. One feels like they are in the middle of a game of hot potato, being tossed around and having to change and adjust to each new thing. With the constant fear of being dropped if you cannot comply with the ever changing new rules of the game. Also, you are considered too hot to handle if you question if what they are doing is right. [WA #341] An overwhelming number of testimonials reported that caseworkers were unavailable, did not return phone calls, or were unable to answer questions. A Washington woman
reported, Ive been shuffled around from person to person because no one knows whats going on. No one will give me straight answers about a grant I need for rent, utilities, health care or transportation. [WA #342] Another woman, after dealing with numerous unhelpful caseworkers, noted, If I had not taken my case into my own hands visiting the county offices and initiating necessary referrals, I would not be starting school or have child care now. [CA #61] Many recipients report that their caseworkers mail them notices of appointments or meetings they have to attend only two or three days prior to these appointments, making it difficult to find the child care or transportation they need to attend. If they do not attend, they can be sanctioned. The director of a child care program commented, One of the biggest frustrations my parents have with [the welfare agency] is not being able to talk to their case manager. It is so difficult to keep up with [the agency] because there is a terribly high turnover rate absolutely no consistency with service or treatment. Ive heard of clients being discriminated against because of what they were wearing or how they looked. Clients feel as though they must jump through hoops to get follow-through from their caseworkers. [WA #383]
32
Without consistent treatment and access to the information they require, recipients are unable to make use of the services they need, and are not able to progress or overcome their problems. Some recipients are not being told about applicable exemptions and waivers are not always properly applied. Some of the harshest rules instituted with PRWORA were not intended to be applied against people who had disabilities, or who were already living in dangerous situations. Rather, waivers were supposed to protect the most fragile families from further abuse or damage. However, the data collected by UUSC show that waivers are not being properly applied, causing unnecessary suffering and putting many families at risk of grave physical harm. Domestic Violence For example, as of March 1999 in Massachusetts, only 49 domestic violence time limit waivers had been approved, though far more women receiving assistance reported experiencing some form of domestic violence.51 Organizations in other states reported similar problems and recorded many situations where the misapplication of waivers put families at greater risk of domestic violence. For instance, a New Jersey woman had to battle domestic violence after a child support warrant was issued for the father of her children. The father did not understand that welfare automatically issues a child support
order against the absent parent when a person applies for welfare, and he assumed the mother had done it. This situation could have been avoided had the welfare agency assessed the mothers situation before issuing the warrant. [NJ #381] Another woman related how her caseworker ignored the abuse she faced and denied her the waivers she needed. She knew about the fact that I was dealing with domestic violence and that it was a really bad situation, yet never allowed me an exemption, or even told me what I needed to do was get an exemption... Whatever I do I feel like Im a problem, like Im alone and because I make a big deal out of things theyre trying to break me. [CA #41] In California, a support provider reported that often women who really needed the district attorneys help in tracking down deadbeat parents didnt get it, while those who did not want any contact with the absent parent because of domestic violence or other issues were harassed by the DA for not cooperating. [CA #16] Disabilities Support workers also report that many recipients are simply not being screened for disabilities, illnesses, domestic violence or mental health problems, yet they are still being forced to comply with demanding work requirements. A Washington social worker stated, [F]orty percent of our clients have learning
33
disabilities. Presently, there is no mechanism set up to assess types of disabilities or training to deal with a disability in the workplace. [WA #362] A large number of the testimonials described recipients facing one or more of such barriers, though most had not been screened or told of exemptions. A New Jersey testimonial described the story of a woman who was unable to attend a training meeting due to a hip injury. She was then sanctioned for missing the meeting, and was forced to travel to the office on crutches to have the sanctions lifted although caseworkers still gave her a hard time. [NJ # 410] Another recipient was refused a bus pass to get to his job site, even though he had documentation and medical records showing that he had a permanently injured leg and couldnt walk long distances. He was forced to walk four to five miles to the job site, and not surprisingly, became frustrated and stopped going. [NJ #365] A California woman was sanctioned instead of supported when she became ill, While I was in school I got very sick and was hospitalized. I lost a semester of classes and wasnt able to meet work requirements... I got a notice that I must prove I couldnt participate by getting some forms completed and showing for a meeting. Well I was in the hospital so I couldnt do that so I was cut off. I found I was cut off when I got out and tried to go
