 Page 2
Mr. Stokes : In your opening statement, you mentioned that the welfare reform efforts will put new demands on child care support for working families. Specifically, what impact will the House passed welfare reform package have on child care support for hard working families and what are the child care implications? Ms. Bane: This Administration, as well as previous Administrations, have increased funding for child care services in order to address the needs of a growing number of low-income families who rely on child care assistance to keep them in work and off welfare. A reduced and capped discretionary program will reverse these efforts to support work. HHS estimates that in FY 2000, there would be approximately 300,000 fewer children receiving federal child care assistance under H.R. 4 than under current law. In addition, welfare reform efforts which call for increased work requirements will require new child care services for many families. Two-thirds of families receiving AFDC have at least one preschool child. Existing law allows for an expansion of federally funded child care to meet the needs of increased work participation. However, a capped discretionary child care program, as is created in H.R. 4, will not expand as welfare reform efforts intensify. It is possible that states will begin to shift their child care subsidy efforts from working poor families to welfare families under the new limited program. GRANDPARENTS RAISING CHILDREN Mr. Stokes: The media has recently been giving increased attention to "Grandparents raising their grandchildren." To what extent is this happening across the country? Ms. Bane: "Grandparents raising their grandchildren" is but one aspect of an overall phenomenon--a dramatic increase in the number of children in kinship care. In 1992 about 5 percent of all children under the age of 18 lived in homes maintained by grandparents. These children are more likely than children as a whole to be AFDC recipients. Data collected in a survey conducted by the Office of the Inspector General, DHHS, indicate that, in 29 States with data for 1990, a total of 80,000 children in State custody were placed with relatives, primarily their grandparents. This number grew from 18 percent to 31 percent of the foster care population between 1986 to 1990.
ASSISTANCE TO GRANDPARENTS
Mr. Stokes: What programs within the agency provide assistance to grandparents in this regard?
Ms. Bane: No programs within ACF are specifically targeted to assisting grandparents in raising and supporting their grandchildren. However, a number of programs--such as Titles IV-A, B and of the Social Security Act, Medicaid, and WIC provide subsidies and services which are available to them.
What type of assistance do they provide?
Ms. Bane: These programs provide the same basic services to grandparents as to other eligible families and individuals. Page 3
Mr. Hoyer: When Secretary Riley came to speak with us, the Chairman and I had a conversation about Head Start quality, which concerns both of us. The Chairman expressed his belief that the Head Start community will not believe that we in Congress are serious about quality until the Head Start budget is cut. Do you think the Head Start community has "gotten" the quality message? Ms. Bane: Yes, we have had a very positive response from grantees to the quality message; high quality grantees are the first to say that no program should be allowed to call itself a Head Start program if it is not delivering high quality services. The Congress and this Administration have been quite clear to Head Start programs about the need to provide high quality services to every enrolled child and family. We believe that most grantees have always understood this and provided quality services. The small minority which have not have been sent clear messages about the need to improve quality or face defunding proceedings. Our current effort to assure that all Head Start programs are providing quality services began in June 1993 when Secretary Shalala established the Advisory Committee on Head Start Quality and Expansion. Many of the recommendations of this Committee were incorporated by the Congress into the Head Start Reauthorization Act, signed by President Clinton on May 18, 1994. This Act states very clearly the expectation that grantees must provide quality services and that grantees which are not providing such services have one year, at the most, to improve the quality of their program or face defunding
We have, in addition, been working with our Regional Offices on the issue of Head Start quality. In November 1993 we sent the Regional Offices a memoranaum asking them to identify those Head Start grantees which they considered to be poorly performing and to develop procedures to work with these programs to either improve their performance or begin proceedings to revoke their Head Start grant. We have resolved the quality problems with approximately 70% of these agencies, generally by working with them to improve performance but, in several instances, by terminating their grant. Since November 1993, for example, eight Head Start grantees have been terminated and 13 have relinquished their grants. In addition, there are currently 17 grantees which have been designated high risk. We will continue to work with the remaining programs and will, by September 1995, assure that all these programs are of an acceptable level of quality or discontinued as Head Start grantees.
Mr. Hoyer: What indicators can we in Congress look to for evidence of this?
Ms. Bane: This Administration's commitment is that by the end of FY 1995 all Head Start programs will either be providing quality Head Start services or will have implemented a quality improvement plan designed to assure they are providing such services within a specified time period, not to exceed one year. It is our judgment that the Congress can expect to visit any Head Start program and assure itself that the program is providing quality services. We will, as well, be developing this year Head Start performance measures which will help us and the Congress gauge the extent to which Head Start programs are providing quality services.
Mr. Hoyer: In your statement, you tell us that "local grantees made major investments to address critical problems identified by the Inspector General". Can you give us specific examples of these problems and the grantees responses?
Ms. Bane: Problems experienced by grantees which impeded their abilities to provide high quality Head Start services, as noted by the Inspector General, centered on not having sufficient numbers of qualified staff and not having access to quality Head Start facilities. Examples of how grantees began addressing these issues with their FY 1994 funding increase include: Improving the salaries and fringe benefits of current staff.
More specific information on the use of FY 1994 funds and how it helped improve quality follows:
Family worker caseload was reduced by hiring new family workers.
