Assessing New York City Welfare

Time Limits

Time Bomb?

Assessing New York City Welfare

as the Five-Year Time Limits Approach

By Sondra Youdelman, Public Policy Coordinator (M.P.A.)

with Paul Getsos, Executive Director

Community Voices Heard

170 East 116th Street, #1E

New York, New York 10029

212-860-6001 Tel.

212-996-9481 Fax

This report was supported with funding from:

The Rockefeller Foundation, National Campaign for Jobs & Income Support/Center for Community Change, Daphne Foundation, and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation.

CVH’s work is also supported by: The Discount Foundation, Gerson Foundation, Needmor, New World Foundation, Open Society Institute, Public Welfare Foundation, Christopher Reynolds Foundation, Robert, Sterling, Clark, Scherman Foundation, Solidago Foundation, Unitarian Universalist, and Tides Alki Fund.

Executive Summary

I. Introduction

August 2001 marks the 5-year anniversary of Federal Welfare Reform. As we reach this benchmark, it is time to reassess where we have succeeded, and where we have failed. Most importantly, we must look ahead to where we are going.

In December 2001, over 42,000 New York City families are likely to lose their eligibility for TANF cash benefits as they reach their five-year time limits on federal assistance. Another 26,323 families will exhaust their benefits by September of 2002, when the federal law governing TANF is set to expire. The findings outlined in this report demonstrate that, despite this context of urgency, the Human Resources Administration and Mayor Giuliani are failing to address the needs of these families and failing to prepare public assistance recipients for long-term self-sufficiency outside of the system.

In the fall of 2000 and the winter of 2001, Community Voices Heard, a membership organization of low-income people working together to build the power of their families and communities, surveyed 595 public assistance recipients and applicants in welfare centers across the city to assess the state of service provision as it currently stands.

The survey results clearly reveal the inefficiencies of HRA in serving families in need. Given such findings, one must question current practices and proposed future actions, such as HRA forcing people to reapply for benefits once they reach their time limits - something HRA is currently considering doing. If HRA continues to operate as it has to date, the result will be families with children falling deeper into poverty rather than rising above it.

II. Overall Findings

While many people know generally about welfare time limits, the City is failing to explain to people what time limits actually mean. The majority of people do not even know how many more months of assistance they are eligible for.
While 72.9% of people surveyed were aware of the existence of the new federal time limits, 71.9% did NOT have time limits explained to them at their welfare office and 75.9% do not know how many more months of assistance they have left.

While HRA has been politically redefined (post-welfare reform) as an agency whose main mission is to move people from welfare to work (rather than simply provide assistance for those in need), HRA is failing to accomplish this.
HRA promotes workfare over education and training that lead to long-term self-sufficiency.
Of those surveyed, 52.2% had been given a WEP/workfare assignment in the past four years. Only 25.1% of these individuals were told what categories were considered factors that might excuse them from the program. Less than 20% were informed about various education and training options available to them.

HRA fails to inform people about the programs and supports available to supposedly cover their needs.
Less than 10% of those surveyed knew about the existence of the Earned Income Disregard, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Transitional Benefits or HRA-approved training programs.
Welfare recipients assert that HRA has made little to no effort to help people permanently move off the rolls and toward self-sufficiency.
Of those asked what HRA had done to help them permanently move off of the welfare rolls, 87.7% claim that HRA has done nothing.

HRA is decreasing the welfare rolls through the use of inefficient application processes and unjust sanction practices.
HRA’s application process works to deny eligible families the assistance they need.
68.7% of those surveyed reported that they had applied more than once for public assistance in the past four years; more often than not, this reapplication was due to office errors or penalties rather than actual ineligibility.
HRA’s unjust sanctioning practices penalize those that are not at fault.
57.1% of surveyed welfare recipients reported having had their benefits cut off or reduced unexpectedly. Office mistakes, paperwork problems, and general confusion were the cause of almost 50% of the sanctions experienced.

