Child&youthpolicyanalysisparentengagementandtanf

children & youth

public policy analysis Barriers to TANF parent participation in education Introduction

moving people from welfare to self-sufficiency, and a comparison of research on barriers to DC TANF data. The purpose of this analysis is to inform those interested in increasing parental involvement in their children’s education about why punitive actions such as this will not achieve the desired outcome. By addressing the challenges confronting welfare recipients, including their own bad experiences with school, parents will become more engaged with their children’s learning.

There is great interest in the issue of parent engagement in their children's education in the District of Columbia. This interest is well founded. Research shows that benefits accrue to children, families and the education system when parents are involved in their children’s education. The lack of parent participation has created frustration on the part of some residents and elected officials which has, in turn, resulted in the call for aggressive action. The most recent example of such an action was by At-large Councilmember Kwame Brown in Bill 17-1035, “Parental Involvement In Children’s Education School Participation Act of 2008." This bill would legislate the behavior of parents who receive welfare benefits -- and only those parents. Under the law, parents would be required to attend all PTA and parent-teacher meetings. This legislation and that which was previously introduced by Councilmember Barry related to drug testing TANF recipients are contrary to the underpinnings of the District’s welfare law, regulations and policies. The District's public policy approach to income support is one that seeks to reduce reliance on public benefits by offering a range of supportive services.

Brief history of TANF In 1996 the Congress passed and President Clinton signed the historic welfare reform legislation, “The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.” (PRWORA; P.L. 104193). PRWORA replaced Aid to Families with

The four purposes of the 1996 welfare reform legislation 1. provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; 2. end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; 3. prevent and reduce the incidence of outof-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and 4 encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.1

Many oppose this punitive approach and are calling for the development of an engagement plan that takes into account personal and system barriers. This approach is entirely consistent with the public policy approach taken regarding the District's welfare program Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) as well as with the "Guiding Principles for Legislation or Regulations that Impact TANF Households" prepared by the DC Women's Agenda. What follows is a brief summary of welfare reform in the District of Columbia, persistent challenges to 1

children & youth public policy analysis: Barriers to TANF parent participation in education Dependent Children (AFDC) with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). One of the prevailing themes of the welfare reform debate – nationally and in states across the country – was to ensure families were self-sufficient. TANF was deemed the public policy framework that would help that happen. As a result, parents on TANF are subject to strict work requirements – 20 hours per week for families with children under the age of 6 and 30 hours per week for families with children ages 6 and older. Failure to comply with these requirements subjects a family to a reduction in their TANF benefit. Parents are also supposed to comply with these work requirements and work towards self-sufficiency on a grant that only brings them up to 29 percent of the poverty level – leaving little money for anything but basic needs. The District of Columbia endured a lengthy debate about the implementation of the federal welfare reform legislation, which, by design, provided great flexibility to states (and the District) to implement a program designed to meet the four purposes. The Income Maintenance Administration (IMA) in the Department of Human Services took the lead on the development of the District's approach, seeking guidance from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and input from national organizations. Since the District adopted welfare reform legislation in March 1997, the city has implemented what can best be described as a moderate approach to TANF. The District's approach is in stark contrast to states which embraced a punitive approach including full family sanctions and limited access to supportive services. Advocates and providers in the District, long engaged in “safety net” issues (welfare, Medicaid, etc.), worked extensively with IMA to institute a range of policies designed to support and not penalize families. For example, the District opted to continue to support families who had received welfare for longer than five years. The District has also chosen to not impose full family sanctions. Such sanctions, which have been implemented by other states, have been described as severe3 and farreaching: Although time limits may receive more attention in the media, many more families have been directly affected by sanctions, and sanctions have arguably played a greater role in reshaping welfare recipients’ day-to-day experiences.4

Challenges faced by welfare recipients in the District The Income Maintenance Administration contracted with Urban Institute to conduct research on the District's TANF population. “A Study of the District of Columbia’s TANF Caseload” confirms what many advocates and providers knew from experience – that TANF recipients confront individual, family and system challenges that make work difficult and selfsufficiency a far-off and for others dream. The related findings were:

2

t

he primary goal of TANF is to reduce poverty through work, work that moves families above the poverty level. Public policy decisions must be evaluated for their ability to help the state achieve this goal.2

children & youth public policy analysis: Barriers to TANF parent participation in education • DC TANF recipients face skill-based, personal, family, and logistical challenges that make it hard for them to work. • The majority of TANF recipients face multiple barriers to work. • Some barriers are more common among nonworkers than among workers.5 These findings were consistent with a prior Urban Institute study “The Status of TANF Leavers in the District of Columbia.” Some of the major findings of this 2001 report were: • Between June 1997 and December 1999, DC’s cash assistance caseload fell by 23.8 percent, to 18,028 families. This decline is smaller than the 36.9 percent drop nationwide; however, caseload declines in urban areas, in general, lagged behind the national average. In addition, it is important to note that DC did not adopt some of the policies used in other states to reduce its caseload, such as eliminating all cash benefits to families in which the head fails to comply with program requirements. • Families leaving TANF in DC were typical of DC’s entire caseload in most respects; however, leavers were slightly less likely to have larger families and to have children under age 6 than the typical TANF recipient.

• While only 31.7 percent of employed leavers had health insurance through their jobs, 40.7 percent were covered by Medicaid. Overall, 21.6 percent of employed adult leavers (the head of the TANF unit) and 19.3 percent of their children were uninsured. • Among jobless leavers, 23.6 percent reported they could not afford child care at some time after leaving TANF and one in eight said lack of child care is a major reason for not working. • Jobless leavers generally relied on public assistance to get by. More than four out of five leavers received some support from TANF, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and/or the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program at some time after leaving TANF and about three-quarters received some assistance in the month prior to the survey. • When asked about specific experiences of hardship, such as difficulties paying rent or having utilities cut off or having to skip or reduce the size of meals, working and jobless leavers reported similar levels of difficulty. In addition, there was little difference in the reported incidence of hardships before and after exiting TANF.6

Examples of challenges that make it hard for TANF recipients to work The prevalence of the 15 barriers to work identified by Urban vary greatly, from three percent having a substance abuse problem to 38 percent without a high school diploma or GED. Detailed findings are: Skill challenges: • Less than high school/GED (37.9 percent) • Low work experiences (27.1 percent) • Performed 3 or fewer common job tasks (26.4 percent) Personal challenges: • Physical health problem (16.0 percent) • Mental health problem (20.9 percent) • Chemical dependence (3.1 percent) • Severe domestic violence in past year (14.6 percent) • Possible presence of learning disability (8.6 percent) • Criminal record (6.9 percent) Family and logistical challenges: • Caring for child with health or behavioral problems (25.7 percent) • Caring for sick family member other than child (10.7 percent) • Pregnant or have child under age 1 (19.3 percent) • Transportation problem (19.4 percent) • Child care problems (41.6 percent) • Unstable housing (12.6 percent)7

3

children & youth public policy analysis: Barriers to TANF parent participation in education Many of the issues identified by Urban are still in play today, late 2008. This is in large part the result of school reform promises unfulfilled. For years, from one superintendent to the next, education quality has lagged well behind national standards. Certainly, there is hope with the reforms under Mayor Fenty. Absent significant improvements in the K-12 system, the District will continue to foster an environment where success is not possible for many, perpetuating intergenerational poverty and welfare reliance. Because of these challenges, IMA knew that a strict “work first” program would not succeed; providing quality services and supports were essential for success. The District's progressive TANF program, for example, offers rehabilitative and drug treatment services to those on the welfare caseload and exemptions from the work requirements for those in domestic violence situations. The purpose of these policy decisions was to direct job training resources to those best able to utilize them and at the same time to understand and assist those who required very specific kinds of help in order to become self-sufficient.

