The President’s FY 2014 Budget; New Resource from CSSP

Today President Obama released his Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 Budget, which outlines the administration’s policy agenda and budget request for federal spending in the upcoming year and sets the tone for the national policy agenda moving forward.  The federal budget becomes the guide by which every major spending and revenue decision is made, making it one of the largest policy vehicles for supporting children and families.  While the process this year has been a bit unorthodox, with the Senate and House releasing their FY14 budget proposals before the White House released their budget request, the stakes for children and families remain incredibly high and the benefit of collaboration is not only clear but, in some cases, will be required.

In CSSP’s new brief “Aligning Resources and Results: How Policymakers and Communities Can Collaborate to Improve Neighborhood Outcomes” we highlight the Building Neighborhood Capacity Program (BNCP), a program under the Administration’s signature Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative. The goal of BNCP is to help neighborhoods develop the capacity they need to  enable residents, civic leaders, the public and private sectors and local organizations to identify neighborhood needs and  implement sustainable solutions. In this budget brief, we highlight the progress and efforts taking shape in one BNCP site in Milwaukee, where partnerships between community members and local policymakers are setting the stage for the needs of two neighborhoods to finally be met after years of being overlooked.  The brief outlines the importance of collaboration between policymakers and community members – and serves as a good resource for those working to collaborate around a shared set of results. 

Furthermore, the brief provides more extensive and detailed analysis of the President’s budget requests for programs impacting low-income children and families. Some highlights are below, including core themes of early childhood education and care, place-based programs, and community health and safety.

Early childhood education and care. In keeping with the President’s promise in his 2013 State of the Union address to prioritize early childhood education, his budget establishes a new initiative that would ensure that every four-year-old in the United States is able to attend pre-school. Although the details of how this would be paid for are a bit vague, the budget describes that the initiative “would be financed through mandatory resources and fully paid for elsewhere in the budget”. What is clear is a $750 million discretionary investment in Preschool Development Grants, intended for states that are committed to expanding access to preschool are able to make the critical investments to do so. Furthermore, the budget proposes a new $1.4 billion Early Head Start-Child Care Partnership, provides funding child care to states, child care subsidies and an expansion of voluntary home visiting.

Place-based programs. The President’s budget made some significant additions to the Administration’s place-based initiatives. Promise Neighborhoods and Choice Neighborhoods both received significant increases in their funding requests: $300 million ($240 million over FY13) and $400 million ($280 million over FY13), respectively. In addition, the budget requested $35 million for the Byrne Criminal Justice Initiative. All three of these programs contribute funds to the Building Neighborhood Capacity Program, as highlighted in CSSP’s new brief above.

Community health and safety. Following a year in which particularly violent and tragic events came to the forefront of Americans’ consciousness, the President made concrete his commitment to taking more steps to understand the etiology of violence and ways to prevent it. He requested $10 million within CDC to support research on the causes and prevention of gun violence, requested $332 million for programming related to youth violence prevention, and requested $119 million for the Second Chance Act, which serves to prevent ex-offenders from returning to incarceration.

Because the sequester went into effect last month and federal agencies have already cut back on their programs and services in response, it is of special note that President Obama replaces the sequester in his FY14 budget.  Nevertheless, key programs serving low-income families have taken a hit, so this budget proposal provides an important opportunity to emphasize how - and why - policymakers and community members should work together to maximize resources and ensure that supports for children and families are sustained.

For more on collaborating around results and results-based policy strategies, visit Policyforresults.org.

The Sequester Goes Into Effect: Bad News for Low-Income Families

Recently Congress passed a continuing resolution to fund the government through the remainder of fiscal year 2013, but unfortunately the sequester was not eliminated. Because the sequester contained $1.7 trillion over 10 years in across-the-board cuts to non-defense discretionary programs, all areas impacting children and families will be affected: education, health care, juvenile justice, child welfare and social services just to name a few.

Federal agencies have already implemented the scheduled cuts. Head Start and child care programs have cut their 2013 budgets by about 5 percent by reducing the number of children served, cutting back schedules, and making many other difficult choices. Official reports about sequestration outline a $115 million cut to the Child Care and Development Block (CCDBG) which funds child care subsidies, along with a $400 million reduction for Head Start. Estimates show that this will translate into 30,000 fewer children being served by the child care subsidy program and 70,000 fewer children being served through Head Start.