Many grantees have had problems, uncovered on recent monitoring visits, of not providing needed social services to Head Start families. Reducing caseload ratios will be of tremendous impact in improving the ability of grantees to meet the needs of Head Start families.
New classroom staff were hired to reduce the number of double session classes and reduce average class size from 20 to 17-18 children.
This direction is consistent with the recommendations of
Staff in the area of disability services were hired. Mental health staff were hired to work in classroom with children who experience behavioral, emotional or social adjustment difficulties. Many Head Start grantees have had problems fully meeting the special needs of children with disabilities. Additional staff will better enable Head Start to meet the needs of this particularly vulnerable population.
New bus aides were hired to assure there is always a second adult on the bus.
Many States require two adults be present on every bus
transporting pre-school age children. Some grantees have not always been able to do this, posing a safety risk to Head Start children.
In addition to hiring new staff other quality improvements include: Facilities were renovated to comply with ADA requirements.
old, high mileage vehicles were replaced.
Employees were offered new or improved health insurance plans.
The number of hours and days of service was increased. Some grantees extended part of their program to full-day to meet the child care needs of working parents, or parents in training.
HEAD START TRIENNIAL REVIEWS
Mr. Hoyer: Secretary Shalala told us of improvements in the outcomes of the triennial reviews Congress mandated for all Head Start programs. Can you describe the review process for us? Ms. Bane: At least once every three years every Head Start grantee is visited by a monitoring team of 6-7 reviewers, which is led by one or more Federal staff and is composed of experts in the early childhood field, including many Head Start program staff acting as peer reviewers. This team observes all aspects of the Head Start program's operations and reviews all Head Start components. Interviews are held with Head Start grantee staff, parents, and community members. Records are reviewed. At the end of one week, the review team has an exit interview with the Head Start grantee, sharing with grantee staff its findings. Subsequent to that, a letter is also sent to the grantee specifying what, if any, areas in its program are in need of improvement and in what time frames the grantee is expected to implement this improvement. Follow-up continues during the time the grantee is implementing its quality improvements and on completion of these improvements the responsible Regional office may make a subsequent on-site visit to assure the grantee has remedied all identified quality problems. Grantees which do not correct such problems within agreed to time periods face defunding procedures.
Mr. Hoyer: Is this a comprehensive review? Ms. Bane: Yes. Each review conducted as part of the required triennial monitoring is comprehensive, evaluating all program components and all aspects of the grantee's Head start program. Mr. Hoyer: What does it mean if a program meets the standards?
Ms. Bane: A program meeting the standards is a program that, in the judgment of the review team, is providing quality Head Start services and is doing so consistent with all relevant statutory and regulatory requirements. A program meeting the standards will continue to receive Head Start funds.
BLOCK GRANTING HEAD START
Mr. Hoyer: As you know, there has been a lot of talk in this House of reducing regulatory burden and block granting programs. My
wife is the head of child care programs in Prince George's county and the regulations she has to deal with make it harder, not easier, to take care of kids. I myself have thought a lot about block granting Head Start and turning control over to the States. What role do Head Start Performance Standards play in promoting Head Start quality? Ms. Bane : The Performance Standards are the heart of the Head Start program. They specify what it is that programs must do to be able to call themselves Head Start. They constitute the core of services that must be provided to every enrolled child and family and thus assure that all 752,000 children in Head Start, served by 1,400 programs, are receiving the same types and levels of services. They are comprehensive in nature, touching on all aspects of Head Start, education, health, social services and parent involvement. Mr. Hoyer: What would be the impact on the program of block granting Head Start?
Ms. Bane: Head Start should not be folded into a block grant to the States. There are several reasons for this:
A key element of today's Head Start is that Head Start is truly a community-based program. It is located in neighborhoods all over the country; it is flexible based on community needs; and it depends on parents and community volunteers for its success. Head Start is an effective Federal to local program.
Head Start has just been redesigned to meet the needs of America's children and families, through last year's bipartisan reauthorization process which re-examined every feature of the program. This redesign should serve as the blueprint for the program as we move into the 21st Century.
This bipartisan reauthorization built on three decades of support by Republican and Democratic Presidents and members of Congress for this critically important investment in our nation's most vulnerable children. We worked very hard in the reauthorization process to ensure that every Head Start program is of high quality and is responsive to the needs of today's families and communities. our task now should be to move together and complete this redesign.
The Administration does, however, believe strongly that Head
HEAD START PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Mr. Hoyer: I understand that the Department is now finishing a comprehensive revision of Head Start Performance Standards which was mandated in the 1994 reauthorization. The old performance standards have been criticized by some as outdated and overly burdensome. How have you addressed these criticisms in the development of the new
Ms. Bane: The Department's work on the revision of the Head Start Performance Standards will result in the promulgation of requirements that will foster improvement in program quality--a key objective of the bipartisan 1994 reauthorization--while at the same time, making the Standards more user-friendly and allowing for greater flexibility at the local community level. We are attempting to simplify and clarify our requirements while also updating them to reflect best practices and the suggestions we received through extensive consultation with members of the Head Start community and a broad array of child and family service experts. Beyond meeting these objectives, it is our intent to include in the revised Standards requirements addressing the newly authorized Head Start program for low-income pregnant women and families with infants and toddlers. Local programs operating programs for both preschoolers as well as very young children will find a consolidated set of requirements addressing both age groups easier to deal with than separate requirements for each program. HEAD START RESCISSION
Mr. Hoyer: I understand that the Senate has recommended a $42 million rescission in the Head Start program. Would you describe for the Committee which part of the program that funding would be taken out of and the impact on the program of those cuts? Ms. Bane: At the FY 1995 estimated per child cost of $4,530, $42 million is sufficient to provide Head Start services to approximately 9,300 children. The Administration would make every effort to minimize the number of children and families who could potentially be affected by a mid-year funding reduction. However, at a minimum, the statutorily mandated effort to serve children under age three would be sharply reduced. A reduction in FY 1995 appropriation levels of $42 million would seriously undermine the Administration's ability to implement the critical provisions of the Head Start Reauthorization of 1994, enacted with bipartisan support.