While HRA may be “successful” in doling out sanctions and diminishing the rolls, it is failing to support families in need with sufficient food, housing and healthcare. Loss of benefits increases the likelihood that people will end up without adequate means to support themselves or their families, thereby falling deeper into poverty.
Benefit reductions due to sanctions have caused 53.8% of those surveyed to fall behind on their rent payments, 44.1% to be unable to cover the costs of food, 36.1% to have their utilities cut off, and 21.4% to lose their health benefits.

III. Recommendations

Given the overall findings of the survey, Community Voices Heard recommends that HRA:

Directly switch TANF families to Safety Net Assistance without forcing them to go through a re-application processgiven both the problems with welfare offices and the application process, as well as the fact that a loss of benefits tends to lead to hunger and homelessness.

Immediately inform and educate people about the time limits in a way that prepares them for the move from TANF to Safety Net Assistance and provides them with adequate support for developing a plan to move from welfare to work.

Immediately implement programs that provide people with education, training, and real job experience and tell people that such programs serve as alternatives to WEP. Sample such programs include the already passed Transitional Jobs Program and the recently introduced Access to Training and Education Bill.

Implement the Fair Hearing Process as outlined in the law and discontinue the arbitrary use of sanctions. People need to be clearly informed about the deadlines for filing Fair Hearings, their rights to “aid continuing” amidst the process, and resolutions need to be implemented (including the lifting of sanctions, the payment of back fees to clients, etc.) within a 10-day period.

Improve services and operations at welfare offices through implementation of appointment scheduling systems that value clients’ time as much as workers’, use of adequate notification systems regarding caseworker and benefit changes, installation of functioning phone systems for call-in questions and requests, creation of and/or operation of childcare centers on site for use during lengthy office visits, etc.

Provide information to clients about policies, procedures, and who to contact with grievances through both mailings to clients and clear postings in waiting rooms. Clients need to be adequately informed of their rights within the system so that they, too, can hold their workers accountable in the same way that their workers hold them accountable. Clear information regarding who reports to whom would also help clients know who to direct questions to when their caseworkers are unavailable or suddenly changed.

Acknowledgements

This survey was a complete organizational effort and was made possible by a large number of people and organizations. First, we would like to thank the Rockefeller Foundation, National Campaign for Jobs & Income Support/Center for Community Change, Daphne Foundation, and Charles Stewart Mott Foundation for support of our Participatory Research Action Projects, our Organizer Trainee/Intern Programs, our TANF-related organizing work, and our public policy work at large…it is this funding that made this survey and report doable. Thanks also to our many other foundation supporters who contribute to the daily operations and successful accomplishments of Community Voices Heard: The Discount Foundation, Gerson Foundation, Needmor, New World Foundation, Open Society Institute, Public Welfare Foundation, Christopher Reynolds Foundation, Robert, Sterling, Clark, Scherman Foundation, Solidago Foundation, Unitarian Universalist, and Tides Alki Fund.

For help in developing the survey, thanks goes to Julie Carlson of the Urban Justice Center who provided us with great ideas for some questions and gave us feedback on newly developed survey questions. We would also like to express special thanks to the survey administrators that took to the streets to talk to public assistance recipients and document their experiences in the City’s welfare centers. Thank you to CVH Organizers Jarrett Alexander, Diomaris Maya, and Rusia Mohiuddin; Organizer Trainees Tyletha Samuels, William DeLoatch, Shannon Barber, Inez Zayas and Emely Rodriguez; CTWO MAAP Interns David Rodriguez and Phillip Machingura; and University Interns Evelyn Rogers and Kare Jeffers.

We would also like to thank Ramona Ortega of the Urban Justice Center who provided us with technical assistance on the use of SPSS, as well as Rachel Mann-Rosan who painstakingly entered data from all 595 surveys into a database for statistical analysis.

Thanks also to the rest of the CVH staff for their ongoing efforts in support of this research project (Gail Aska, Lynn Lewis and Ralph Castro) and to Board Members Stephen Bradley, Andrew Stettner, and Organizer Henry Serrano for reviewing the final drafts of the report.

