I. OVERVIEW

II. GENESIS / HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES

• III. HR 3734 PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT 1996
SUMMARY OF IMMIGRANT PROVISIONS
• SUMMARY OF WORK REQUIREMENTS
•  
•  
IV. WELFARE REFORM
•  
• A) STATE IMPLEMENTATION
• B) PUBLIC OPINION

•  
• VI. WELFARE REFORM RESOURCES ON THE World Wide Web
•  
• I. OVERVIEW
• In August 6, l996 the United States fundamentally changed the nature of its social contract with its poorest citizens. With the passage of the Welfare reform law, the country's commitment to support those in need, including unemployed, unskilled women and their children was dramatically redefined. Public assistance used to be entitlement available at any time to any legal resident that would demonstrate need and eligibility. Now, full benefit of regulated aid is restricted and available to U.S. citizens only. The law limits lifetime welfare benefits to five years, requires able-bodied people to return to work after two years of receiving aid and denies welfare to legal residents who are not yet citizens after the day to start the implementation of the law passed in August 1996.
• The goal of this reform-- to end welfare dependency-- is endorsed by the majority. However, the methods to implement the law by federal and state regulations have caused strong debates and reflect different perspectives about the understanding of the needs of people on welfare and what would be the most effective method of assisting them to attain self-sufficiency. Changes not only include actual new legislation, but also the degree of enforcement of older policy and interpretation under the existing legislation.
•  
• The Federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity act of 1996 (PRA) Reform changes the eligibility for not only federal assistance of those legal here now or arriving after 08/22/96 but it is also the basis for major changes in the control and delivery of services to the nation's poor and disabled. Public officials in our states and cities are now charged with defining the specific rules for implementing this new program, called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The program is very complex and it seems to seek to treat people on welfare with one standard approach. However, not all people on welfare are the same, nor do they have the same ethnic origin, level of proficiency in English, educational level or the same years of previous work experience.
•  New York State's proposed welfare reform also known as "NY Works", now has the rights and authority to develop its own plan, designed to serve its local population as it sees fit, without any supervision from the federal government. Thus, the legislation creates block grants for each state to establish its own king of public assistance, with powers to include, exclude or limit certain groups or classes, programs and services. Local public assistance programs, under the legislation of TANIF policy, effective January 1st, l997, gave the states the rights to limit or end state funded programs available to immigrants before, and coming after January, 1997, including such programs and TANF, Medicaid and more. The block grants to states from the federal government are based on the states' expenditures for welfare in 1994.