Mr. Hoyer: As you know, the House passed a welfare reform bill last week which included cuts below current funding levels in child care programs. Even with the funding that was added in a floor amendment, I am concerned that there simply won't be enough child care available for poor and working poor families. Could you describe the impact on the States and on kids and families of the funding level for child care provided in the House welfare bill? Ms. Bane: This Administration, as well as previous Administrations, have increased funding for child care services in order to address the needs of a growing number of low-income families who rely on child care assistance to keep them in work and off welfare. A reduced and capped discretionary program will reverse these efforts to support work. HHS estimates that in FY 2000, there would be approximately 320,000 fewer children receiving federal child care assistance under H.R. 4 than under current law. In addition, welfare reform efforts which call for increased work requirements will require new child care services for many families. Two-thirds of families receiving AFDC have at least one preschool child. Existing law allows for an expansion of federally Page 4
within certain ranges of competitive rankings. Information from the panel review and the site visits will be used by the Commissioner, ACYF to determine which applicants should be funded. Mr. Hoyer: Are you committed to awarding grants in a timely manner which will prevent lapses in service for the current grantees who are ultimately approved for further funding. Ms. Bane: We are committed to awarding grants in a timely manner for all programs, both the existing programs (i.e., the Parent and Child Center Programs and the Comprehensive Child Development Programs) as well as the new Early Head Start programs.
COORDINATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
Mr. Hoyer: One of the problems of our welfare system is the lack of coordinated services. Cities and counties are working to provide case management, and to coordinate the different resources that are available to move people from welfare to work. But too many legislative and regulatory barriers stand in the way. I proposed an amendment to the welfare bill to require the Secretaries of HHS, HUD, Agriculture, Labor and Education to report to the Congress on barriers to coordinated services. Unfortunately, my amendment was not made in order. What efforts do you currently have underway to coordinate HHS programs with other assistance programs? Ms. Bane: HHS coordinates extensively with HUD, Agriculture, Labor and Education. Interagency Technical Assistance Bfforts HHS, DOL, Education With the passage of the Family Support Act, HHS, DOL and integrated services, a videoconference on employer needs, training materials and "best practices" publications. Under the auspices of the National Institute for Literacy (NIPL), grants have been awarded to several states to develop either a coordinated performance measurement system or an interagency staff development system for all agencies providing basic skills and literacy-related services. The three agencies are also working with the Departments of Commerce (Census Bureau) and Agriculture (FNS), the GAO, NGA and other interest groups to develop a uniform, core set of data elements across all employment and training programs. Begun as a collaborative effort and required by the JTPA amendments of 1992, the final report will be sent to Congress soon. We all worked very closely on the President's Welfare Reform Working Group in framing the Administration's proposal, the work and Responsibility Act and on related employment and training initiatives. Page 5
whether a complex set of programs and actions are achieving broad goals and objectives. We are convinced that substantial complexity could be eliminated if the Congress, the States, the Departments and advocates worked collaboratively to specify appropriate, complementary goals, objectives and measurable results to be achieved by the programs. The key is to focus on what is to be achieved and leave States and localities with the flexibility to decide how to achieve those desired results.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
Fanily Support Payments to states
PY 1996 Budget Summary of changes Budget authority by activity Budget authority by object Authorizing legislationAppropriation history table Justification:A. General Statement B. Program Accomplishments Aid to Panilies with Dependent children Child Support Enforcement B. State Tables
B-44 FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENTS TO STATES
for making payments to states or other non-Federal entities, except as otherwise provided, under titles I, IV-A (other than section 402(g) (6)) and D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social
Security Act, and the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.c. ch. 9), ($12,761,788,000) $13,614,307,000, to remain available until
For making, after May 31 of the current fiscal year, payments
to States or other non-Federal entities under titles I, IV-A and
D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social Security Act, for the last three months of the current year for unanticipated costs,
incurred for the current fiscal year, such sums as may be
For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities
under titles I, IV-A, (other than section 402(g) (6)) and D, X,
XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social Security Act and the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9) for the first quarter of fiscal year (1996, $4,400,000,000) 1997, $4,800,000,000, to remain
available until expended.