for the meeting... No one told me I could get an exemption because of my illness... [CA #10] Without proper application, waivers and exemptions are meaningless. These stories illustrate the harsh consequences of improper implementation of waivers, consequences that welfare reform was specifically intended to avoid. To truly assist vulnerable families, welfare agencies and caseworkers must be well informed about the rules that can exempt qualifying families from burdensome requirements and must implement them in a nondiscriminatory, nonpunitive manner. Many find requirements invasive and burdensome and in violation of the privacy and dignity of recipients. In many cases, recipients are subjected to harassment, invasive questioning or stigmatizing requirements only because they have applied for welfare assistance. Such requirements are usually unnecessary and serve only to humiliate or degrade recipients. In other cases, regulations are imposed in a callous manner that assaults the dignity of recipients. Simply applying for aid does not, and should not, mean that families must be forced to give up their privacy or self-worth to get aid. On the contrary, as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights holds, everyone has the right to protection against interference or attacks upon personal privacy, honor and reputation. The testimonials show that
34
welfare reform has resulted in serious violations of these rights. Misapplication of Welfare Rules In California, recipients attending school were told they had to get their professors to sign a paper from the welfare office confirming their attendance, although they complained that this violated their privacy. The recipients also felt that this requirement stigmatized them in class and might lead professors to single them out or treat them differently. This rule was allegedly changed, but its application may not have. Another woman reported, I have been told that I must get my classes signed off by my teachers for CalWORKs. When I talked to my worker to tell her I didnt want to do this she gave me a different form that I could self-certify but then told me not to tell anyone or else everyone would want to do it. I dont think its fair that this information can be withheld. [CA # 39] A 34-year-old Washington mother had a horrifying experience: When she was pregnant with her youngest child, she applied for welfare assistance. She had already completed a pregnancy test (for proof) and was complying with job search requirements. During her fifth month of pregnancy, she began bleeding heavily and was told by her doctor to remain in bed or she would lose the baby. Soon thereafter, her case manager informed her that she was no longer in compliance and that they had lost the file with her
pregnancy test results. She was told she needed to provide her case manager with another pregnancy test. She went back to her doctor and got a pregnancy test, and took it to her caseworker. She recounted, As I stood in line bleeding all over myself, I asked if I could speak to my caseworker. At that point, he saw the blood and apologized. All he had to do was pick up the phone and make a few phone calls because the paperwork had been filled out and turned in on my case. I was not only humiliated, but this was also life threatening! [WA # 368] Many recipients also report verbal abuse, stereotyping and prejudice. A woman who had a child as a result of a sexual assault had to deal with caseworkers who referred to her child as a rape baby. [NJ # 405] Another reported a caseworker who told called her a lazy pig and told her to get her fat a - - off the couch. [WA #385] Yet another reported, My caseworker would tell my boyfriend he was a loser and that he needed a vasectomy. [WA #380] As one woman summarized the problem, The welfare system degrades people and makes them feel less than human. Everyone, sometime in his or her lifetime, needs a helping hand. They dont help, they are bringing people down. [WA #397]
35
Fair Treatment and Access Needed for Success At the same time, there are recipients who described how welfare had helped them get back on their feet. All of these testimonials reported supportive caseworkers who treated them like human beings and told them about their rights. They also credited the help of support providers who had given them the information and education they needed to empower themselves.
One woman related the difference that education made for her: I have to talk to my case manager like I know what Im talking about before shell even talk to me. Take for example the day I asked her about housing. She told me that they didnt help with housing. But, after I gathered the information myself, I went back to her and talked to her like I knew what I was talking about. After that, she started talking. [WA #373]
36
IV. Conclusion
Child poverty remains at unacceptably high levels in the United States, and deep poverty among children has worsened in the shadow of an unprecedented rate of economic growth. As Congress approaches the deadline by which it must reauthorize Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (September 2002) it has already begun to debate the issue. UUSC believes that its members of all ages and other constituents have important roles to play in this serious dialogue within their communities, in states and in Washington, D. C. William F. Schultz, president of the Unitarian Universalist Association from 1985 to 1993, notes in the Unitarian Universalist Pocket Guide: Every one of us is held in Creations hand we share its burdens and its radiance and hence strangers need not be enemies. The interdependent web of all existence offers an embrace to everything and everyone. Our only inherent enemies are violence, poverty, injustice, and oppression. As you read this report we encourage you to consider the enemy of poverty visible and invisible in the community where you live and worship. Learning about poverty in our land of plenty will offer you many challenges for service and for advocacy. UUSC will encourage its members and constituents to engage in the national welfare debate leading to congressional action in 2002. In this
conclusion we present the findings revealed in testimonies gathered from more than 2,500 adult welfare recipients collected by UUSCs Welfare and Human Right Monitoring Project, UUSCs recommendations based on those findings and the experience gathered by UUSCs many colleague agencies throughout the country and opportunities for action at the local, state and federal levels.
Review of Findings