• II. GENESIS: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES- From 1930 to 1996.
• Taken from: " Social Welfare: A History of the American response to need"- Chapter 6. The Depression and the New Deal: 1930-1940. Pages 175-209.
• The depression of the 1930's left an indelible mark on the United States and on a generation of Americans. The notion that every able bodied who wanted to work could do it was not true anymore. Poverty was no longer caused by the inability of an individual to find a job. In 1931, the Unemployment Committee of the National Federation Settlements published Case Studies of Unemployment, an account of 150 cases offering "a cross-section of human experience where unemployment is due to industrial rather than individual causes". Roosevelt with its New Deal established its major legislative accomplishment: The Social Security Act. The Act declared the
• Birth of the Welfare State and established a direction for its growth and development. It was intended to be temporary not static. In 1934, the National Conference of Social Work strongly emphasized unemployment, health, justice, social welfare policy concerns and social legislation as the route to social change. The Social Security Act defined assistance as "money payments", requiring that grants be made in cash. Finally, the Act mandated the opportunity for a fair hearing for any individual whose "claim" for assistance was denied. These particular provisions, plus the fact that they legislatively joined insurance and assistance programs, gave support to the concept of "The Right to Assistance for Eligible Recipients". The concept of entitlement was strengthened by the absence of any requirement that the claimant's own capital assets be taken into account when determining benefits.
• Categorical public assistance programs have been included in the Social Security Act and were accepted as Temporary programs. The upheaval of war (1939/1945) brought full employment and rising incomes. It also brought the G.I. Bill of Rights (1944) which was a fundamental bill of rights to facilitate the return of service man and women to civilian life. For blacks and women, this period offered opportunities to enter into the labor force and laid the groundwork for the civil rights and women movements of the l950's and l960's. By the 1960's the optimism of post war began to fade. Attacks on the welfare system started, as well as on the perception of the adult recipient of public assistance. The image of that recipient was changing from the worthy, responsible aged or widowed (Social Security Act) beneficiary to the unworthy, unpopular, young, able-bodied, unemployed female or male. Attention was focused on urban Aid Dependent Children (ADC) mothers who were perceived as women who had illegitimate children as a way of avoiding work. Poverty and the reform of welfare began. Michael Harrington published "The Other America" stating that the United States rediscovered poverty as a serious problem. President Kennedy's message on February 1, l962 was almost entirely on the subject of public welfare. Public Law 87-543, the Public Welfare Amendments of 1962, signed by Kennedy, encouraged the states to provide social services leading to self-care and self-support. Although the Amendment brought changes in almost all the categories of the Social Security Act, the most striking were those dealing directly or indirectly with Title IV, Aid to Dependent Children. The name of the program was changed to Aid and Services to Needy Families with Children, known presently as AFDC, Aid to Families with Dependent Children. With Kennedy's death, Johnson started the War on Poverty with the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, followed by the Social Security Amendment of 1967. The Work Incentive Program knows by WIP and eventually as WIN was instituted. WIP / WIN disqualified adults or out-of-school older children, female or male, for AFDC payments, if they refused to accept employment to participate in training programs without good cause.
•  What follow is partially taken from Paper Jobs and Child Care Initial State Developments by Jan L. Hagen and Irene Lure, University at Albany; State University of New York, scheduled for publication in Social Service Review. Written in 1992.
• In l988 The Family Support Act signaled a clear shift in expectations concerning labor force participation of mothers with young children who receive welfare benefits. This approach represent a dramatic shift from the original intentions of the AFDC program, which was to allow mothers to care for their children in their own homes. The Family Support Act goals are to increase the economic self-sufficiency of AFDC families through increased child support enforcement and a new welfare-to-work program that provides education, training and employment services. The Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program (JOBS) replaces the Work Incentive (WIN) program. In introducing JOBS program the Congress in their legislation provides that, if needed, childcare be guaranteed for the children of JOBS participants. In addition, and in a major departure from previous legislation, Congress authorized transitional child care for up to 12 months to families that become ineligible for AFDC because of earned income. In 1992, JOBS was in relatively early stages of implementation. In 1997 there is a welfare reform that will now give a standard amount of time for one person to be trained. Job technical corrections on February 1997 clarify that job search and job readiness count as work activities for six week per year.