(The Secretary shall provide paynents under titles IV-A and XIX of the Social Security Act to carry out a demonstration project for a qualified progran in accordance with this section
which shall take effect on January 1, 1995. For each calendar quarter in which there is a qualified program as defined below,
the Secretary shall pay to the State for the purpose of
Page 6
Family Support Payments to states SUMMARY OF CHANGES 1995 Appropriation (definite) $16,961,788,000 1995 Appropriation (indefinite) $398,909,000 Total, gross budget authority $17,360, 697,000 Transfer to other account -$1,500,000 Total, net budget authority $17,359, 197,000 (Obligations) . ($17,396,343,000) 1996 Estimate . $18,014,307,000 Transfer to other account -$1,500,000 Total, net budget authority $18,012,807,000 (Obligations) ($18,012,807,000) Net change. +$653,610,000 (Obligations) +($616,464,000) Page 7
Total Indefinitel $18,014,307,000 Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands under titles I, X, XIV, XVI, and under part A
o Section 1113 of the Social Security Act provides for a $1,000,000 linitation on funds paid to repatriated u.s. citizens and dependents who return because of destitution, illness or international crisis. Page 8
Justification
Benefit Payments: AFDC payments. $12,383,269,000 $12,927,879,000 +$544,610,000 Net CSE collections.. -811.000.000 -875.000.000 -64.000.000 Subtotal.... 11,572, 269,000 12,052,879,000 480, 610,000 Payments to territories.... 19,428,000 19,428,000 Emergency assistance 864,000,000 974,000,000 +110,000,000 Repatriation..... 1,000,000 1,000,000
State/Local AFDC administrative costs.... 1.716.000.000 1.770.000.000 +54.000.000 Subtotal, AFDC $15,394,697,000 $16,071,307,000 +$676,610,000 CSE State/Local Administrative Costs... 1,966,000,000 1,943,000,000 -23,000,000 Total, budget authority...... $17,360,697,000 $18,014,307,000 +$653,610,000 Total, obligations/.. $17,396,343,000 $18,012, 807,000 +$616, 424,000 V The FY 1996 request for AFDC payments of $12,927,879,000 assumes $71, 121,000 in QC collections, which offsets gross AFDC Federal payments of $12, 999,000,000. The FY 1995 current year estimate includes obligation of $282,000 from prior no-year appropriations to support implementation of the child Support Enforcement Network (CSENET). Page 9
1) AFDC Benefits: In FY 1994, ACF provided grants to states to administer the Aid to families with Dependent children (AFDC) program to 5 million fanilies comprising 14.3 million recipients. The average monthly payment per family was $376. The monthly caseload for FY 1996 is estimated to rise to 5.2 million families and include 14.6 million recipients. In addition, the average monthly benefit is estimated to increase to $382 per family. (2) Payments to Territories: In FY 1994, this progran provided assistance to 44,144 aged, blind and disabled individuals per month in Guan, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. In 1995 and 1996, assistance will be provided to approximately the sane number of persons. (3) Emergency Assistance: In FY 1994, the Federal government outlayed $507 million in matching funds to help States neet the urgent and critical requirements of needy families, such as shelter and medical services. Emergency financial assistance was provided to an average of 62,000 recipients per month. (4) Repatriation: Assistance was provided to 367 cases in FY 1994, comprising 494 persons. Nearly all of the repatriations of individuals or families were due to destitution or illness with only 24 cases repatriated through the mentally ill program. (5) Child Care: In FY 1994, Federal outlays for AFDC child care and transitional child care totalled $707 million. These expenditures are expected to increase to $854 million in FY 1995 and $947 million in FY 1996. Under the IV-A funded child care program for AFDC families, for FY 1992 States reported serving an average of 166,682 families per month. In FY 1993, an average of 210,859 families and 339, 238 children received AFDC child care services each month. Approximately 61% of these APDC families participated in the JOBS program in FY 1993. In FY 1994, it is estimated that the average monthly number served will increase to 260,000 families and 410,000 children. In addition, 39,870 former AFDC families received child care services in FY 1992. In FY 1993, transitional child care was provided to an average of 51,775 families and 84,682 children each month. It is estimated that in FY 1994, an average of 67,000 families and 109,000 children will be served. For the At-Risk child care program for FY 1993, the average monthly number of families served was 123,000 and the average monthly number of children served was 219,000. of the type of care arrangenents utilized by children, 66.7% of care was provided by centers, 28.5% in fanily/group homes, and the Page 10
Ald te Families with Dependent children (AFDC) Authorizing Legislation: Titles I, IV-A and D, X, XI, XIV and XVI of the Social Security Act and the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 0.8.c. ch.9).
The AFDC program provides transitional financial assistance to agencies under approved State plans in accordance with Federal statutes and regulations. A state takes into consideration the needs as well as the income and resources of all individuals in the family in determining the amount of the assistance payment. Each State determines its own need and payment standards. The program is jointly funded by Federal, state, and, in some cases, local governments.
Adults_(Aged. Blind and Disabled)
Maintenance assistance prograns for the aged, blind and disabled
The Emergency Assistance (EA) program is an optional program established to provide temporary assistance to needy families with children. This program is administered by State and local welfare agencies under state plans approved in accordance with Federal statutes and regulations. As of January 1995, 50 States operate EA programs. Assistance may be in the ion of cash payments, in-kind assistance, or vendor payments to prevent destitution of children and to meet emergency needs resulting from natural disasters, homelessness, family violence, or child abuse and neglect. Emergency Assistance benefits nay include payments for rent, utilities, food, clothing, temporary shelter, alternative living arrangements, medical assistance, and family support services. Federal matching at fifty percent of the total EA costs is available.