1. Congressional reauthorization of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families at the current funding levels is critical. While many families have moved from welfare to work we may attribute the significant reduction in welfare rolls to the unprecedented rate of economic growth over the last several years. To date, there is has been no national collection of data that tells us how families perform economically after reaching their five-year lifetime limit of cash benefits. Limiting TANF support for millions of children before sound study of the implications for families is premature and based on guesswork. 2. Welfare reform is placing more U.S. children at risk. While the provisions of PRWORA are intended for adults their consequences affect the children who comprise two thirds of the welfare population. Welfare cash
37
benefits for families are well below the federal poverty level and lost cash benefits reduce family income further. Some states actually target children through the imposition of full family withholding of cash benefits for failure to comply with regulations. Some states discriminate against newborn children by imposing a family cap that disallows additional income for the baby. Data show that most adults leaving welfare find lowincome employment with the result that children face the twin specters of the absence of their single parent and poverty, which places child growth and development at risk. 3. Changes in federal welfare law are increasing housing instability and homelessness. At the same moment time that we have eradicated the 60-year-old social compact to care for the poorest among us the national availability of affordable housing is woefully inadequate. Only one quarter of TANF recipient families have access to housing subsidies and for most recipients leaving welfare, the prospect of housing assistance is not a realistic expectation. Without housing stability families struggle to maintain their integrity. Affordable housing is an even greater burden for single-parent families who rely on one wage earner and comprise most of the families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
4. Changes in federal welfare law are pushing parents into jobs that do not pay enough to support their families. Most individuals leaving welfare report income of $5 to $9 per hour far below what is necessary to purchase housing and food for a family.52 For many adult welfare recipients, the pressure to find a job often eliminates job training and education opportunities that could lead to higher income for families. It also limits the capability of those leaving welfare to become active taxpayers contributing to state and federal tax revenues. 5. Burdensome government rules and regulations exist which obstruct due process for welfare clients, impose unlawful sanctions, and invade the privacy and dignity of recipients. UUSCs testimonials reveal that recipients spend significant time and energy maneuvering through a maze of bureaucratic requirements taking crucial time away from their children, jobs and education. Welfare agency staff often use departmental policies to coerce recipients or punish them for their perceived inadequacies.
38
UUSCs Recommendations Based on Findings of the Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project
1. Strengthen the safety net for children. Reduce family poverty and its devastating effects on child growth and development by eliminating TANF time limits. Continue and expand programs designed to support children at risk due to poverty in the areas of child care, education, nutrition, health care and housing. 2. Promote strategies to combat homelessness. Augment the national stock of affordable housing for low-income families in order to meet the need evidenced by long waiting lists and homelessness. Encourage private and public development of affordable housing in states and municipalities. Strive for state and local public policies that will decrease homelessness and improve access to affordable housing for the homeless. Increase the minimum wage.
3. Expand and improve access to jobs that will support a family through job training and education programs for people moving from welfare to work. Allow job training and education to satisfy the work requirement. Rely on well-documented market and government data to determine the resources families of differing sizes and composition require to meet their basic needs. One such model is the Self-Sufficiency Standard developed by Dr. Deana Pearce at the University of Washington. Advocates in California and Massachusetts have modified this model for their states. In addition, Connecticuts Permanent Commission of the Status of Women led state government to adopt the standard. 4. Institute good customer service practices in state welfare agencies to ensure due process, restrict the number of unlawful sanctions and protect the privacy and dignity of TANF clients. Every family receiving TANF benefits should have a written language-appropriate guide to services and individual rights under the states welfare system. Suggested state welfare agency actions to protect clients basic human rights: Complete family assessments as families enter and leave the state TANF system.
39
Simplify application/renewal forms and processes. Minimize required in-person interactions between clients and state agency staff. Reduce paperwork and implement commonly accepted best practices for customer service. Develop effective telephone communication between clients and agency staff. Expand welfare office hours to meet clients needs in the evening and/or on weekends. Educate state agency workers about eligibility guidelines, agency and client rights, reality based client expectations, and respect for the dignity and worth of each client. Provide a written policy guide to each worker.
5. Reauthorize Temporary Assistance for Needy Families at the current funding level and require states to monitor families leaving welfare. Currently, there is no law that requires states to evaluate how families leaving welfare survive. In reauthorizing TANF, Congress should also enact reporting requirements that will enable future decisions to be based on the real life experience of TANF families rather than on imagined results. Congress must take a leadership role in moving families out of poverty as well as off welfare.
40
V. Footnotes
Robert Pear, Number on Welfare Rolls Dips Below 10 Million, New York Times. January 21, 1998; J. Bradford Delong, IN THE LONG RUN: What Does Clinton Leave Us? Fortune, January 22, 2001
1
United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.

