Testimony of The Partnership for the Homeless
Before the Joint Senate Finance and Assembly Ways and Means Committees Hearing on the 2006-2007 Executive Budget – Human Services
My name is Heidi Siegfried, and I am the Supervising Attorney at The Partnership for the Homeless. The Partnership has provided a broad range of services to homeless New Yorkers over the past 20 years. We began in 1982 as a single shelter in a Manhattan church basement. The Partnership’s public/private collaborations, direct service programs, and advocacy efforts help families and individuals make the successful transition from New York City streets to permanent housing, skilled jobs and self-sufficiency. We operate a 24 hour Drop in Center for homeless people over 55 and a Family Resource Center in East New York which serves families coming out of shelter to help stabilize them in their neighborhood and address any problems that might cause a return to shelter.
Homelessness in New York City
While the shelter census in New York City has been reduced, homelessness remains high. The City currently provides shelter to over 31, 000 people and close to 8,000 families. These numbers do not account for those who are living on the street or doubled up in overcrowded conditions. There are multiple causes of homelessness, ranging from a lack of affordable housing, deepening poverty, escalating rents, low wages, inaccessible health care, and lack of education and training. Sometimes domestic violence, physical or mental disabilities can also lead to homelessness. Large numbers of families experience cyclical homelessness. Surveys indicate that one-third of families in the shelter system have been homeless before, and the NYC Department of Homeless Services reports that half of the families seeking help from its Emergency Assistance Unit have been there at least once already. This crisis poses a large cost burden to the public, communities, families, and most importantly, children. The Governor's budget has a number of proposals that could help could reduce or prevent homelessness, as well as some that could exacerbate it.
NY/NY III Funding
First we wish to commend the Governor for his commitment in this budget of $7.7 million in operating funds for the NY/NY III agreement, which will provide 9,000 units of supportive housing over 10 years including 1500 units of supportive housing for homeless families with special needs. We believe that this third agreement will be a great help towards meeting the Mayor's current goal of reducing New York City's shelter and street homeless populations by two-thirds by 2009.
Improvements to the Conciliation Process
We also wish to support the proposed amendments to SSL § 341(6)(c)(1) in the Governor’s Article 7 bill which would help clients prevent improper sanctions. The notice which would be sent to people who have failed to comply with employment requirements, in addition to advising them of the right to conciliation, would include language that states that at conciliation they may provide evidence that domestic violence, or physical or mental health issues have prevented compliance with work rules and that they will be given an opportunity to present evidence at conciliation that they are exempt from work requirements because of these barriers. The notice also states that no action will be taken against them if they have good cause for non-compliance with the work rules, and that services may be available to help the individual overcome barriers to employment. The proposed amendment also requires that these factors be discussed with the individual during conciliation.
The proposed amendment would expand the time period to request conciliation from 7 to 10 days, and require that if no conciliation is requested that the social services district must make an additional effort to contact the household, including by telephone.
Furthermore, if conciliation is not requested, the notice of discontinuance must repeat the language regarding the opportunity present evidence to obtain an exemption, and that services may be available to help the individual overcome barriers to employment.
The Partnership for the Homeless serves many families who are struggling with multiple barriers to employment who could benefit from these sort of friendly supportive processes, rather than a system they have experienced as primarily punitive. We believe that many wrongful sanctions and lengthy fair hearing processes could be avoided by these improvements in conciliation and we strongly support them.
Elimination of "Willfulness" Requirement
We can not support these changes, however, if they are tied to the proposed deletion of the requirement that sanctions can not be imposed against those who have failed to comply with the work rules unless that failure is willful. It would be wrong, as well as expensive for the City and State, to return our families to the homeless shelter, based on a misunderstanding of program requirements, a mistake, or forgetfulness, especially given the multitude of new responsibilities they are taking on as they leave shelter and adjust to a new community. This proposal dramatically weakens the protections in current law and OTDA policy.
Full Family Sanctions
The Governor has once again proposed to amend SSL §342 to require a full family sanction scheme which the legislature has properly rejected in the past few years. In 1997, when New York enacted welfare reform, the legislature rejected full family sanctions in favor of a prorated sanction based on a long legal and policy tradition of not punishing the children for the actions of their parents. This means that a family of three in New York City, who presently receives $691 a month, loses one third of that amount, $230, when the parent is not able to comply with work requirements. This is a significant loss in benefits and is a meaningful sanction.