Finally, we would like to thank the Welfare Center Campaign Committee of Community Voices Heard for initiating the idea for this project and for informing the policy recommendations that developed out of it. And, of course, thanks to the hundreds of welfare recipients and applicants, CVH members and non-members, who took the time to answer our survey questions and reveal the truth about their experiences.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary2

I. Introduction / Context7

II. Findings and Recommendations8

III.Time Limits: The Great Confusion9

IV.Programs & Services: In Existence, but Inaccessible10

V.The Woes of the System: Sanctions and Application Processes12

VI.Needs Unmet: Exacerbation of Hardships14

VII.Conclusion & Recommendations15

Appendix 1: Survey Methodology and Sample17

Appendix 2: Survey18

I.Introduction / Context

New York City’s welfare caseloads have dropped by 50% since federal welfare reform of 1996.[1] However, for a considerable number of families, both on and off the welfare rolls, poverty remains high and self-sufficiency remains a dream. Many who have left public assistance since 1996 have done so as a result of sanctions, confusion, and frustration...not sudden financial independence. Receiving minimum wage or only slightly above, the majority of families fail to conquer poverty.

Those that remain on the welfare rolls are faring even worse. A population with proportionally more barriers to employment than welfare recipients of times past, many in this group face a combination of obstacles including: insufficient entry-level jobs, unstable housing circumstances, inadequate childcare, limited mastery of the English language, low-levels of education, poor health, minimal job skills, poor transportation access, lack of recent work experience, domestic violence, drug abuse, and mental & physical challenges.

In December of 2001, over 76,000 New York State families receiving public assistance will reach their five-year time limit on federal public assistance. Of these, over 40,000 are based in New York City. An additional 26,232 New York City families will reach their time limit by September 2002. With the average family on public assistance comprised of one adult and two children, these 68,242 families actually represent 204,726 individuals at risk, 136,484 of whom are children.[2]

From October 2000 to March 2001, Community Voices Heard (CVH), a membership organization of low-income people working together to build the power of their families and communities,administered a survey to 595 individuals at over 30 welfare centers around the City in an effort to evaluate the services and information they were receiving in advance of the time limits.[3]

II.Findings and Recommendations

Despite the urgent context, CVH found that the Human Resources Administration (HRA) and the Mayor are failing to:

Inform, educate and prepare people for the approaching time limits,

Provide adequate services to help people move from welfare to work,

Operate an efficient system that values clients’ time and needs, and

Support families in need with sufficient food, housing, and healthcare.

Given this information, CVH recommends that HRA:

Directly switch TANF families to Safety Net Assistance without forcing them to go through a re-application processgiven both the problems with welfare offices and the application process, as well as the fact that a loss of benefits tends to lead to hunger and homelessness.[4]

Immediately inform and educate people about the time limits in a way that prepares them for the move from TANF to Safety Net Assistance and provides them with adequate support for developing a plan to move from welfare to work.

III.Time Limits: The Great Confusion

Major Finding One:

While many people know generally about welfare time limits, the City is failing to explain to people what time limits actually mean. The majority of people do not even know how many more months of assistance they are eligible for.

Federal welfare reform of 1996 set an upper limit of five years on the amount of time individuals with children are able to receive cash benefits paid for by the federal government through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grants. New York City is failing to adequately inform people about the approaching time limits and what backup systems are in place.

While 72.9% of people surveyed were aware of the existence of the new federal time limits, 71.9% did NOT have time limits explained to them at their welfare office 75.9% do not know how many more months of assistance they have left. Nor are people given adequate information as to what will happen to them after they have reached their five years.

Due to New York State’s constitutional commitment to provide for the needy, in 1997 state legislators created a Safety Net Assistance program to support people with state dollars for an unlimited amount of time beyond the five years. People are poorly informed about both the existence of such a fallback support program in the state and the details of how such a program will operate.

There is an extreme disconnect between people’s knowledge that time limits exist and their understanding of them. With information not adequately distributed to people through their welfare centers, people are forced to rely on word-of-mouth for information. The result is distributed misinformation and general confusion. Given the widely spread wrong impression that benefits will stop completely after five years, it is likely that people may leave the rolls “at their own will” come December, despite still being in great need of assistance. Forced re-application is also likely to exacerbate this outcome as frustrated individuals give up on fighting for benefits they legitimately need.