5
NCH Blasts Congress and the Administration for Forgetting The Forgotten Americans, National Coalition for the Homeless, December 1999.
6
Lost in the Debate: Voices of Families Surviving Welfare Reform, Washington, D. C.: National Association of Child Advocates, January 1999; Arloc Sherman, Poverty Matters: The Cost of Child Poverty in America, Washington, D. C.: Childrens Defense Fund, 1998; Collins and J. L. Aber, Children and Welfare Reform Issue Brief 1: How Welfare Reform Will Help or Hurt Children, Washington, D. C.: National Center for Children in Poverty, 1997.
2
James Fallows, The Invisible Poor, The New York Times Magazine, March 19, 2000.
7
Homeless Families with Children, Fact Sheet #7, Washington, D. C.: National Coalition for the Homeless. June 1999; Gustav Niebuhr, Religion Leaders Call Housing a Sacred Right, New York Times. September 10, 1999;How Many People Experience Homelessness? Fact Sheet #2, National Coalition for the Homeless; Laura Nichols and Barbara Gault, The Effects of Welfare Reform on Housing Stability and Homelessness: Current Research Findings, Legislation and Programs. Washington, D. C.: Institute for Womens Policy Research, March 1999; Michael Janofsky. Shortage of Housing for Poor Grows in U. S. New York Times. April 28, 1999; Welfare Cut Offs Make Families Homeless, Boston: Massachusetts Law Reform Institute. February 23, 2000; As Rents Soar Advocates Call for Package to Address Basics, Boston: State House News Service, February 28, 2000; Waiting in Vain. An Update on the American Housing Crisis, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1999; Out of Reach: The Growing Gap Between Housing Costs and Income of Poor People in the United States, Washington, D. C.: National LowIncome Housing Coalition September 2000.
3
From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development, Spotlight on Health Science and Public Policy, October 2000; Richard Rothstein, Some Students Require A Hand on the Way Up, New York Times, October 2000; The Link Between Nutrition and Cognitive Development in Children, Medford, Massachusetts: Center on Hunger, Poverty and Nutrition Policy, 1995.
8
Four Million 6 to 12 Year-Olds with Employed Mothers are Regularly Without Adult Supervision When Not at School, Washington, D. C.: Urban Institute, September 2000; Camille Sweeny, Portrait of the American Child, 1995, The New York Times Magazine, 1999, p. 53; Roger Rosenblatt, The Society That Pretends to Love Children, The New York Times Magazine, 1999, p. 58.
9
Jennifer Ehrle and Kristin Moore, Childrens Environment and Behavior: Behavioral and Emotional Problems in Children, Urban Institute, 1999; Jane Knitzer and Nancy K. Cauthen, Enhancing the Well-Being of Young Children and Families in the Context of Welfare Reform, New York: The Joseph L. Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 1999.
10
The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 included the Education of Homeless Children and Youth Program. The law requires states and school districts to revise any practices or policies that might obstruct homeless students opportunity to succeed in school. The federal Department of Education distributes funds to states under a formula in the McKinney Act.
4
Swift, LWV Place Children at Top of Agenda, Boston: State House New Service Children and Welfare Reform LWV Forum, April 1999; Children in the States, 1998, Childrens Defense Fund, April 1998; Molly Ivins, Taking a Stand for Children, Boston Globe, May 1996; Investing in Children, Boston Globe, June 1996; Progress in Reducing Child Poverty Slows, Study Finds; Children Remaining Poor Have Become Somewhat Poorer, Washington, D. C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, December 1999; Karen Houppert, Youre not Entitled!, The Nation, October 1999, p. 11.
11
41
12
A Closer Look at the Massachusetts Families Hitting the TAFDC Two-Year Clock, Boston: Family Economic Initiative and Massachusetts Law Reform Institute Time Limit Documentation Project, February 1999; State Time Limits on TANF Cash Assistance, Center for Law and Social Policy, State Policy Documentation Project, February 2000; Findings in Brief, Washington, D. C.: Center for Law and Social Policy, State Policy Documentation Project, October 2000. Estella Minnefield, et. al. v. Claire McIntire: Commissioner Protecting Safety Net Benefits for Families with Disabled Children, Fact Sheet, July 1999; Doris Sue Wong, Judge Blocks State Cutoff of Welfare Disability Aid, Boston Globe, December 1998. A Closer Look, op. cit., Part A.
Mary Baker and Elaine Fersh, A welfare reform necessity: more and better child care. Op Ed. Boston Globe, July 28, 1998.
19
State Welfare to Work Policies for People with Disabilities Changes Since Welfare Reform, US Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, August 2000.
20
13
14
Poverty Amidst Plenty: Amount of Unspent Federal Anti-Poverty Funds Grows Despite Persistent Need, Washington, D. C.: Center for Community Change, National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support, February 2000; Welfare to What?: Early Findings on Family Hardship and Well-Being, Childrens Defense Fund and National Coalition for the Homeless, November 1998, pp. 7-9; Robert Greenstein and Wendell Primus, Poverty Rate Hits Lowest Level Since 1979 as Unemployment Reaches a 30 Year Low, Washington, D. C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, October 2000; Sheila Zedlweski, Work Activity and Obstacles to Work among TANF Recipients, Urban Institute, September 1999.
15