• III. H.R. 3734 WELFARE REFORM
• President Clinton signed into law HR 3734, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). The House of Representatives approved the legislation on July 31, 1996, and the Senate on August 1, 1996. The US Department of Health and Human Services published a comparison of prior law and the PRWORA. The National Counsel of State Legislatures published an analysis of PRWORA in collaboration with the National Governors Association and the American Public Welfare Association.
• A) WELFARE REFORM AND IMMIGRANTS:
• Summary of changes:
• * Most non-citizens are no longer eligible for SSI Food Stamp Benefits. * New immigrants (arriving after 8/22/96) are barred from federal means-tested benefits for 5 years.
• * After the 5 year bar, new immigrants that have sponsors must include their sponsor's income when applying for federal means-tested benefits (until the immigrant attains citizenship or 10 years of work).
• * After January 1st, states have the option to determine current immigrants' eligibility for TANF, Medicaid and SSBG, Social Services Block Grant (for new immigrants, after the 5-year bar)
• * State has the option to provide or bar state-funded programs for current and new immigrants. State and local-funded programs may deem for new immigrants (March 1997).
• * Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for federal, state and local public benefits.
•  
• Summary of Medicaid- Related Provision in reference to immigrants:
• Most non-citizens (with limited exceptions) are barred from Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
• Program, potentially severing their link to Medicaid eligibility.
• * Bars qualified aliens entering the U.S. after 8/22/96 from Medicaid for five years (with the following exceptions: refugees and asylums for their five years in the U.S. and veterans and active duty military).
• * After the five-year bar, most sponsored immigrants are effectively barred from Medicaid through the enforcement of mandatory deeming provisions.
• * Prohibits the use of Medicaid funds to cover the costs associated with providing public health immunizations and public health services for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases for non qualified aliens.
• * Prohibits (with some exceptions) the use of Medicaid funds to cover the costs associated with providing public health immunizations and public health services for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases for qualified aliens arriving in the U.S., on or after August 22, l996, until after their first five years in the U.S. (subject to state options and deeming provisions).
• * Medicaid funds must be used to cover costs associated with specific public health measures for qualified aliens residing in the U.S. before August 22,1996 if the state opts to provide continued Medicaid coverage for this group.
• * As of January 1, 1997, states have the option to provide or deny Medicaid to qualified alien(s) already in the country (with some exceptions).
• * States also have the option to bar future arrivals who are not deemed out of the Medicaid program after the five-year period.
• * Permanently bars all not qualified aliens (including undocumented persons and many PROCOL immigrants) from receiving Medicaid.
•  Most legal immigrants will no longer be eligible for S.S.I. or Food Stamps assistance when their eligibility is reviewed under a "redetermination" process. These re.eterminations must be completed no later than August 22, 1997. Clinton under Eligibility of Aliens for Food Stamps extended the certification period to August, 22, 1997 to permit state agencies the right to still provide food stamps (possible link to letter if it works). The recent immigration bill provides that current Food Stamp Program recipients shall remain eligible until April 1, 1997 and shall have their eligibility rectified between April 1 and August 22, 1997. No later than March 31, 1997, SSA must notify SSI recipients, whose eligibility for such benefits may terminate, of the SSI redetermination provisions in the new welfare law.
•  
• B) WORK REQUIREMENT
• Summary of Work Requirements:
• * Unless a state opts out, a non-exempt adult recipient who is not working must participate in community service two months after receiving benefits.
• * Adults are required to participate in work activities two years after they start receiving assistance under the block grant.
• * States may exempt parents with children under one year old from work requirements, and may disregard them in calculating participation rates.
• * States may not penalize parents with children under six years for not working if childcare is not available.
•  
• Requirements for states misusing TANF funds:
• * Submit required reports.
• * Satisfy work requirements.
• * Participate in the Income and Eligibility Verification System.
• * Comply with paternity establishment and Child Support Enforcement requirements.
• * Repay a federal loan on time.
• * Meet States maintenance of effort requirements under either TANF or the contingency fund.
• * Comply with five year limit on assistance.
• * Maintain assistance when parents cannot find childcare for child under six years of age.
•  States are generally given the opportunity to claim reasonable cause and develop a corrective compliance plan before they can be penalized. The total penalty amount assessed in a given year may not exceed 25 percent of a state's block grant allotment. Each state must meet the minimum work requirement rate. For example in the fiscal year 1997 for all families the participation rate is accepted to be 25%, and 20 weekly hours of work. For two parent families the participation rate is accepted to be 75% and 35 weekly hours. By the fiscal year 2002, for all families the participation rate is accepted to be 50% and 30 weekly hours. For two parent families the participation rate is accepted to be 90% and 35 weekly hours of work.
•  
• IV. WELFARE REFORM
•  A) STATE IMPLEMENTATION
•  The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 eliminates AFDC's open-ended entitlement and creates a block grant for states to provide time limited cash assistance for needy families, with work requirements for most recipients. The law also makes far-reaching changes to childcare, the Child Support Enforcement Program, and SSI for children. Modifications to the child nutrition program and reductions in the Social Serves Block Grants (SSBG) are also included. States have until July 1, 1997 to submit their state plans and begin implementing TANF, although they can opt to implement earlier. HHS reviews the plans only for completeness. States must allow for a 45-day comment period on the state plan by local governments and private organizations and consult with them.
• TANF Block grants eliminates the AFDC program, JOBS, and Emergency Assistance and creates the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant. Annual TANF funding is $16.38 billion in fiscal years 1997-2003. States receive their allotment based upon previous expenditures in AFDC, Emergency Assistance, and JOBS. States can transfer up to 30% of their TANF funds into the childcare block grant and SSBG.
• For states to receive their full allocation, states must demonstrate they are spending on activities related to TANF 80% of the amount of non-federal funds they spent in fiscal year 94 on AFDC and related programs. If they meet minimum work requirements, their mandatory state effort is reduced to 75%. There are several ways states can supplement their block grant funding including: a $2 billion (over 5 years) contingency fund for states experiencing economic hardships, an $800 million (over 4 years) fund to provide supplemental grants for states with high population growth and low welfare spending, a $ 1.7 billion federal loan fund, a appropriation for bonuses to states that reduce the number of out of wedlock births and abortions.
•  As of January 1^st, 1997 states have the option to provide or deny TANF to immigrants: Thirty-two states have submitted state plans to HHS as of October 18. Of these, 28 states plan to continue assistance to current immigrants (defined as those residing in the U.S. on or before August 22, 1996). Alabama, Kentucky, South Carolina and Wyoming plan to discontinue TANF to current immigrants. Of the 28 that will provide TANF to immigrants, four states plan to serve new immigrants as well as current immigrants. Maryland, Nebraska, Utah, and Vermont will treat new immigrants the same as other state residents and serve them with state-only funds. Maine intended to deem new applicants (including current immigrants) as of November 1, l996 until, the immigrant becomes a citizen or works 40 quarters. Current recipients are eligible through December 31, 1996.
•  As October 18,1996, the following states had submitted welfare plans: Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Vermont, Massachusetts, Maryland, Oregon, Arizona, Kentucky, Maine, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Alabama, Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Texas, California, New Jersey, South Carolina, Wyoming, New York, Nevada, North Carolina.