Repatriation This progran provides assistance to 0.8. citizens and their dependents returning from foreign countries who have been certified by the Department of state to be destitute or ill or requiring energency repatriation due to threatened armed conflict, civil strife or natural disaster abroad. The funding level for the repatriate program, except for the mentally ill, is set by the authorizing statute, Section 1113 of the Social Security Act. Spending is entirely dependent upon external events, and is affected substantially by the extent of conflict and natural disasters abroad. The repatriate program currently reimburses states directly for assistance provided by them to individual repatriates and for State administrative costs. During FY 1995, it is expected that the program will initiate a contract with a national, private organization for provision of some of the services currently provided by states. Individuals receiving assistance are expected to repay the cost of such assistance. These repatriate debts are collected by the Health Resources Services Administration, the HHS component charged with collecting debts owed by individuals.
The Family Support Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-485) requires States to guarantee child care as a condition of participation in approved education and training activities (including JOBS) and for employed AFDC recipients. Federal financial participation is available for the actual cost of child care up to a statewide linit established by the state welfare agency in its state supportive services plan, but not for more than the applicable local market rate. The Federal matching rate for AFDC child care payments is the same as AFDC benefit payments and is available as an open-ended entitlement. Transitional Child Care The Fanily Support Act of 1988 also requires States to guarantee up to 12 months of child care for employed former AFDC recipients who leave AFDC as a result of increased hours of work, earnings fron employment, or expiration of the time-limited income disregards: child care provisions for transitional assistance are essentially the same as the provisions for child care received during participation in the JOBS program, except that: (1) child care is limited to a period of 12 months after the last nonth for which the fanily was eligible for assistance and (2) families receiving child care assistance must contribute to the cost of the care in accordance with a sliding scale formula established by the State, based on the family's ability to pay. The Federal matching rate for transitional child care payments is
the same as for AFDC banot it payments and is available as an open-ended entitlement. At-Risk Child Care The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 anended the Social Security Act to provide States with the option to provide child care to low-income families who: (1) are not receiving AFDC; (2) need child care in order to work; and (3) would otherwise be at risk of becoming eligible for AFDC. Families contribute to the cost of providing the care according to the family's ability to pay. Section 403(n) of the Social Security Act authorizes $300 million in Federal funds for allocation to states each fiscal year beginning with FY 1991. The statute allows States which underspend their allocation in any year to increase, subject to certain limits and for one year only, their ceiling allocation for the subsequent year. In FY 1995, 50 states and the District of Columbia have At-Risk Child Care programs.
state and Local Administration
The Federal government reimburses 50 percent of State and local administrative costs related to Assistance Payments programs. Activities include State and local administrative determination of eligibility for assistance, case maintenance, and AFDC quality control reviews.
RATIONALE FOR BUDGET REQUEST
A. Key Economic Assumptions The estimates for the Maintenance Assistance programs are based on the following economic assumptions: 1. Onemo loyment Rate -- The Administration's unemployment rate assumptions anticipate a decrease in FY 1995, relative to PY 1994, followed by a slight increase in FY 1996.
2. Consumer Price Index (CPI) -- State AFDC benefit payment standards tend to reflect not only changes in consumer living costs, but also decisions affecting State funding availability and budget priorities. Projected increases in average benefit payments are not expected to keep pace with the anticipated rise in prices. Increase Fron calendar Year CPI prior Year
3. Demographic - Continuing growth is expected in the number of families headed by single-parents and unwed mothers. single-Parent Increase From Calendar Year prior Year
12, 198,000 12,454,000 12,691,000 Page 11
The AFDC caseload is expected to rise in FY 1996, reflecting the related increase in both the unemployment rate and in the number of low-income single-parent families: AFDC Average Increase From Monthly Cases Prior Year 1994 5,048,000 67,000 1995 5,031,000 (17,000) 1996 5,212,000 181,000 B. Recovery of Erroneous Payments The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-239) established new criteria for promoting the efficiency and integrity of the AFDC program. State payments owed for excess error rate liabilities incurred prior to FY 1991 have been waived and penalties in the future are to be assessed against an error rate standard based on the national average (or 4 percent, whichever is higher). Approximately $17 million in error rate liabilities for FY 1991 were collected in FY 1994. Estimates for FY 1995 - FY 2000 assume that collections begun in FY 1994 will continue. The estimate for FY 1996 represents an acceleration in the amount collected for prior year penalties; it includes the collection of the entire amount of FY 1993 penalties, plus the remaining amount of FY 1992 penalties. Page 12
Contracts: 1 $200,000 $150,000 * The Repatriation Program reimbursas Statas directly for assistance provided by states to individual repatriates and for State administrative costs. The Health Resources and Services Administration in PHS is responsible for collection of the repayments from repatriates. ** During ry 1995, Act will initiate a 12-month contract for provision of some of the services to repatriates previously provided by the states. Larger contract value for FY 1995 includes progra start-up costs. Page 13