Very little evidence exists that full-family sanctions will improve work participation. In fact, an MDRC evaluation of welfare-to-work programs in 3 cities found that welfare-to-work programs that more frequently imposed sanctions did not have higher participation rates than programs that imposed fewer sanctions. Research indicates that California and New York, which, along with 13 other states chose partial sanctions, did not have significantly smaller caseload declines than states that chose full family sanctions. What differences exist can be explained by different economic trends and our earned income disregards, which keep our working families on the caseload until they 185% of the standard of need.
Despite the legislature’s rejection of full family sanctions in 1997, local districts have operated work programs which avoid the requirements of Title 9-B of the Social Services Law including the prorated sanction for non-compliance. These programs treat various program requirements as a "condition of eligibility" and close the whole family’s case if the participant was unable to comply with the program requirement.
The results of the full family sanction policy implemented in Oswego County do not indicate that a stronger stick leads to better outcomes for families. Of 1023 cases closed in a 15 month period in the Oswego County Pathways program, only 415 were due to the budgeting of earned income and 43 were due to the receipt of SSI. The rest were closed due to non-compliance or at the request of the recipient.
Before turning to full family sanctions, we need to look more closely at why people are sanctioned. It often is because the local district is not providing necessary supportive services. Sometimes it is because participants do not receive notices of required meetings, either because the local district failed to send them or because of problems with mail in the neighborhoods in which low income people live. Full-family sanctions punish recipients with the most severe barriers to employment.
In the 1997 welfare reform bill the legislature directed OTDA and DOL to collect detailed data regarding work activities, retention and the reason for termination; supportive services; sanctions; and case closings. This sort of information has not been collected or provided and would be helpful in understanding non-compliance. Commissioner Doar has stated that if you speak to front line workers and to Commissioners you will find that families are the “happily sanctioned”. Counties which have operated programs to actually contact or visit these families found otherwise. Suffolk and Tioga counties uncovered barriers including domestic violence, mental health issues, substance abuse and lack of child care that could be resolved with additional services. The new conciliation approach proposed in the Article VII bill could also uncover and address these sorts of issues.
In addition to stating that full family sanctions will encourage work participation, OTDA says that full family sanctions will reduce public assistance costs. The increased homelessness that will be caused by full family sanctions is likely to increase costs rather than reduce them. As of January 15, 2006 in NYC we had 7,758 families (19% of the of the FA/TANF caseload) with a sanction in effect. In PA we had 16,393 (14% of the caseload) with a sanction in effect. It is difficult to imagine how these families manage to avoid homelessness with a prorated sanction, much less a full family sanction. Families left without any cash income may not be able to pay rent, increasing the likelihood they will turn to the shelter system, at a much higher cost to government – $36,000 for an average shelter stay, or that they be forced to “double-up” with friends and relatives. Children whose families are unable to maintain stable housing and afford food and other necessities are unlikely to arrive at school each morning prepared to learn and participate effectively in school. Over time, families left without any cash income due to sanctions may be unable to care for their children adequately, leading to larger numbers of children placed in foster care. The long term effects of full family sanctions are not in the best interest of children, their families, or the state.
Changes to the Earned Income Disregard
In 1997 the legislature made a commitment to people on public assistance who are being required to work outside the home, that their income would at least reach the poverty level before they would lose all assistance. While this no longer always happens, due to the 185% standard of need gross income cap, this is not the time to renege further on this commitment. The Governor's new proposal penalizes families who are working in low-paying jobs. He claims that it “increases” the earned income disregard from 45% to 50% but this is a deceptive calculation. The current disregard is indexed the Consumer Price Index. It is adjusted every year and the disregard would increase automatically without legislative action for as long as the welfare grant remains the same and the poverty level increases.
A mother of two working 35 hours a week at the current minimum wage ($6.75/hr.) earns $1022.96 per month (a 4.33 wk month). Those earnings are currently supplemented with a PA benefit of $178 to bring her up to the poverty level. Under the Governor’s proposal this benefit would increase slightly for people who have been on assistance for less than five years, but within a few years the increased income disregard would be likely to no longer bring them up to the poverty level as the poverty level continues to increase. A person on assistance for more than five years would not be eligible for assistance at all under this scheme and would also lose the housing supplement that is so important to families coming out of shelter who are trying to avoid a return.
In New York City 9,584 FA/TANF cases (23.5% of the caseload) have earned income which is not high enough to close their case. An even higher number, 25,489 (21.8%) of the PA caseload have earned income and would risk having their case close despite the fact that this income does not enable them to reach the poverty level. A better approach to this problem would be to continue to increase the minimum wage, give people the education and training to get higher skilled jobs and provide other services that will help them increase their income enough to both reach poverty and leave public assistance.