What we know about parental involvement in their children’s education Much research has been done as to the value of parental involvement in their children’s education and the barriers to such involvement. The National Center for Education Statistics, for example, reported • Parent attendance at school-sponsored events varied by geographic region, poverty concentration, and minority enrollment in the school. For example, while 72 percent of schools with a low concentration of poverty reported that “most or all” parents attended the school open house, 28 percent of schools with a high poverty concentration reported such high parent attendance. Similar differences were found on this variable when schools with low minority enrollments were compared to those

with high minority enrollments (63 versus 30 percent). • Given a list of concerns that might impede parent involvement in schools, the barrier named by the highest percentage of schools was lack of time on the part of parents (87 percent). Lack of time on the part of school staff created barriers for 56 percent of schools, and • 48 percent indicated that lack of staff training in working with parents was a significant barrier. Lack of parent education to help with schoolwork, cultural/ socioeconomic and language differences between parents and staff, parent and staff attitudes, and safety in the area after school hours were considered barriers in a higher percentage of schools with poverty concentrations and minority enrollments of 50 percent or more than in schools low on these characteristics.8 This research is supported by many other studies. In short, there are many reasons that parents are unable to participate fully in their children’s education. This legislation will not overcome any of these barriers – it will just punish children, thus undermining the legislation’s stated goals.

Recommendations Increasing parent engagement in their children's education is a worthy public policy goal. However, a punitive approach is not only bad public policy but is one that has far-reaching negative implications for children and families. A better, more productive approach is one that 1) conforms to the principles set forth by the DC Women's Agenda (see page 5) and 2) that is informed by research and experiences with behavior change initiatives. To achieve the public policy goal, it is recommended that: • the District treat all households in the same manner. • the District use encouragement and not penalties to increase parent engagement.

4

children & youth public policy analysis: Barriers to TANF parent participation in education

Guiding Principles for Legislation or Regulations that Impact TANF Households During the 17th legislative period, DC Council members introduced two pieces of legislation that would have imposed onerous requirements on TANF households as a prerequisite to continued receipt of TANF assistance. Both pieces of legislation singled out TANF households without an adequate basis for such discrimination, failed to investigate best practices from other states, were inconsistent with the goals of TANF grant implementation in the District, and would have harmed children and families at a great cost to the District. The goals of the TANF program in the District are two-fold: 1) to support and assist families in ending reliance on public benefits through the promotion of job preparation and work leading to self sufficiency; and 2) to provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives. In order to ensure consistency with the District’s historically progressive approach to the TANF program and these two stated goals of the program, the following principals should guide the District’s creation of any new TANF legislation or regulations. I. EQUAL TREATMENT FOR TANF HOUSEHOLDS 1. Any legislation imposing requirements on TANF households should have the same requirements for non-TANF households. For example, legislation designed to encourage school involvement by DCPS parents should not ignore non-TANF households. II. PROVEN RESULTS 1. Any legislation that proposes to place additional requirements on TANF households should be supported by data showing a need for such a requirement. 2. Any legislation resulting in additional requirements for TANF households should be based on best practices/successful programs from other states demonstrating that the additional requirement resulted in the desired outcome. 3. Any legislation that proposes to place additional requirements on TANF households should be piloted to determine its effectiveness is achieving the desired goals. III. ENCOURAGEMENT NOT PENALTIES 1. Given that TANF is the most minimal safety net for the District’s lowest income families, any legislation that attempts to encourage TANF households to achieve certain goals – such as remaining drug-free or participating in their children’s educations – should not be punitive in nature. Rather, it should provide assistance for overcoming barriers to compliance. For example, additional funding for childcare or transportation expenses would enable TANF households to participate in more school activities. Additional funding for literacy and drug treatment programs will enable TANF households to get off the waiting lists and into these important programs. 2. Carrots work better than sticks and do not cause deprivation to children. The District should encourage desired behaviors by offering incentives rather than penalties. For example, New York City offers households additional benefits if they participate in their children’s education.9

