August 28, 2006
Office of Family Assistance (OFA)
Administration for Children and Families
5th Floor East
370 L’Enfant Promenade, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20447
RE: 45 CFR Parts 261, et al.
Reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance
For Needy Families Program; Interim Final Rule
The Center for Women Policy Studies submits the following comments on the Interim Final Rule for the Reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program published in the Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 125, June 29, 2006. The Center was founded in 1972 as our nation’s first feminist policy analysis and research institution. A hallmark of our work is the multiethnic feminist lens through which we view all issues affecting women and girls. We have been promoting postsecondary education as essential to true welfare reform since 1988 and therefore express our concern about key provisions of the Interim Final Rule that will negatively affect States’ ability to allow TANF recipients to participate in postsecondary education.
“Vocational educational training (not to exceed 12 months with respect to any individual) means organized educational programs that are directly related to the preparation of individuals for employment in current or emerging occupations requiring training other than a baccalaureate or advanced degree.” § 261.2(i)
We are greatly disappointed that vocational educational training excludes postsecondary education that would permit an individual to earn a bachelor’s or advanced degree. It also is terribly shortsighted to limit vocational educational training to 12 months. These decisions ignore significant evidence that the investment in postsecondary education permanently moves women and their families from welfare to jobs with career ladders that lead women into progressively higher paying positions with benefits.1 It is a mistake to ignore the substantial benefits that families and employers derive from this modest investment.
The importance of postsecondary education in poverty reduction cannot be overestimated. Among people living below the federal poverty level, one third (33 percent) have a high school diploma and only 9.3 percent have a college degree.2
Today, more than ever, a college degree is the ticket to economic self-sufficiency. Nearly two out of three (63 percent) of the 18.9 million new jobs that will be created during the decade between 2004 and 2014 are projected to be filled by individuals with at least a bachelor’s degree. Ninety percent of the fastest growing jobs in the United States require some level of postsecondary education or training.3
Women who earn four year college degrees increase their annual incomes most significantly. In 2001, Latinas with bachelor’s degrees earned a median weekly income of $676, compared to $467 with an associate’s degree and $406 with a high school diploma. African American women with bachelor’s degrees earned a median weekly income of $692, compared to $502 with an associate’s degree and $395 with a high school diploma. White women with bachelor’s degrees earned $744 weekly, compared to $579 with an associate’s degree and $453 with a high school diploma.4
“Under AFDC and the Jobs Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) Training programs, basic and remedial education, education in English proficiency, and postsecondary education were statutorily authorized activities…. Some existing State vocational educational training programs allow other educational activities such as basic skills, language training and postsecondary education leading to a baccalaureate or advanced degree. We are explicitly restricting these practices to prevent the use of the term ‘vocational educational training’ from covering virtually any educational activity. In particular, the TANF program was not intended to be a college scholarship program for postsecondary education. Programs authorized by the Higher Education Act of 1965 (and subsequent amendments) support these longer-term educational activities. In contrast, activities such as basic education and language training qualify as education directly related to employment.” (Preamble to §261.2, page 37460).
In passing previous welfare reform, (JOBS, for example), Congress recognized the importance of education for gainful employment and “statutorily authorized” postsecondary education in both Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and the JOBS program. The Interim Final Rule’s statement that “the TANF program was not intended to be a college scholarship program for postsecondary education” is both mean-spirited and misleading. Although TANF recipients receive cash assistance, these meager funds do not cover tuition or school fees as scholarships generally do. Instead, TANF recipients who participate in a postsecondary education program are responsible for finding a way to cover their tuition and other school fees through programs supported by the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, or tapping into state and/or private sources.
In the Background to the Preamble, the Department hails TANF as a “truly remarkable example of a successful Federal-State partnership.” Yet, the Interim Final Rule fails to acknowledge States’ wisdom in allowing postsecondary education to count as work over the past decade of TANF implementation. Indeed, we are especially confounded by the exclusion of postsecondary education as a “work activity,” since 49 of the 50 states opted to count some form of postsecondary education as work under TANF. In fact, 38 states allowed postsecondary education to count as a work activity for at least 24 months, while half of these states and the District of Columbia approved college for more than 24 months, making it possible for women on welfare to earn a baccalaureate degree.5
“In addition, community service programs do not include activities that meet the definition of another allowable TANF work activity. Several States, for example, count job search and job readiness activities, and vocational educational training as part of a community service program (Preamble to §261.2, page 37460).