The Wellstone-Murray Family Violence Amendment (to PRWORA of 1996) provides states the option to increase services and waive requirements in cases of domestic violence and sexual abuse. The amendment invites states to screen applicants (TANF) for domestic violence while maintaining confidentiality, to provide referrals to counseling and support services and make good cause waivers for certain welfare program requirements. State adoption may result in active or passive screening; Also see Jody Raphael, Prisoners of Abuse and Welfare Receipt, Duluth, Minnesota: The Taylor Institute, University of Minnesota-Duluth, 1996.
21
Washington Kids Count, Seattle Human Services Policy Center, University of Washington Evans School of Public Affairs.
22
Violation of Article 23 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
23
High Home Costs Pushing Labor Out of Mass., study says, Boston Globe, 1997.
24
Mozurkewich El, Wolf F. M., and Luke B., Working Conditions and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes: A meta-analysis, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 59(4): pp. 623-635, April 2000.
16
Heidi Sachs. Domestic Violence as a Barrier to Womens Economic Self-Sufficiency, Washington, D. C.: Welfare Information Network. December 1999.
25
Elizabeth Gilman and Ann Collins, Better Strategies for Babies: Strengthening the Caregivers and Families of Infants and Toddlers, Children and Welfare Reform: Issue Brief 7, National Center for Children in Poverty, 2000; Sharon Kagan and Nancy Cohen, Not By Chance: Creating an Early Care and Education System for Americas Children, New Haven: The Bush Center in Child Development and Social Policy at Yale University, 1997.
17
Laura Nichols and Barbara Gault, The Effects of Welfare Reform on Housing Stability and Homelessness, Welfare Reform Network News, 1999.
26
Working Hard, Earning Less: The Story of Job Growth in America, Northampton, Massachusetts: National Priorities Project, 1998.
27
Work-first Welfare Fails on Income, Study says, The Boston Globe, 1998.
28 29
Jonathan R. Veum and Philip M. Cleason, Child Care: Arrangements and Costs, Monthly Labor Review, October 1991; Child Care and Early Education Basics, Childrens Defense Fund. April 2000.
18
Washington Kids Count, op. cit. Deborah Kohn, Preliminary Draft Notes:
30
42
Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, 1999. WA Agency Case File #362 (Catholic Community Services, Achieve Program, Director of Family Support Services), Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project, Cambridge, Mass.: Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, 1999.
31 32 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Percent of Total U. S. Population, 19601999, Department of Housing and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, December 15, 2000; Pamela Lopresti, How Families That Left Welfare Are Doing: A National Picture, Urban Institute, August 1999. 33 Robert A. Rosenblatt, Melissa Healy, Welfare Law Will Exclude 135,000 Disabled Children, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 7, 1997; Beth Daley, Welfare office closing brings lawsuit: Consolidation hurts minorities, disabled, 3 Lynn women say, Boston Globe, June 16, 1996.
42
Deborah DAmico, op. cit., pp. 30-34. A Closer Look, op. cit.
43
Eileen Sweeney, Recent Studies Indicate That Many Parents Who Are Current or Former Welfare Recipients Have Disabilities or Other Medical Conditions, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, February 2000; Addressing Substance Abuse and Mental Health Barriers to Employment, Welfare Information Network, 1999.
44
Kristin Anderson Moore and Sharon Vandivere, Stressful Family Lives: Child and Parent WellBeing, Child Trends, Washington, D. C.: Urban Institute, June 2000.
45
Mark Greenberg and Steve Savner, Waivers and the New Welfare Law: Initial Approaches in State Plans, Center for Law and Social Policy, 1996.
46 47
A Closer Look, op. cit., Section E.
Jason DeParle, Bold Efforts Leave Much Unchanged for the Poor, New York Times, 1999.
34
The Broken Promise: Welfare Reform Two Years Later, Equal Rights Advocates, January 2000: pp. 20-21.
48 49
Andrew C. Revkin, Welfare Policies Alter the Face of Food Lines, New York Times, 1999.
35 36
The Broken Promise, op. cit.
Welfare to What? op. cit., pp. 14-15. A Closer Look,op. cit., Introduction. A Closer Look,op. cit., Section A.
37
38
39 Deborah DAmico, Adult Education and Welfare to Work Initiatives: A Review of Research, Practice and Policy, Washington, D. C.: National Institute for Literacy, August 1997; Michael M. Weinstein, When Work Is Not Enough, New York Times, August 26, 1999; When work first doesnt work, editorial, Boston Globe, June 24, 1998.
Laura Meckler, Welfare Rules Booting Thousands Out of System, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, 1999; Due Process and Fundamental Fairness in the Aftermath of Welfare Reform, New York: Welfare Law Center, 1998; Barbara Vobejda and Judith Havemann, Many Forced Off Welfare Rolls, survey shows, Washington Post, March 1998; Jan Kaplan, The Use of Sanctions Under TANF, Washington, D. C.: Welfare Information Network Web site, April 1999; Heidi Goldberg and Liz Schott, A Compliance-oriented Approach to Sanctions in State and County TANF Programs, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, October 2000.
50 51
Sandra Danziger, Mary Corcoran, Sheldon Danziger, Colleen Heflin, Ariel Kalil, Judith Levine, Daniel Rosen, Kristen Seefeldt, Richard Tolman, Barriers to the Employment of Welfare Recipients, Madison, Wis.: Poverty Research and Training Center, School of Social work, University of Michigan, June 1999.
40
A Closer Look, op. cit., Section B.
Work-Related Activities and Limitations of Current Welfare Recipients, op. cit.