Total, budget authority $1,929,000 $1,966,000 +$37,000 $1,943,000 -$23,000 purpose and Method of Operation: The Child Support Enforcement (CSB) program is a Federal/State effort to ensure that children are supported financially by both of their parents, to foster family responsibility, and to reduce the need for welfare and its cost to the taxpayer. All people with custody of children who need or are owed child support can get help from their state or local CSE agency. These agencies locate non-custodial parents, establish paternity when necessary, and establish and enforce orders for support. The progran strengthens fanilies by helping children get the support they deserve from non-custodial parents. By securing support from non-custodial parents on a consistent and continuing basis, non-welfare families may avoid the need for public assistance, thus reducing welfare spending. In non-AFDC cases, child support collections are forwarded to the custodial family. Applicants for AFDC assign their rights to support payments to the state as a condition of receipt of assistance. The AFDC family receives up to the first $50 of each month's current child support collected, in addition to the AFDC payment. The remaining child support collections in AFDC cases are shared between the state and Federal government. A portion of the Federal share of child support collections is paid to the States as incentive payments based on their cost effectiveness in cating the program and collections achieved. The Federal government provides funding in three ways. It provides a 66% match rate for general state administrative costs, à 90% match rate for paternity testing and development of approved Statewide computer systems (due to end on September 30, 1995), and full funding of incentive payments. Page 14
West Virginia 93,074,952 91,540,794 95,776,381 Wisconsin 261,811,087 257,495,644 269,409,951 Wyoming 13,796,313 13,568,908 14,196,741 Financial Adjustments (62,801, 625) Total, Budget Authority $12,569,554,000 $12,424,136,000 $12,999,000,000 Page 15
Texas 1,391,034 8,610,520 12,322,089 Utah 337,915 227,451 252,746 Vermont 575,943 1,140,341 1,305,054 Virgin Islands (480) 423,165 461, 285 Virginia 27,912 38,790 44,207 Washington 4,720, 736 11,037,545 12,015, 046 West Virginia 2,737,902 2,622,739 2,888,320 Wisconsin 1,790,905 1,737,620 2,089,239 Wyoning 1,841,919 1,419,806 1,625,070 Total, Budget Authority $552,978,656 $864,000,000 $974,000,000 ! - Amounts reflect estimated State share of total expenditures. Page 16
$3,530, 162 409,332 3,989, 709 368, 415 4,721, 469
Alabana Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Dist. of col. Florida
1,325,433 3,490, 604 484, 902 164,275 9,443,935
Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana
Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine
Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi
Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire
Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Kinnesota
1,372,506 9,004,702 2,114,833 21,387,558 7,918,542
598,687 13,426,658 4,064, 668 3,648,544 13,609,541
1,004,771 5, 221,721 530,875 3,112, 504
19,600,985 2,825,628 636,844
21,337, 485 3,075, 957 693, 264
Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoning Total, Budget Authority
1,801, 604 5, 402,361 536, 382
1,961, 213 5,880, 970 583,901 Page 17
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEIKT
Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT (continued)
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
Payments to States for the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program
FY 1996 Budget Summary of changes Budget authority by activity Budget authority by object Authorizing legislationAppropriation history table Justification:A. General Statement B. Program Accomplishments Payments to states for the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program State Tables Page 18
Payments to states for the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program SUMMARY OF CHANGES 1995 Appropriation (definite) $1,300,000,000 Total estimated budget authority $1,300,000,000 (Obligations current estimate) ($980,000,000) 1996 Estimate . $1,000,000,000 (Obligations) ($930,000,000) Net change -$300,000,000 (Obligations current estimate) (-$50,000,000) Page 19
The Family Support Act required that all states offer a statewide JOBS program by October 1, 1992, or request a waiver by demonstrating that it was infeasible to be statewide. Fifty states and territories met the regulatory definition of statewideness by 10/1/92; 4 States were granted waivers after demonstrating that it was infeasible to be statewide. Seventysix Tribes and Alaska Native organizations also run JOBS programs. To the extent resources are available, a State must require nonexempt AFDC recipients to participate in the JOBS program. Certain ninimum participation rates are established for fiscal years 1990 through 1995, and States face a reduced Federal match it those participation rates are not met. States and Territories determine and report the number of individuals mandated to participate in the JOBS program, the number of JOBS participants, and the number of JOBS participants countable for participation rate purposes. These data are then used to calculate the participation rates for each state. During PY 1993, all states except California, Hawaii and Guam met the participation rate requirement of 11%. California and Hawaii were granted waivers because they demonstrated that they were making a good faith effort to meet the requirement and had a plan to meet it in the next fiscal year. Guan did not have to match the first $200,000 in expenditures and so there were no consequences for its failure to meet the 11$ requirement. During FY 1994, ACF has continued to provide technical assistance to states to help them operate better JOBS programs. On-site assistance was provided to several states in maximizing resources and in program design. "Self-Sufficiency" training was delivered to AFDC/JOBS/ Child Support caseworkers in ten states to promote client self-sufficiency through better interagency coordination. A workshop on staff development/ capacity building was conducted jointly with the National Institute for Literacy. To aid public agencies in developing better relationships with employers, and to increase job opportunities for welfare recipients, an audio tape and discussion guide ("Making the Job Connection") was distributed June 1994 to JOBS, JTPA and Adult and Vocational Education Directors and Literacy Resource Centers. In addition, a videoconference of an employer panel was conducted June 15, 1994, "The National Employment Forum: From Welfare to Work" to help these agencies better understand and address the needs of employers. A national JOBS Directors Conference was held in July 1994. ACF has recently held two workshops for 16 States on "Shifting Focus to Self-sufficiency" to help States change the culture of welfare offices to focus on the goal of work, not welfare. Page 20
Payments to states for the Job Opportunities and Basic skills Training Program