• B) PUBLIC OPINION
• The public opinion data was taken from the web site of Michigan State using General Social Survey data. The public opinion data offered at Michigan State was taken from the National Data Program for the Social Sciences and is designed as a data diffusion project and a program of social indicator research. The data comes from the General Social Surveys, interviews administered to NORC national samples using a standard questionnaire. The search for trend items led them to published reports from Gallup, Harris, the Detroit Area Study, SRC (Michigan) studies, NORC files, and Federal Commissions. Each survey is an independently drawn sample of English-speaking persons 18 years of age or over, living in non-institutional arrangements within the United States. Block quota for half was used in 1975 and full probability sampling was employed in half of the 1975, 1980, 1985, 1986, 1990 and 1994 surveys.

IMMIGRANT discussion on public opinion survey: According to a 1994 poll, more than 60% of the population thought that the legal immigrant should not be eligible for benefits until they have lived in the United States for a year or more. The public perception is that 36.8% of legal immigrants are neither hard working or lazy, as compared to 25.5% of undocumented illegal immigrants. The responses for both legal and illegal immigrants leaned more towards being hard working. However, the difference between the public perception on the side of the scale for laziness was 22% more for illegal immigrants as compared to 6.2% for legal immigrants. For the proposed question on immigrants are getting to demanding in their push for equal rights the public reaction in favor of agreement was 59.2% and 17% disagreed with the statement. The public that neither agreed or, disagreed with the statement was 22.9%. In New York City, Hon. Mayor Giuliani is conducting a campaign in defense of the immigrants. He is also defending the rights of undocumented immigrant children to attend public school. The welfare reform changed more than the questions proposed in the year 1994. Therefore it is a difficult measure of public opinion versus changing public policy. It does suggest that the public felt that the American government was too generous with in the rights for immigrants who recently arrived to this country of for undocumented illegal immigrants.