41
The Broken Promise: Welfare Reform Two Years Later, San Francisco, Equal Rights Advocated, January 2000; Ellen Goodman, In ending welfare as we know it, weve left many families in poverty. Op. Ed. Boston Globe, February 1, 2001; Overview of Current Research on Wisconsin Works (W-2), Milwaukee, Wisconsin: The Institute for Wisconsins Future, July 1999.
52
43
Appendix A
Glossary of Terms
Devolution: The transfer of program responsibility from the federal government to the 50 state governments. Family Cap: A state-by-state option to deny benefits to new babies born to families receiving TANF assistance. Maintenance of Effort (MOE) is the level of funding each state is required to maintain for assistance programs. PRWORA: the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (The federal welfare reform law) PRWORA excerpts: (a) IN GENERAL: The purpose of this part is to increase the flexibility of states in operating a program designed to: (1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
In the wake of enactment of this federal law each state wrote its own legislation implementing the major requirements of the federal law. Each state welfare law is unique. Reauthorization of TANF: The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 created the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant and authorized funding through September 30, 2002. In order to continue TANF, Congress must again appropriate funds for the program before September 30, 2002. Other concurrent reauthorizations include food stamps, and the Child Care and Development Block Grant. Due to the range of issues involved the debate, Congress may also address issues such as health care, workforce development, the earned income tax credit, transportation and more. Sanction: Punishment. Usually applied for noncompliance with the myriad rules and regulations of TANF. SSI: Supplemental Security Income is part of the Social Security system that supports the most indigent and disabled persons. TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families is a system of block grants to states. It replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Time Limits: The federal law limits the time a person may receive TANF cash assistance to 60 months or five
44
years in a lifetime. Each state has interpreted this requirement in its own law. Some state laws allow cash grants only for two consecutive years with the five-year lifetime limit. Welfare Reform: Shortened term for the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.
average of 2.4 children. Interviewees appeared to be predominantly black (66.0 percent), and only 20.5 percent of respondents were white. Of those interviewed, 89.4 percent were U.S. citizens, and the majority of others were legal residents. However, others may have chosen not to answer the question. Few respondents were working, and most of those who were had lowpaying or part-time jobs. Only 27.2 percent of those responding were working or in training programs at the time they were interviewed. A majority of employed people were working only part time (55.3 percent), and 48.9 percent were being paid between $5 and $7 per hour. Many of these people were receiving minimum wage, and 2.7 percent of those working were actually receiving less than $5 per hour. Only 5.9 percent were paid $11 or more hourly. Benefits were only received by 29.1 percent of respondents with jobs, and not all of these benefit packages were complete with health insurance, dental insurance and leave time. With employment and wages so low, such people should have been eligible to receive government benefits. Surprisingly, not all people interviewed were receiving adequate assistance or any assistance at all. Among these interviewees, the most widely received benefit was food stamps, with 62.1 percent of respondents receiving assistance. The next largest category of benefits was
Appendix B
Brief Statistical Overview
More than 2,500 people were interviewed for this phase (Phase III) of the Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project. The data collection was by no means a random sample, and the sample size was far too small to infer facts about individual states or the nation as a whole. However, the data collection does show that of those interviewed, many recipients basic needs are not being met. This information demonstrates the need for a systematic study of welfare recipients and a tracking system to follow those removed from the welfare rolls. Overwhelmingly, those interviewed were female (85.0 percent) and relatively young (mean age 34.2). Females interviewed were significantly younger than males interviewed. Of those respondents with children, 87.3 percent were single parents, usually mothers, and had an
45
TANF, received by 48.5 percent of respondents. Despite the fact that those eligible for TANF should also be eligible to receive Medicaid, only 15.4 percent of the total were receiving this benefit. If only 27.2 percent of respondents were working, and only 29.1 percent of those people were receiving benefits, far more interviewees should have been receiving medical assistance than the data suggest. In addition to the low levels of benefits received by those living in poverty, a majority of those interviewed (54.7 percent) claimed that their benefits have decreased recently, and 2.3 percent have seen their benefits increase in one area while decreasing in another. In addition to being in dire financial situations, many respondents reported being unhappy with the welfare system and their treatment within it. A full 68.3 percent of respondents reported that they felt violated or treated unfairly by the welfare office or a caseworker. Of all respondents, 49.3 percent felt violated during the benefit application process, and 70.4 percent experienced violations in connection with compliance. These violations include sanctions that were given without cause or caused hardship, whether merited or not. Only 19.4 percent of respondents claim the welfare office told them about exemptions from the rules, although 36.2 percent reported knowing how to appeal a welfare decision. Although this data collection is limited in scope and cannot provide a fair profile of welfare recipients, its