$1.7 billion in cuts over one year to four programs serving children with disabilities and their families will result in: 1,163,607 children with special health care needs would not receive care; 63,000 adults and children with disabilities and elderly individuals would lose their housing vouchers; 7,400 special education teachers, aids, and other staff serving children with disabilities will be laid off; and 75,000 persons with disabilities would lose vocational rehabilitation services for employment.

In 2012, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) released an analysis that demonstrated the consequences of the sequester for children if the cuts had gone into effect on January 2, 2013 as originally intended. Although the cuts were implemented in March, the numbers of children adversely affected will not be much lower:

• $270,790,425 less funding available for heating and cooling assistance through the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).  Nearly half of the families receiving LIHEAP assistance have at least one child.
• Title I grants (for low-performing schools) will serve 1.8 million fewer students.
• 26,949 fewer children will be served by early intervention special education grants.
• 1,133,981 fewer students will be served by grants for career and technical education.
• 51,577 fewer students will receive financial aid through the Federal Work Study program.
• 18,611 fewer youth will be served by the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), which provides training services to underemployed adults, and youth who have dropped out of high school and want to go back to school or enter the labor market.
• 4,350 fewer youth will receive education and training from Job Corps, which targets economically at-risk youth.

In light of the federal government’s final FY2013 budget, states will have important decisions to make regarding their spending for programs and services. Cutting children from the budget now will cost us later. Eliminating early education investments now would increase a child’s chances of going to prison later by up to 39 percent. And paying for that prison will cost us nearly three times more a year than it would have cost to provide him with a quality early learning experience.  Making investments in children, their families and communities, is exactly that – an investment- and not making those investments now will be costly for all of us moving forward.

For policies aimed to balance state budgets while protecting public well-being, see the Policy for Results page on Strategies for Tough Fiscal Times.

April is National Child Abuse Prevention Month

April is National Child Abuse Prevention Month – which provides us with a good opportunity to consider the role that we can all play in promoting the social and emotional well-being of children, families and the communities where they live. 

There are a number of great resources available to support efforts to prevent child abuse.  At CSSP our Protective Factors Framework is the foundation of our Strengthening Families work.  Research suggests that when these protective factors are well established in families the likelihood of child abuse and neglect diminishes.  Research also shows that these protective factors are also promotive – and serve to build family strengths and a family environment that promotes optimum child and youth development.  For policymakers, considering ways to include protective and promotive factors in policies aimed at ensuring the social and emotional well-being of children is one way to work toward sustained efforts at prevention.  Other resources available to support child and family wellbeing include:

•  The Child Welfare Information Gateway has a number of reports and tools to promote well-being and prevent child abuse.  For policymakers, these resources include a state statutes database and information on state laws aimed at preventing abuse and neglect that address protecting children from domestic violence, reporting and responding to child abuse and neglect and maintaining child abuse and neglect records.   
• The American Humane Association has a tip sheet that outlines small things you can do year-round to support the well-being of children and families.  
• Zero to Three’s Policy Center has a number of resources on what it takes to build strong families with information ranging from meeting basic needs, child welfare to paid sick-leave. 

However, while there are great resources to support prevention efforts and promote strong families, our economic and political climate, particularly in light of the recent sequestration, has created circumstances that are less than supportive of these important efforts.  As highlighted by First Focus:

Under sequestration, which took effect on March 1, 2013, federal spending on services for vulnerable children and families took a large cut. This includes:

• A $124 million cut to child welfare spending, including almost a $7.7 million cut to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment (CAPTA) programs. CAPTA funds community-based child abuse prevention programs which provide a range of services designed to strengthen families. Unfortunately, it continues to be underfunded and these community-based organizations often have to rely on charitable donations. CAPTA needs to be adequately funded in order to effectively protect vulnerable children by supporting parents experiencing job loss and financial stress.
• A $6.5 million cut to the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program. Authorized by the Affordable Care Act, it allows nurses, social workers, or other professionals to meet with at-risk families in their homes, evaluate the families’ circumstances, and connect families with the resources and supports needed to make a real difference in developing healthy-parent child relationships in high-risk families. This program needs continued investment and effective programs should be broadly replicated.

Cuts like these, as well as others to safety net programs like the Child Care Development Block Grant and the Special Supplemental Nutritional Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) put additional stress on at-risk families who are already struggling.