Reducing Benefits to Households with Severely Disabled Family Members
This proposed statutory change would reduce the public assistance provided to approximately 26,700 households with children where one or more person in financial need meets the federal definition of severe disability, receives SSI and lives with one or more non-disabled household members who receive Temporary Assistance. In July 2004, the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance promulgated a regulation, 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 352.2(b), which reduced the amount of public assistance benefits provided to households containing children when at least one household member receives SSI, by requiring that the public assistance grant be calculated as if the SSI recipient were included in the public assistance household and then reducing the grant pro rata to reflect the number of persons actually applying for and receiving public assistance. We commented in opposition top that regulatory change and do so again to this proposed legislative change.
On July 14, 2005, in a case called Doe v. Doar, the Monroe County Supreme Court held in favor of a statewide class of individuals challenging this regulation, and declared that such a budgeting method violated New York Social Services Law § 131-c, § 131-a and § 209, and struck down the regulation as illegal. Because the state appealed, the decision of the lower court has been stayed until the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, which heard the appeal on January 13, 2006, makes its decision.
In New York City a single disabled mother with one child receives a grant for her child of $414 per month for a public assistance household of one. The proposed cut would reduce that TANF benefit amount to ½ the grant for a household of two -- to $250 per month -- a cut of nearly 40%.
These families with disabled household members have incomes already below the poverty level and are struggling to stay housed. Currently a disabled single mother with one child residing in New York City receives $626 in SSI. The grant for her child brings her income to a total of $1040 – well below the 2006 HHS poverty guideline for a household of two of $1100 per month. This proposal will cut the child’s grant by $164 per month to $250, reducing the total household income to $ 876 per month – just above 80 % of poverty. The Fair Market Rent in New York City, for even a one bedroom apartment, is $1003 making if difficult for this family to stay housed.
The Flexible Fund for Family Services
In 1996, federal welfare reform turned the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children program into a block grant to the states, the Temporary Assistance to Needy (TANF) Families. Because of dramatic declines in welfare caseloads, states were left with hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on low income families. New York has invested significant dollars in the state Earned Income Tax Credit and has transferred hundreds of millions every year into child care. New York has also invested in various work supports and services that help families maintain employment and economic stability when they are no longer on assistance. We applaud these investments, and note that child care is particularly critical to keeping low income wage earners employed.
Last year, in a significant departure from previous state budgets, the Executive proposed block granting one billion dollars in TANF funds to counties rather than allocating specific dollar amounts to individual programs. The legislature responded by negotiating with the Governor to remove funding for a number of critical programs including child care, employment and training programs, Advantage Schools; Home Visiting; Food Pantries; Pregnancy Prevention; APPS; School-Based Health Centers; WIC; Alternatives to Incarceration, the Disability Advocacy Program (DAP) out of the block grant and providing a $600 million block grant instead.
Under this proposed budget, the Governor has allotted $1.025 billion in TANF surplus funds FFFS, $25 million larger than proposed last year. Important legislative carve outs in the 2005-06 budget were incorporated back into the FFFS and may be continued or eliminated at county option. These legislative additions have been for education, training and supportive services that should be the focal point of the TANF surplus spending. They also include funding for domestic violence screening, Supportive Housing for Families and Youth and Supplemental Homeless Intervention Program funding which are providing a range of critical preventive services, including anti-eviction legal services for people at-risk of losing their home and aftercare to help stabilize those who have relocated to permanent housing following a period of homelessness
It makes no sense to increase the size of this block grant program without any effort to analyze the impact of the first year. So far this is little accountability for the block grants, with counties not even required to report back to the state as to how the money was actually spent.
In addition, the increased work participation requirements that will be soon mandated by the federal government will require a major increase in child care funding. This is not provided for under the block grant process. Child care funding was inadequate even before the increase in work participation requirements. We oppose the inclusion of child care as part of the block grant. A specific appropriation of TANF funds should be put into the child care block grant to increase New York’s commitment to the working poor who rely on subsidized child care in order to hold a job. Many counties have already determined that they can not serve all families under 200% of poverty and are limiting applications to a much lower percentage of poverty.
We are also concerned about the huge and growing percentage of the TANF that is going to the Earned Income Tax Credit and dependent care tax credit. While we are supportive of this initiative to supplement the income of poor working families, we believe this should be funded out of the general revenue stream like other tax credits. These credits now account for nearly $2 billion of TANF funds.