results demonstrate the need for further study. All welfare recipients must be tracked to ensure that their basic needs, such as food and medical care, are being met.
Appendix C
Methodology
UUSC collected data for this project in four states: California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington state.
Partner Agencies
Community Action Board of Santa Cruz, Inc., in California provides direct anti-poverty services to lowincome residents in Santa Cruz County around the issues of homelessness, immigration, energy services, food distribution and job placement. The board also performs social and economic justice advocacy. UUSC supported their welfare monitoring work. Massachusetts Law Reform Institute (MLRI) is a statewide legal advocacy center that represents low-income individuals, families and communities and provides legal support and technical assistance to legal services offices and grassroots organizations. MLRIs advocacy, litigation, public policy work, legal training and technical assistance focus on public benefits legislation and public policy,
46
health care access, affordable housing, employment, immigration law, domestic violence and other family law issues. MLRI has been documenting the lives of families after the termination of TANF benefits, and has prevailed in several lawsuits it has brought on behalf of families. UUSC is supporting the institutes welfare monitoring work. New Jerseys Statewide Parent Advocacy Network, Inc. in Newark coaches parents to advance their civil and political rights and the rights of their children. Their mission is to empower families and concerned professionals to ensure healthy development and quality education for children from birth to age 21. Their special commitment is to those children at greatest risk due to poverty, disability, discrimination and other special needs. Their bilingual, multiracial staff works toward these goals by providing information, technical assistance, training, leadership development and support to families in the areas of education, health and human services. UUSC is supporting the networks welfare monitoring work. Statewide Poverty Action Network (The Washington Welfare Reform Coalition) formed in 1996 is a statewide alliance of over 75 groups from communities of color, welfare rights and immigrant rights groups, organized labor, the faith community, womens groups, social service organizations, and individuals. The
coalition advocates for a just and humane welfare system and works to build a movement for social and economic justice for all individuals. They also organize and empower lowincome persons to fight for progressive reform and to develop leadership in low-income communities. UUSC is supporting their welfare monitoring work.
Data Collection
In this third phase of data collection for the Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project UUSC added two new objectives: 1. Follow-up interviews with 25 percent of the respondents. 2. Inclusion of agency interviews that might provide better analysis of discrete state welfare systems. Monitors attained these objectives, although follow-up interviews with the target population are problematic due to the transient nature of the population. Both new objectives were considered irrelevant in Massachusetts since all the families interviewed had reached the time limit for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Data collection for all phases of this project has been challenging for the following reasons: It is very difficult to engage welfare recipients. Access to state agency offices can be restricted.
47
Most people are not willing to selfidentify as a welfare recipient. People are often suspicious of monitors and think that any criticism of the system or merely completing the project questionnaire may reduce their benefit level. Language and literacy problems can be insurmountable barriers. People do not always complete the questionnaire. Monitors may underestimate the time required to conduct and record an interview. The physical distance between UUSC and partner agencies and the distances between partner agencies and collaborative agencies within each state contribute to the level of difficulty. Respondents receive no incentive. In order to meet these challenges, UUSC sought partner agencies working within the welfare rights community in each state in which we had worked successfully in an earlier phase of the project. A face-to-face orientation for all monitors provided an excellent opportunity to build relationships between monitors and UUSC staff. Site visits also enhanced the construction of a team. Together, UUSC and the monitor team established agreeable quotas and objectives. Monitors altered their individual state questionnaires very slightly to resemble their particular state laws and client base. UUSC
