Policy & Practice June 2015

federal expenditures. In 2012 the Congressional Budget Office con- ducted a study of federal means-tested programs and identified “83 overlap- ping federal welfare programs that together represented the single largest budget item in 2011—more than the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. The total amount spent on these 80-plus federal welfare programs amounts to roughly $1.03 trillion.” 6 In today’s Congress, the leadership of the relevant committees recognizes

addition, it made far-reaching changes to child care, the Child Support Enforcement Program, benefits for legal immigrants, Supplemental Security Income for children, and modified the child nutrition program, as well as reducing the Social Services Block Grant. Much of today’s discussion about PRWORA involves an assessment of whether or not it was “successful.” According to the House Budget Committee’s 1996 report explaining the provisions of the bill: 5

including by developing innovative efforts to improve cooperation between and the performance of TANF, child care, social services and multiple other benefit programs. As part of this process, ensure that programs are rigorously evaluated and held accountable for achieving mea- surable performance goals, including substantive work and activity require- ments for adult recipients, such as the TANF program has applied since 1996 reforms. Also review opportunities to prevent duplication, overlap, and fragmentation, in order to improve

There are signs within Congress that progress toward understanding the need for a delivery system that can better respond to local conditions and demands is taking hold. While giving states more flexibility is not a panacea for what reforms are needed, it is an important and necessary step in the right direction.

that problems exist within the human service system. In both the House and Senate, concurrent budget resolutions are references to the need for some reform measures. As far as reforming human service programs, the House Ways and Means Committee plans seem focused for now on some over- sight hearings, with one exception. For the committee, repealing the Social Services Block Grant remains a high priority. According to the committee: The Social Services Block Grant is an annual payment sent to States without a matching requirement to help achieve a range of social goals, including child care, health services, and employment services. Most of these are also funded by other Federal programs. States are given wide discretion to determine how to spend this money and are not required to demonstrate the outcomes of this spending, so there is no evidence of its effectiveness. 7 The Ways and Means Committee gave further evidence of their “welfare reform” agenda in releasing their over- sight hearing plans for 2016: Welfare Reform. Review proposals designed to better assist low-income families in increasing their work and earnings so they can escape poverty,

the overall effectiveness of efforts to serve low-income individuals. Examine associated barriers to increasing self-suf- ficiency among low-income families with children, and how changes may better address the needs of adult beneficiaries who face barriers to employment. 8 The situation in the Senate is not much different. According to the Senate budget resolution, the Finance Committee’s major interest for this year is “replacing ineffective policies and programs with evidence-based alternative that improves the welfare of vulnerable children.” Because both the House and Senate budget resolutions are designed to balance the federal budget in 9 or 10 years, significant reductions in both discretionary and mandatory funding are envisioned. Both the Ways and Means Committee and the Finance Committee are being asked to reduce the spending in programs they have jurisdiction over by $1 billion in FY 2016. 9 As has been the practice in recent years, welfare reform debates in Congress are focused mainly on reducing spending, ensuring com- pliance on the use of funds, and on requiring people who receive benefits to work if they are able. There is also discussion of the need for evidence- based programs and services, but some

The reform proposal (PRWORA) saves families by promoting work, discour- aging illegitimacy, and strengthening child support enforcement. It converts welfare into a helping hand, rather than a handout, by limiting lifetime welfare benefits. It halts payments to people who should not be on welfare. It grants maximum State flexibility to show true compassion by helping those in need achieve the freedom of self-reliance. Since the law’s implementation, lawmakers and advocates have argued about the success of its provisions. Some point to the fact that today— nearly 20 years later—one out of seven people in America are living in poverty and, therefore, the goals of PRWORA were never accomplished. This viewpoint fails to recognize that the delivery of social services will never (and could never) fully meet every need of every low-income or under- privileged individual or family. The mere fact that there are unmet needs is not sufficient justification for advo- cating that reforms to existing welfare programs are necessary. Others will argue that the federal government continues to have too many means-tested programs and that, as a result, there is far too much duplication, inefficiency, and abuse resulting in unnecessarily high

6

Policy&Practice   June 2015