• WELFARE discussion on public opinion survey: In 1986 only a poll of 1452 respondents was surveyed of which 51.9% agreed and 33.1% strongly agreed that the welfare system makes people work less than they would if there wasn't a welfare system. However, in the same poll, 71.3% agreed that welfare helps people overcome difficult times, such as unemployment, divorce or death in the family.
• The subject of the governments role in the economy for things that they might due, was asked for several years. Specific years extracted for this report were 1975, 1980, 1990 and 1994. For the years 1975, 1980, 1994 a sample of approximately 1400 respondents were surveyed as compared to a decrease sample of 635 respondents for the year 1990. The question taken was on evaluating the amount of money spent on welfare for each specific year. Overall the public thought the government was spending too much money on welfare. Yet, the pattern of the percentages of answers for 1980 and 1990 was very similar in all answer with approximately 60% of the response (the highest percent for the four years being analyzed) responding that too much money is being spent. A comparison of 1975 and 1994 a 19 year difference showed a decrease of 53.8% response to the government spending too little money on welfare, while an increase of 45.2% response to the government spending too much money on welfare. This 19 year span shows a slight up and down fluctuation of public opinion on how much money does the government spend on welfare.
• WORK discussion on public opinion survey: For the year 1985 and 1990 the total respondents were 638 for 1985 and 1118 (almost double) for the year 1990. The scaled generally offered was 1 - 4. 1 being definitely should be the government responsibility to provide... ; 2 probably should be...: 3 probably should not and; 4 definitely should not be and sometimes neither should be the government responsibility to provide work through... In terms of work opinion related to the government's responsibility to provide jobs for everyone, the people's response was 60.65% should not and 43.8% should be the government responsibility to provide jobs for everyone who wants it. This contradicts the public opinion data for the same years and same total respondents. Of those in favor of the government being responsible to provide government financing of projects to create new jobs 42% responded yes. And approximately a quarter of the respondents are strongly in favor of the government creating new jobs. On the question that stated; the government should provide support to declining industries to protect jobs was favored by 33.7% in 1985 and 36.8% in 1990. Between 1985 and 1990 the public opinion shifted from 22% in 1985 to 28% in 1990 to the answer that the government should neither be in favor or against being responsible of supporting industries to protect jobs. In those five years three was also shift by 7.1% against government support for declining industries. The data shows that public opinion is primarily in favor of the government providing some kind of public support for employment.
•  
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

•  A hard battle started among two opposite view about Welfare Reform. The federal issues was how much flexibility the state will have to implement the Act - Time limits on welfare dependency- Benefits for Immigrants- Child protection Child Nutrition- Food Stamp benefits-Medicaid.  With the opposition of many democrats legislators, the welfare initiative President Clinton signed into public law 104-193 HR 3734, in August 22, l996. As a result, the federal responsibility to match state expenditures on cash assistance to low income families with children has become a fixed block grant to states with certain requirements focusing on a "new" philosophy of work rather than dependency. This will impact our society in many ways. Each state given its own control and the federal government capping the money allocated to each states will give control to both federal and state but will also loose some kind of control. How states respond to the challenges and opportunities presented by TANF will differ substantially because each state did not implement AFDC program in the same way. This variation had increased in recent years, because some states have chosen to use waivers from federal requirements to test the effect of a series of deviations from federal AFDC rules. Some states find it hard to place time limits on their AFDC dependants. The states that have no waivers must use TANF policies until they submit their proposed plan. No one has address what would happen to a block grant if the population were to change.

• VI. WELFARE REFORM RESOURCES ON THE World Wide Web
• • Administration for Children and Families welfare reform page
• • Health Care Financing Administration
• • United States Department of Agriculture
• • United States Department of Labor/Employment and Training