Fatherhood Initiatives
EITC - This proposal which would amend section 606 of the tax law to create a new section (d-1) NYS Earned Income Tax Credit supplement equal to four times the federal Earned Income Tax credit for noncustodial single parents between the ages of 18 and 35 who had an order of support in effect for at least one half of the taxable year and have paid the child support due that year. While the benefit amount will vary, the maximum combined Federal and State EITC could be as high as $1,995. Unfortunately, basing the credit on the inadequate federal EITC for childless workers means that workers earning more than $12,120 per year would receive no credit. A parent working full time, year round at the NYS minimum wage would earn too much to qualify for the credit and the size of the credit would start to decline when income exceeds $6,740. While we support the intent of the proposal, it needs to be redesigned.
Finally, we recommend that the reference to the age of the non-custodial taxpayer be removed. We understand that the state is likely proposing an age range to limit the pool of eligible individuals, and thus the cost of the expansion. However, low-income non-custodial parents of all ages would benefit from an enhanced EITC and it is particularly unfortunate to leave older parents with low earnings out.
Pilot Programs to Provide Intensive Employment Related Services and Parenting Education. This proposal would fund up to five social service districts to provide intensive employment and supportive services, to non-custodial parents who are unemployed or underemployed and whose earnings are below 200% of the federal poverty level. To participate in the program, there must be a child support order through the child support collection unit, paternity establishment and initiated court proceedings, or one or both parents must be receiving child support services through the social services district. The non-custodial parent is also required to attend parenting classes. We are supportive of this proposal, provided that the funded pilot programs focus on helping non-custodial parents, (including those parents whose children are in foster care) get jobs, improve their earnings and increase child support payments, have intensive case management, a strong legal services component to help parents deal with legal problems related to their criminal records, getting licenses re-instated, adjusting child support orders and negotiating state owed arrears, as well as community legal education for service providers and parents on various issues.
We also recommend that there be criteria developed to ensure that the required parenting classes are of high quality, have a domestic violence education component and have domestic violence screening provisions.
Suspension of Child Support Arrears to Reuniting Families. This proposal would amend section 111-c of the Social Services Law to suspend state owed arrears for parents who are currently married and reside together. The parent who owes arrears must also prove that in past five years, there have been no orders of protection issued against him relating to the mother or children involved. A suspension of arrears would not be granted if a good cause waiver from participation in child support requirements, a domestic violence waiver from public assistance work requirements or an order protection has been granted to the custodial parent. The suspension of arrears would be terminated if the couple no longer lives together, separates, divorces, or if any of the above circumstances (a good cause waiver domestic violence waiver or order of protection) occur.
We recognize and appreciate the agency’s clear attempt to respond to several of the concerns raised by the advocacy community last year when this proposal was first revealed. I have had a lot of clients who experience the often crippling problem state-owed arrears create and would benefit from these provisions. However, I continue to have some concerns that preclude our organization from fully supporting this initiative.
Forgiveness, not suspension – under the current proposal, suspension of the arrears, rather than elimination of the debt creates a situation where a family must stay together or face the re-imposition of a substantial amount of debt. By forgiving the debt, parents who are unable to maintain a healthy relationship and need to live separately can make this difficult decision without factoring in the additional financial burden to the parent who does not retain custody of the child or children. This is of particular concern in cases where domestic violence has not been detected, as it provides a batterer with an additional financial incentive, beyond his desire to control, to keep the victim and children from leaving his household.
Domestic violence concerns - many local districts have a poor history of assessing for domestic violence and some communities have granted few Family Violence Option (FVO) waivers over the years. Additionally, many domestic violence survivors do not have orders of protection. They may not secure them for a host of complex reasons which include not wanting to be involved in the court system, inability to get the offender arrested for abusive conduct, fear of retaliation, or lack of access to civil protection remedies. While these “domestic violence indicators” may provide some proof for some families that there is a history of abuse, some offenders will continue to remain unaccountable for their abuse, as well as have the benefit of state-sponsored financial incentive programs that encourage them to reunite with their victims.
Make this a Parenting, as well as a Marriage Initiative – Not all parents are in a position to marry, but they may be supporting and living with their children. We believe that state owed arrears should, subject to the domestic violence exception, be forgiven any time the parent owing arrears lives with the child. Ideally, we would like the proposal to extend this benefit to non-custodial parents who remain current in child support payments for a specific period of time, similar to the EITC proposal. Expanding the proposal in this manner would also allow same sex couples subject to state owed child support arrears to benefit from the policy.