With these types of significant cuts happening at the federal level, it is more important than ever for state policymakers to consider their role in supporting children and families.  Whether through incorporating a protective factors framework, taking a look at what innovative strategies other states are considering or make small changes to the way you do business – everyone has a role to play to ensure that all of our children, families and communities thrive.

For policymakers April is a good time to consider the policies in place in their states aimed at supporting social and emotional well-being.  For results-based policy strategies aimed at promoting social and emotional well-being visit our policy for results section on promoting social, emotional and behavioral health or download our corresponding report.  For more resources on ensuring that children grow up in families that are safe, supportive and economically successful click here.

Dept. of Justice Takes Action Against Racial Discrimination in Schools

Youth of color are overrepresented at nearly every point of contact with the juvenile justice system, and they are more likely to be incarcerated and to serve more time than white youth. Disproportionate minority contact with the juvenile justice system has resulted in the startling fact that 1 in 3 Black boys and 1 in 6 Latino boys born in 2001 are at risk of imprisonment in their lifetime. Much of this contact with the justice system begins with inappropriate and discriminatory discipline practices in schools. This past Friday, the United States Department of Justice took action against a school district in Mississippi for violating Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, among other bases, in public schools.

The Justice Department announced that, jointly with the Meridian Public School District in Meridian, Miss., and private plaintiffs, it has filed a landmark consent decree to prevent and address racial discrimination in student discipline in district schools.  If approved by the court, the proposed consent decree will resolve the department’s investigation into complaints that the district unlawfully and disproportionately subjects black students to suspension, expulsion and school-based arrest, often for minor infractions.  In the course of the investigation, the department found that black students frequently received harsher disciplinary consequences, including longer suspensions, than white students for comparable misbehavior, even where the students were at the same school, were of similar ages, and had similar disciplinary histories. The consent decree would amend a longstanding federal school desegregation decree enforced by the United States, which prohibits the district from discriminating against students based on race.

The consent decree:

• Limits exclusionary discipline such as suspension, alternative placement and expulsion, and prohibits exclusionary discipline for minor misbehavior;
• Prohibits school officials from involving law enforcement officers to respond to behavior that can be safely and appropriately handled under school disciplinary procedures;
• Requires training for school law enforcement officers on bias-free policing, child and adolescent development and age appropriate responses, practices proven to improve school climate, mentoring and working with school administrators ;
• Revises policies at the district’s alternative school to create clear entry and exit criteria and provide appropriate supports to speed students’ transitions back to their home schools;  
• Requires enhanced due process protections in student discipline hearings;
• Expands use of a behavior and discipline management system known as positive behavior intervention and supports (PBIS) at all schools;
• Requires teachers and administrators to use developmentally appropriate tiered prevention and intervention strategies before removing students from instruction;
• Requires monitoring of discipline data to identify and respond to racial disparities;
• Requires training on all revised policies and procedures; and
• Implements measures to engage families and communities as partners in revising policies and as participants in regular school and community informational forums.

All schools should make it a priority to ensure that they are not disproportionately sending students of color to become involved with the criminal justice system, thereby damaging their track to healthy development. It is possible to ensure the safety of all students and creating an environment conducive to learning, while at the same time appropriately disciplining delinquent behavior. CSSP’s Youth Thrive initiative builds a model for the healthy development and well-being of youth by increasing protective and promotive factors while reducing risk factors.

There is a role for policymakers in this process, especially state and local officials because the juvenile justice system is administered at the state level. See the Center for the Study Policy’s section on Reducing Juvenile Detention for a number of policy recommendations for reducing racial disparities. Also, stay tuned for a new Policy for Results section on Preventing Juvenile Delinquency.

SOTU 2013: Promising Prospects for Anti-Poverty Policy

“Let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty.”

After a distinct lack of mention of poverty throughout the 2012 Presidential election campaigns—from either candidate—President Obama, in his 2013 State of the Union address, mentioned “poor” and “poverty” five times.

With clear frustration in his demeanor, Obama spoke of how unacceptable it is that wages and income have barely budged for the vast majority of Americans, while corporate profits have skyrocketed. To address this, he proposed increasing the minimum wage to $9/hour, up from the current $7.25/hour. For a family where the parent is working 40 hours a week at minimum wage, this would put an extra $280 in their pocket, money that could go towards rent, utilities, transportation, child care, or even leisure activities like going to see a movie. Furthermore, this increase in the minimum wage would be indexed to the cost of living, which would cushion the impact of inflation on the buying power of a family’s income.