Purpose and Method of Operation The Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program (JOBS) program assures that needy families with children obtain the education, training and employment needed to avoid long-term welfare dependency. State JOBS programs provide educational activities, job skills training, job readiness, and job development and placement services. Additionally, each State's program offers at least two, and Tribal programs at least one, of the following optional program components: group and individual job search; on-the-job training; work supplementation; community work experience or other work experience approved by the Secretary. Fifty States, D.c., and Territories met the statutory deadline of October 1, 1992, for having a statewide program; 4 States were granted waivers of the requirement because they demonstrated it was infeasible to do so as provided in the law. In addition to the states and Territories, 76 Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Organizations operate JOBS programs. Each state and Tribe submits a plan, updated biennially, outlining its implementation and operation of JOBS. A State's JOBS "limit of entitlement, " i.e., its share of the funds appropriated for JOBS, is based on a combination of its FY 1987 allocation for the Work Incentive Program (WIN) and its share of AFDC adult recipients. Funds provided to a state for JOBS are matched at 90 percent up to the total that the state received in PY 1987 for WIN. Additional State expenditures for program costs are natched at the FMAP (Federal Medical Assistance Percentage) with a floor of 60 percent. Administrative costs and expenditures for transportation and other work-related supportive services are matched at 50 percent. Federal matching in any year is available up to a state's limit of entitlement. A Tribe's JOBS program receives a portion of the State's JOBS funds based on the number of adult members of the Indian Tribe or Alaska Native organization receiving AFDC who live within the designated service area of the State. Tribal JOBS programs are not required to match Federal funds. Page 21
PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR THE JOB OPPORTUNITIES AND BASIC SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAM
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for children and Families Interim Assistance to states for Legalization (State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants)
FY 1996 Budget Summary of changes Budget authority by activity Budget authority by object Authorizing legislationAppropriation history table Justification:A. General Statement
(STATE LEGALIZATION IMPACT-ASSISTANCE GRANTS) (Including Rescission)
(Funds not obligated by the State by June 29, 1995, under
section 204 (b) (4) of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of
1986 are hereby rescinded. )
(For Federal administration and allotments of funds to the
States made by the Secretary of Health and Human Services for the
purpose of making payments to public and private nonprofit
organizations for public information and outreach activities; and English language and civics instruction provided to any adult
eligible legalized alien who has not met the requirements of
section 312 of the Immigration and Nationality Act for purposes of becoming naturalized as a citizen of the United States, $6,000,000: Provided, that the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall allocate such amounts among the States not later
than August 15, 1995: Provided further, that each state's share of these funds shall be equal to that State's percentage share of the total costs of administering and providing educational
services to eligible legalized aliens in all states through
fiscal year 1994, as determined by the Secretary; Provided
further, That the definition of "eligible legalized alien"
contained in section 204()) (4) of the Immigration Reform and
Control Act of 1985 is amended by inserting before the period at the end ", except that the five-year limitation shall not apply
for the purposes of making payments from funds appropriated under
the fiscal year 1995 Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for providing public information and outreach activities regarding
naturalization and citizenship; and English language and civics instruction to any adult eligible legalized alien who has not met
the requirements of section 312 of the Immigration and
Naturalization Act for purposes of becoming naturalized as a
citizen of the United States":
Provided further, that each State
may designate the appropriate agency or agencies to administer funds under this heading: Provided further, That section 204 (b) (4) of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 is amended by striking the fourth sentence and inserting the following: "Funds made available to a State pursuant to the preceding sentence of this paragraph shall be utilized by the
State to reimburse all allowable costs within 90 days after a
State has received a reallocation of funds from the Secretary,
but in no event later than July 31, 1995.") (Department of Health
and Human Services Appropriations Act, 1995.) Page 22
a/ In FY 1995, approximately $227 million will be reallotted to States with unreimbursed costs that exceed their allocation. Page 23
Appropriations for each of fiscal years 1988-1993 are made by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), P.L. 99-603, as amended by P.L. 101-166, P.L. 101-517, and P.L. 102-394. Section 204 (a) of IRCA requires that the estimated expenditures of the Federal government incurred to provide assistance to legalized aliens who would be barred by IRCA from certain Federal assistance programs (Medicaid, AFDC, and Food Stamps) but for exceptions to these bars for certain aliens be deducted from $1 billion in order to determine the amount appropriated. This reduction is called the Federal offset.
The FY 1991 appropriation, P.L. 101-517, reflects the remainder of the funds in the appropriation after the reduction of the estimated Federal offset and a legislative reduction of $566,854,000. The FY 1992 appropriation reflects the approved deferral of $1.137 billion into FY 1993. d' The FY 1993 Appropriations Act deferred $812 million into FY 1994.
By December 30, 1994, all states must make final claims. Some States will have obligated balances in excess of eligible claims, and a few States will have eligible claims in excess of obligated
balances. In FY 1995, approximately $227 million of funds previously obligated under current law will be deobligated and reallotted to those states whose claims exceed available balances.
! The FY 1996 appropriation represents a new discretionary program authorized in P.L. 103-333.
Interim Assistance to States for Legalization
General Statement This account subsidizes State costs of assimilating legalized aliens, most of whom have been living and working in the United States for ten years.