conducted weekly telephone conference calls for the monitor team to supervise and assess progress. The data collection deadline was extended so that states could more closely meet their objectives. Two issues of prime importance in the conduct of this initiative were monitors ability to address family crises they might encounter and maintain strict confidentiality for all testimony. UUSC directed monitors to immediately address any family crisis encountered in the process of seeking testimony for the project. While not every monitor was prepared to resolve an immediate crisis each monitor was prepared to provide access to a local agency that could resolve the emergency. This situation arose many times and the weekly telephone conference calls provided opportunities for monitors to share their experiences and discuss processes that worked for those in distress. The confidentiality of all testimony was another crucial issue. UUSC continued to utilize a state-specific numbering system created in earlier phases of the monitoring project. UUSC maintained all data that contained any personal information in secure files. In the course of distributing the final project report, the only names to be released will be people who, when interviewed by monitors, expressed a direct request to speak with the media.
48
Appendix D
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Following this historic act the assembly called upon all member countries to publicize the text of the declaration and to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories. Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. Article 11. (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be
49
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed. Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. Article 14. (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
50
Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Article 20. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association. Article 21. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international cooperation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his
dignity and the free development of his personality. Article 23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Article 24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
51
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. Article 26. (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. Article 27. (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic
production of which he is the author. Article 28. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized. Article 29. (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
52
Acknowledgments
This project was made possible by the many courageous welfare recipients who were willing to share their testimonies with the Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project monitors. Funding for the project was provided by a number of generous UUSC members, donors and the Veatch Foundation. Thanks and admiration to Shruti Rana, Esq. who was able to analyze and synthesize more than 2,500 individual case reports into Americas Forgotten Families, Voices of Welfare Reform. Ms. Rana is an attorney who lives in California. Thanks also to Deborah Kohn for her invaluable assistance in organizing materials, scheduling telephone conference calls, and completing a statistical analysis of the data compiled by the Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project during the two summers she interned at UUSC. Ms. Kohn presently serves in the Peace Corps in Notse, Togo, West Africa. Critical support for the Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project came from UUSCs partners during the first three phases of the work. Our gratitude and appreciation go to their dedicated staffs. Thanks too, to the several state networks of volunteer Unitarian Universalist advocates without whom this work and subsequent advocacy could not have taken place:
Alabama Arise: Mary Weidler and Carrie Gerard Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. in California: Sandy Brown Housing California: Attorney Christina DiFrancesco Los Angeles Coalition to End Hunger and Homelessness: Executive Director Bob Erlenbusch Massachusetts Law Reform Institute: Attorney Shari Zimble Promise Californias Children: Eileen Peck, Valerie Stewart and Kris Ockershauser Promise Connecticuts Children: Marsha Brown and Leslie Weinberg Promise Massachusetts Children: Becky Richardson Promise New Jerseys Children: Bill Brach Promise Washingtons Children: Jean Hueston, Jerry and Corrine Chroman Statewide Parent Advocacy Network, Inc. in New Jersey: Executive Director Diana Autin, Esq. and Cynthia Mosley Stafford Statewide Poverty Action Network in Washington state: Sharon Prager, Nina Dunning and Kristi Scholz
53
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee

130 Prospect Street, Cambridge MA 02139 617 868-6600

2001 - America's Forgotten Families: Voices of Welfare Reform

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

2001 - America's Forgotten Families: Voices of Welfare Reform

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Americas Forgotten Families

Unitarian Universalist Service Committee

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Background: Welfare Reform and UUSC

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Finding 2: Welfare reform is placing more U.S. children at risk.

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

A Closer Look, op. cit., Section E.

The Broken Promise, op. cit.

A Closer Look, op. cit., Section B.

Work-Related Activities and Limitations of Current Welfare Recipients, op. cit.

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project

Welfare and Human Rights Monitoring Project