The flexibility that States enjoyed under the 1996 TANF regulations is further restricted when community services activities are deemed as “unallowable educational activities”. This policy will certainly leave States with very few viable options for students who are nearing the completion of their degrees and require 12 months or less of coursework to complete their programs.
“Vocational educational training must be supervised on an ongoing basis no less frequently than daily.” § 261.2(i)
“Under vocational educational training, States may not count unsupervised homework time as part of the hours of participation” (Preamble to 261.2, page 37460).
“Community services programs….and must be supervised on an ongoing basis no less frequently that daily ” (Preamble to 261.2, page 37460).
These excerpts from the Interim Final Rule are only three examples of many instances throughout the regulations that call for ongoing monitoring and supervision on a daily basis. States’ flexibility and their ability to provide viable services to TANF recipients are challenged by these remarkably burdensome reporting requirements that call for them to devise elaborate supervision programs that border on the impossible.
Indeed, these requirements likely will be impossible to implement for TANF recipients who are enrolled in postsecondary education and training because this degree of intense attendance monitoring is not generally a part of these institutions’ infrastructures. These reporting requirements may also have the unintended consequence of stigmatizing TANF recipients, making it even more difficult for many to participate.
“Some States count education leading to a high school diploma as vocational educational training. Although vocational education is often provided in high school, minor parents attending high school, even if in a vocational education track, should be counted as participating in ‘satisfactory attendance at secondary school or in a course of study leading to a certificate of general equivalence.’ Doing so avoids triggering the lifetime 12-month limit on the use of vocational educational training” (Preamble to §261.2, page 37460-61).
It is especially unreasonable to limit participation in vocational education training to only 12 months as a lifetime maximum. However, we agree that parents who are minors attending high schools in a vocational education track should be “counted as participating in satisfactory attendance at secondary school or in a course of study leading to a certificate of general equivalence” so as to avoid “triggering the lifetime 12-month limit on the use of vocational educational training.”
“Expenditures of State funds in TANF or separate State programs may count if they are made for the following types of benefits or services ….(3) Education activities designed to increase self-sufficiency, job training, and work (see §263.4)” §263.2(a) (3).
Finally, we are pleased that the Department continues to allow State Maintenance of Effort (MOE) funds to include “educational activities designed to increase self-sufficiency, job training and work,” thereby permitting the extremely limited opportunities for education included in the TANF program. Between 1996 and 2002, five states and the District of Columbia used state MOE funds to improve postsecondary opportunities for TANF recipients. However, the Department has removed the incentive for States to use MOE funds to support these activities by not allowing postsecondary education to count as work and by recalibrating the work participation rate. The pressure to increase the number of TANF recipients in allowable work activities that exclude postsecondary education removes States’ flexibility to be creative in this regard.
We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the Interim Final Rule and we urge the Secretary to use his discretion to promulgate regulations that recognize the connection between postsecondary education and earning power. We are ready to offer you and your staff our assistance to ensure that women really have the chance to successfully move from welfare to self-sufficient, productive lives.
Sincerely,
Leslie R. Wolfe
President
1. Center for Women Policy Studies. (2002). From poverty to self-sufficiency: The role of postsecondary education in welfare reform. Washington, DC: Author.
2. Center for Women Policy Studies, citing the US Department of Commerce, the Census Bureau. (2001) Years of school completed by people 25 years old and over, by age, race, household relationship and poverty status: 2000. Current Population Survey, March Supplement, http://www.census.gov/hhes.
3. U.S Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. (2006) Fact Sheet: Why America needs an educated and prepared workforce. Available at http://www.doleta.gov/budget/1%20Why%20America%20needs%2007.pdf.
4. Center for Women Policy Studies, citing the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2002). Median usual weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers 25 years and over by sex, race, Hispanic origin, and educational attainment, annual averages 1979-2001. Current Population Survey. Unpublished data.
5. Center for Women Policy Studies. (2002). From poverty to self-sufficiency: The role of postsecondary education in welfare reform. Washington DC: Author.
|