President Obama’s housing plan to let families refinance at today’s interest rate and save $3,000 a year, while beneficial to many, will be especially beneficial to people of color, who were disproportionately affected by the housing crisis. Nationwide, Black and Latino families saw their wealth and assets decimated as their homes went into foreclosure.

The President spoke at length about the tremendous value of early childhood education: “Every dollar we invest in high-quality early education can save more than seven dollars later on – by boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, even reducing violent crime. In states that make it a priority to educate our youngest children, like Georgia or Oklahoma, studies show students grow up more likely to read and do math at grade level, graduate high school, hold a job, and form more stable families of their own.” We all know that children are our future, but put into economic terms there is no doubt that infusing children with services early in their lives results in a strong return on investment for the nation. Obama committed to working with states to make high-quality pre-school available to every child.

Finally, the President also mentioned reforming some of the financial penalties in our public policies that he views as dissuading some people from marriage. In addition, he put a greater emphasis on policies that encourage fathers to take responsibility for their children. Children fare better when they are raised in two-parent households, so the President’s commitment to these policies is a boost to strengthen family relationships. The President did not go into detail about specific policies to address family strengthening, but given the diversity of formations that make up American families today, including multigenerational households, children raised by relatives, and single parents, it would be helpful for policymakers to consider these realities moving forward.

Although the President spoke at length on issues that would help low-income and poor Americans, there were still key issues left unaddressed. Of critical importance is the mass incarceration of people of color, particularly Black men for non-violent crimes, which continues to have deleterious effects on whole communities, affecting men’s ability to be good fathers, gain employment, or continue their education (if they were youths).

President Obama’s State of the Union speech was significant because just uttering the words of ‘poor’ and ‘poverty’ means that federal policymakers will be more apt to address poverty in the coming months. This is of timely importance because of the imminent due dates for major budget decisions, involving the sequester, debt ceiling, a final fiscal year 2013 budget, and release of the fiscal year 2014 budget. All of these are opportunities for policymakers to protect low-income and poor Americans by not cutting the services and supports that help them to work and support their families.

For results-based policies to support children and their families – visit PolicyforResults.org.

For Working Families, Growing Difficulty in Making Ends Meet

There is beginning to be some mention of income and social inequality in mainstream discussions. While it does not come up as often as it should – when it does it is often considered provocative.  In the past month the conversation has really been heating up, topped off by President Obama’s inaugural address in which he stated America “cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it.” Media outlets are highlighting the impact of income inequality in the United States and the ways that this gap obstructs economic growth.

A new report from the Working Poor Families Project (WPFP) reveals the extent of the problem for low-income families, and how the increase in the wage gap has spread over the last few years and across the United States. Although the economy is in recovery—the unemployment rate has declined, the housing market is recovering and the stock market is bouncing back—even with employment, millions of families are still struggling to afford basic needs. With incomes at just 200% of the federal poverty level and often with no assets, working families are vulnerable to unforeseen events that could suddenly drop them into poverty (e.g. job loss, accidents, costly medical issues).

Many of the jobs to which people are returning are not the pre-Recession middle class jobs they once had, but are a mix of part-time and low wage jobs. The WPFP report states in 2011, about one-fourth of adults in low-income working families were employed in just eight occupations, as cashiers, cooks, health aids, janitors, maids, retail salespersons, waiters and waitresses, or drivers.

Key findings from the report, include:

• The number of low-income working families in the U.S. increased to 10.4 million in 2011, up from 10.2 million in 2010.
• The total number of people in low-income working families now stands at 47.5 million.
• In 2011, there were 23.4 million children in low-income working families.
• There are 10 states, spread across the U.S., where the share of working families increased by 5% or more between 2007 and 2011.
• The richest 20% of working families took home 48% of all income, while those in the bottom 20% received less than 5%.

The high cost of living for low-income working families is significant. In 2011, 61% of low-income working families had a high housing cost burden—defined as spending more than 33% of household income on housing costs such as mortgage, rent and utilities. For working families below the poverty threshold, 81% had a high housing cost burden. Other expenses they deal with on a daily basis include transportation, made more difficult with the high cost of gasoline, and child care. For families that work long hours, nights and/or weekends, child care is especially burdensome.