Section 204 of P.L. 99-603 (the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, or "IRCA") established a time-limited program of State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants (SLIAG). These grants are made available to states, upon application to the Department of Health and Human Services, to offset costs incurred by State and local governments in providing certain public assistance, public health assistance, and educational services to certain categories of aliens legalized by P.L. 99-603.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act originally appropriated, for each of fiscal years 1988 through 1991, an amount equal to $1 billion less the amount of the "Federal offset," which is the Federal cost of providing benefits to certain eligible aliens. The original appropriation amount was based on virtually no information about the number of illegal aliens who resided in the United States at the time, the number that would apply and be found eligible for legalization, their characteristics, their eligibility for State and locally funded programs, or their propensity to participate in such programs.
Congress deferred funds appropriated for FY 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993. Public Law 101-166 reduced the FY 1990 SLIAG appropriation by $555, 244,000, but restored a similar amount in FY 1992. Public Law 101-517 reduced the FY 1991 SLIAG appropriation by $566,854,000, and redefined the FY 1992 appropriation. Public Law 102-170 deferred the entire FY 1992 appropriation into FY 1993. Public Law 102-394 deferred $812,000,000 of the appropriation into FY 1994. It also mandated that funds unexpended by States as of December 30, 1994, be reallocated to States with unreimbursed SLIAG-related costs. The Office of Refugee Resettlement in the Administration for Children and Families is responsible for implementation and administration of the state legalization Impact Assistance Grant (SLIAG) program. Final regulations, including the allocation formula for distribution of funds to the States, were published in the Federal Register on March 10, 1988.
Forty-two States received grants in FY 1988 and FY 1989. Twentynine States received grants in FY 1990. Twelve States, whose applications were approved, received no grants in FY 1990 because they had sufficient unexpended funds on hand from prior years to fulfill their funds allocation under the program. Thirty-nine States had applications approved for FY 1991; 30 States received grants. Thirty-three States had applications approved for FY 1993; 32 States received grants. Thirty-two States applied for and received grants in FY 1994.
The Office of Refugee Resettlement conducted a series of implementation workshops to help States apply for funds and establish costs. In addition, the Department has made available to States a computer-based matching system that allows them to establish costs chargeable to SLIAG in a simple and costeffective manner.
In the FY 1995 Appropriations Act, Congress provided $6,000,000 to provide assistance for legalized aliens to become naturalized citizens. Since no authorization exists to continue a SLIAG program, the President's budget does not include funds for this activity.
State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants
Authorizing Legislation The Immigration Reform and control Act of 1986 (IRCA), as amended by P.L. 101-166, P.L. 101-517, P.L. 102-170, and P.L. 102-394.
The Immigration Reform and control Act of 1986, or "IRCA," Public Law 99-603, provided for the legalization of certain aliens then residing illegally in the U.S. Approximately 2.7 million aliens will receive legal status under IRCA.
Grants are awarded to States with approved applications. Funds may be drawn in accordance with normal Federal procedures on the basis of actual costs incurred. Under SLIAG, State and local governments may receive Federal reimbursement for costs they incur in providing benefits or services to certain aliens legalized by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) in on-going, generally available public assistance and public health assistance programs.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act also provides for the use of SLIAG funds for providing adults with educational services, including the English language and citizenship skills required of certain newly legalized aliens as a precondition to their retaining lawful residence status. Page 24
Amendments to IRCA made by P.L. 101-238 added two new uses of SLIAG funds. States may use small amounts of each year's SLIAG grant for outreach activities and to prevent employment discrimination. This latter activity is not limited to aliens legalized under IRCA. The Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, is responsible for administering the SLIAG program. Federal activities include: development and promulgation of regulations and program operations and policy guidance; provision of training and technical assistance to state agencies; review and approval of State applications; review of state program operations; development and implementation of the allocation formula; issuance of grants; review and analysis of State program and financial reports; review and clearance of audit findings; enforcement of statutory and regulatory requirements; and preparation of statutorily required reports to Congress. The Immigration Reform and Control Act authorizes SLIAG appropriations to be used for Federal Administration. Punds available for grants to states are allocated according to a formula specified in regulation at 45 CFR Part 402, Subpart d. This formula takes into account factors prescribed in IRCA, i.e., the number of newly legalized aliens in each State, the costs States incur in providing services and benefits to such aliens, and the ratio of legalized aliens to a State's general population. In order to claim Federal reimbursement, States must establish that allowable costs were actually incurred. The regulations implementing SLIAG provide for a variety of options for а establishing costs. In addition, the Department has made available to states a computer-based matching system that allows States to establish SLIAG-allowable costs by matching routinely collected data on program recipients against a central file with similar data on newly legalized aliens. Page 25
Interim Assistance to states for Legalization citizenship Grants Program Data: FY 1994 FY 1995 Page 26
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
Payments to states for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance
PY 1996 Budget Page Appropriation language and explanation of language changes E-2 Amount available for obligation . E-3 Summary of changes E-4 Budget authority by activity E-5 Budget authority by object E-6 Significant Items in House and Senate Appropriation Committee Reports . E-7 Authorizing legislation E-9 Appropriation history table E-11 Justification: A. General Statement E-13 B. Poster Care E-14 C. Adoption Assistance E-18 D. Independent Living E-21 E. State Tables E-23 |
Which type of appropriation can be used to fund a two year old O&M contract adjustment
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 frojeostern Inc.