This data proves that even though families are taking advantage of the employment opportunities available to them, they are still unable to make ends meet. Fortunately, there is a place for federal and state policymakers to begin to turn the tide on inequality. According to the Working Poor Families Project, policymakers can take actions to strengthen job growth and job quality by supporting the following policies:

• Raising and indexing the minimum wage;
• Providing all workers access to paid sick days and family leave;
• Enforcing work rules and wage standards; and
• Ensuring that if public job creation expenditures persist, they benefit workers and their communities

Beyond policies focused on employment, policymakers can help the economic security of families by supporting policies that control household costs, build household assets, and curb household debt. For more information on those ideas, visit CSSP’s Policy for Results webpage on reducing child poverty.

Summer 2013 Internships at CSSP

The purpose of summer internships at CSSP are to provide interns with work experiences by contributing to one or more of CSSP’s areas of work; expose interns to learning opportunities regarding systems reform, public policy and community change and support interns to apply skills learned from college and graduate school to policy and practice work.

Organization Overview

For more than 30 years, the Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP), a nonpartisan Washington, D.C. nonprofit, has been working with state and federal policymakers and communities across the country. Focused on public policy, research and technical assistance, CSSP's mission is to create new ideas and promote public policies that produce equal opportunities and better futures for all children and families, especially those most often left behind. 

Using data, extensive community experience and a focus on results, CSSP’s work covers several broad areas, including promoting public policies that strengthen vulnerable families; mobilizing a national network to prevent child abuse and promote optimal development for young children; assisting tough neighborhoods with the tools needed to help parents and their children succeed; educating residents to be effective consumers securing better goods and services; reforming child welfare systems; and promoting, through all its work, an even playing field for children of all races, ethnicities and income levels.

General Information

·         Internships are unpaid, though a stipend may be available based on funding availability.

·         The application period closes February 28, 2013.

·         Decisions will be made no later than March 29, 2013.

·         Due to the high volume of applications received, only the most qualified candidates will be contacted.

PUBLIC POLICY INTERN

General Information:

·         Internships are unpaid, though a stipend may be available based on funding availability.

·         The application period closes February 28, 2013.

·         Internship areas: Public Policy

·         Decisions will be made no later than March 29, 2013.

·         Due to the high volume of applications received, only the most qualified candidates will be contacted.

CSSP seeks an intern to support its work advancing CSSP’s public policy agenda and policy projects. The public policy intern will participate as a member of a team charged with helping federal and state elected officials develop policies and funding to achieve better results for children and families; including working on PolicyforResults.org, a leading national resource for result-based policy and funding strategies. The position offers the opportunity to explore a wide range of policy issues, including child welfare, poverty, health and education, as well as other social and economic policy issues. The intern selected will have the chance to sharpen their research and writing skills while working with a dedicated and rigorous staff. He or she will also have an opportunity to learn about the public policy process by attending internal strategy meetings, hearings on Capitol Hill and meetings with partner organizations. The position will also require assistance with research, writing and PolicyforResults.org content development and updates. Click here for more information on CSSP’s public policy work. Click here to learn about other available internship opportunities at CSSP. 

All applicants must:

·         Currently be pursuing a graduate degree in public policy, social policy or a related field, or pursuing an undergraduate degree with experience in public policy development and analysis

·         Have a demonstrated commitment to the mission and values of CSSP

·         Possess very strong analytical skills

·         Possess strong research and writing skills

·         Work well autonomously and as a member of a team

·         Understand public policy at the state and federal level

Specific duties may include:

·         Conducting policy research

·         Assisting in the preparation of reports

·         Conducting social media activities (blog, Facebook, Twitter)

How to Apply: Interested applicants should submit a cover letter, resume and writing sample to: The Center for the Study of Social Policy c/o Megan Martin 1575 Eye Street NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 megan.martin@cssp.org with the subject line “Public Policy Intern”.

What the Fiscal Cliff Could Mean for Families

As a result of the Recession, millions of people lost jobs and the poverty rate in the United States rose sharply. People who had been living comfortably were laid off and suddenly became impoverished, and those who were already struggling to make ends meet saw resources becoming even more scarce. While the country continues to slowly recover from the recession, the level of families in need continues to exceed the supports available to meet those needs through the safety-net.  Even for those who qualify for housing vouchers, waiting lists can be years long, as is the case in Washington, DC., where the average wait for a two-bedroom apartment is at least 22 years; children in some households become adults by the time they come off the waiting list, and many families never receive housing support at all. Adding to the burden, food stamps are hardly sufficient to cover the actual cost of meals, especially in urban areas where the cost of living is high. The average benefit amount an individual receives with food stamps is $4.46 a day, but in Washington D.C. an individual’s average total food cost for the day is $10.23.

However, as we’ve mentioned in previous posts, programs for low-income individuals are not just money taken from the government, but money put back in to the economy: food stamps provide states with more revenue and create jobs, and the Earned Income Tax Credit encourages work and is largely lauded as the most successful anti-poverty program.

In addition, health programs such as Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program are valuable because their coverage of screening and other prevention services reduce the likelihood that people will develop more debilitating and costly health problems in the future—chronic diseases and illnesses that cost the United States billions of dollars each year in missed days at work and lost productivity.

In the current negotiations in Congress on how to prevent the “fiscal cliff”, it is vital that one of the principles in developing solutions be: they cannot increase poverty or income inequality. In order to preserve programs for poor and low-income families, a good balance between revenue increases and spending cuts will be necessary. Unfortunately, entitlement and other programs for low-income people are often an easy target for cuts. Although cutting entitlements may save money in the immediate future, the consequences to families and the long-term consequences to the economy will be much more costly.

There is bipartisan agreement that a total of $4 trillion in deficit reduction is needed to stabilize the debt. $1.7 trillion in savings has already been achieved, through cuts to defense and non-defense discretionary spending enacted by the Budget Control Act. Therefore, Congress now needs to decide where to find an additional $2 trillion in savings.

Important decisions to be made during this lame duck session include:

• The size and ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases
• How to cancel and replace the sequester
• What to do about tax cuts
• What the downpayment on deficit reduction will include.
• Considerations over lowering caps on non-defense discretionary spending, as established under the Budget Control Act
• How to control spending in Medicare and Medicaid
• Determinations of revenue requirements

Preserving programs for low-income individuals is a good investment—for building human capital in terms of health, training and education, for creating pathways to employment, and for reducing poverty and strengthening the middle class.

For more information on the ways that investing in families can be sound fiscal choices for states visit the Policymakers’ Corner or the Policy for Results website.

How Asset Tests Hinder the Goals of Safety Net Programs

It is common knowledge that the way to economic self-sufficiency involves having a bank account and saving your money—not only so that you can eventually buy a house or fund your children’s education, but also to have an emergency fund (enough money to cover living expenses for three months) in case of job loss, health emergencies or other unexpected costs. It is also how people get out of debt and can start building wealth.

This value, saving, is reflected in many states’ economic programs for people enrolled in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Parenting skills classes and job readiness trainings teach the importance of having a bank account and saving money. However, this value is not always reflected in states’ policy regarding eligibility for TANF. Furthermore, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) also has asset tests, which can be different from those for TANF, adding another layer of complexity and inconsistency.

Not only do asset tests counter one of the major goals of the TANF program, it also creates extra work for state administrators and increases the chances for payment errors. There is no federal mandate for states to adopt asset tests, but of the ones that do, they vary widely in which types of resources count toward their asset limits. These resources may include bank statements, car titles, insurance policies and other relevant documents. In some cases, applicants can self-report their assets; in others, a caseworker must verify the assets based on the submitted documents.

 A new report from the New America Foundation, State Asset Limit Reforms and Implications for Federal Policy, describes how some states have reformed their policy on asset limits in their SNAP and TANF programs. Motivated by increasing program costs, threats to program integrity, and the recognition that asset tests are a barrier to long-term self-sufficiency, many states have eliminated asset tests for TANF and/or SNAP. For example, Colorado estimated that eliminating its TANF asset test would result in additional benefits for 44 families, at a cost of $123,000. However, these costs would be offset by greater administrative efficiency; eliminating the asset test would save caseworkers 10 to 15 minutes per “case interaction”, or up to 90 minute for the five or six interactions that typically occur between a client and a caseworker in the first 45 days. The successful policy reforms in Colorado and other states can serve as a useful model for other policymakers who are considering similar changes.

While asset tests were instituted to ensure that assistance is given to the families who need it the most, research has shown that once asset tests are eliminated, program enrollment did not increase significantly. This is due in part to the fact that families that seek assistance and meet the low income requirements are generally asset poor. In addition, the money that states saved in reduced administrative costs more than made up for the slight uptick in enrollment.  

States benefited from eliminating their asset tests in several key ways:

•      Caseworkers had more time and attention for other case management duties
•        Greater administrative efficiency resulted in cost savings
•        Greater streamlining simplified the process for both families and the agency

Asset tests are an example of a policy that while likely created with good intentions, has had serious unintended consequences for families’ efforts to attain financial success. This policy exemplifies the significance of considering the unintended impact of policy on families and highlights the importance of policymaking with a results focus (ensuring that policy is well aligned with intended outcomes). Eliminating asset tests is an important policy reform that policymakers should consider as a step towards encouraging families on public assistance to move towards financial self-sufficiency.

To learn more about connecting policy to results visit PolicyforResults.org. 

Utilizing Technology to Expand Access to Safety Net Services

Yesterday the Coalition for Access and Opportunity, of which CSSP is a member, held a briefing titled “Removing Red Tape: New Strategies for Strengthening the Safety Net” in which a panel described the actions state and local governments are taking to make their safety net programs more effective and efficient. These programs include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the Child Care and Development Block Grant, and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

In the traditional human services paradigm, consumers receive services by walking into a human service organization, meeting in person with a case worker, and either supply the caseworker with their completed forms and supporting documentation, or receive assistance from the case worker in filling them out. The case worker then determines if the consumer is eligible for the benefit. The advantage to this traditional method is that consumers receive individualized support. On the other hand, consumers have to visit multiple agencies to apply for a comprehensive package of services, they often have to wait in long lines, and they are burdened with having to take time off of work, which is risky to their employment status and earnings. In addition, this process leads to heavy administrative costs to the agency.

To address these problems, many states have utilized the Internet and sophisticated software systems and databases to simplify the way consumers access safety net services. In May the Coalition for Access and Opportunity, released a report titled “Moving to 21^st-Century Public Benefits: Emerging Options, Great Promise, and Key Challenges” which examines promising practices across states to propose a new model for modernizing the public safety net to make it easier and less burdensome for families to receive benefits. Its recommendations include changing eligibility rules and procedures to allow for more streamlined enrollment into programs and for retaining eligible individuals for longer.

These eligibility rules changes include—

• Using other programs’ findings to “deem” consumers eligible for assistance without asking one agency to replicate or revise the work already done by a different agency.
• Basing eligibility on prior-year income tax records;
• Providing continuous eligibility by disregarding short-term income fluctuations; and
• Eliminating eligibility requirements that cannot be documented based on data matches. For example, consumers could opt for standardized rather than itemized deductions or disregards, and asset tests could be eliminated for some or all consumers. 

The modernized eligibility procedures include—

• Using data matches, rather than consumer provision of information, to complete application forms and establish eligibility;
• Using electronic case records or data warehouses to serve multiple programs, so that information or documentation already received by one office can be used by others;
• “No wrong door” policies so that data received by one agency is forwarded to other agencies. This would minimize the number of agencies consumers have to physically enter, just to give the same information that they provided to other offices.
• Streamlining renewal by automatically granting continued eligibility based on data matches and by letting families provide missing information over the phone and online; and
• Default enrollment strategies that provide eligible consumers with assistance unless they affirmatively “opt out”.

The success of these policy changes will be determined by how closely policymakers pay attention to the details of their implementation and balance their priorities of saving administrative costs with increasing access to consumers.  Some areas that may require attention include:

• Increased reliance on data must be met with strong security provisions to protect consumers’ privacy.
• Shaping eligibility rules to fit available data means they might disregard factors such as housing costs or asset values, which are factors that could help focus assistance on the people with the greatest need.
• Reforms that address multiple programs need to be carefully structured so that they do not import more restrictive rules into programs that are less restrictive.
• The use of Internet- and telephone-based enrollment pathways must not completely replace the traditional in-person model.  Many low-income people have not filed federal income tax returns and may lack a data trail showing eligibility. Some people may not know how to use the technology or lack the language or literacy skills needed for online applications. Still others may not have access to computers, which is especially a concern for rural and frontier locales. 

Utilizing technology has in some cases led to a dramatic increase in enrollment among those who are eligible, which suggests that the change was successful and merits the consideration of program modernization in other states. However, in the excitement to take advantage of technology to streamline enrollment and minimize administrative costs, it will be important for policymakers to do a thorough assessment of the needs of the low-income populations in their state or district. It is critical that in an effort to better serve low-income families that states do not implement policy and programs that may lead to some consumers falling through the cracks.  Considering the usability and accessibility of technology by different sub-populations is a critical aspect of ensuring that streamlining access leads to the best outcomes for poor and low-income families.