5

children & youth public policy analysis: Barriers to TANF parent participation in education • OSSE, DC Public Schools, the DC Public Charter School Board, and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education identify the barriers to parent engagement. • school leaders develop programs/interventions/ strategies grounded in the research. For example, 1) take into consideration the cultural, social, socioeconomic interests and backgrounds of families. 2) use voluntarism as a way to involve and engage parents and help parents build skills. 3) create a welcoming environment in schools in which parents are a central player and not viewed as a nuisance. 4) be inclusive of friends and the extended family. 5) be supportive rather than punitive regarding participation. The vast majority of examples of effective engagement strategies use carrots and not sticks. 6) match strategies to barriers and other challenges to parental participation. • OSSE develop an evaluation framework and manage the evaluation of school parent engagement strategies. • schools and OSSE use outreach efforts which have been shown to be effective. A local example is outreach done for DC Healthy Families, the CHIP expansion program. (See page 7 for more information.)

that struggle every day to feed their kids, attend required work or training opportunities, and the like. We also know that welfare recipients face many barriers as they struggle to support their children – TANF grants that put them at 28 percent of the poverty level, high incidences of physical and mental disabilities, and high incidences of domestic violence. On top of that, recipients are subject to work requirements that if not complied with can result in a reduction of their TANF benefits. Punitive legislation will be ineffective because it is requires individuals and families who are operating at the Physiological level on Maslow's hierarchy of human needs to function at the two top levels, Esteem and Self-actualization. In other words, parents who are struggling to meet their basic needs have great difficulty complying with additional requirements. Punishment is not sufficient to get parents to move between the levels for a sustained period of time.. All that will happen is that children on TANF will suffer even more at the loss of income due to innocent or purposeful non-compliance by their parents or administrative errors. In order to achieve the goal of increased parent engagement in their children's education, city leaders would best serve the community by developing a parental involvement proposal based in best practices and consistent with the District’s public policy approach to welfare.

Conclusion The fact is this: We know there is value in parents' interest in their kids’ education. It can reduce or prevent truancy. It can help with literacy. It can result in better long-term outlooks. But we also know that many parents in DC, and particularly parents who receive welfare,

6

children & youth public policy analysis: Barriers to TANF parent participation in education

Applying lessons from the District's health care access intiatives to increasing parent engagement The District's approach to health insurance/coverage programs for children, families and those not eligible for Medicaid can only be described as extraordinarily progressive. With DC Healthy Families and the DC HealthCare Alliance, the District led the nation in implementing never before seen access to health insurance and health care with funding from the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP; CHIP) and the commitment of Local funds. Both programs offer services to those with incomes up to 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). To enroll the thousands of qualified residents, the government and nonprofit organizations did two things. First, the Income Maintenance Administration (IMA) in the Department of Human Services took a “Medicaid first” stance -- all who sought services from IMA were offered Medicaid if they did not have health insurance. It did not matter that health care was not their reason for visiting IMA. Second, IMA and community-based organizations pulled out the stops regarding outreach. A range of activities were used, some broad and general, others population specific. The result was that enrollment skyrocketed and more residents than ever before had access to health care. This aggressive approach to enrolling residents in health insurance/coverage programs was required. Research has shown that accessing regular health care by low-income Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs individuals and families occurs less than for those higher on the economic ladder. One obvious reason is the lack of health insurance. But even for those with SELFACTUALIZATION health coverage, barriers to regular, (autonomy and preventive access is less than for those achievement) with higher incomes. Beyond that, however, is the very real psychological EGO barrier to enrolling in health care and (self-esteem, power) using doctors to prevent illness. This is illustrated below in the depiction of Maslow's "hierarchy of human needs." What psychologist Maslow argued was SOCIAL (being loved, belonging) that individuals only moved from one level to the next when needs were fulfilled. So, the very basic needs -SECURITY shelter and food, for example -- come (safety, shelter) before regular health care. More important to the issue at hand is that parent engagement -- which requires balancing work, home and family -- are at the top level.

PHYSICAL (food, water, freedom from disease and disability)

7

children & youth public policy analysis: Barriers to TANF parent participation in education

Endnotes Sheri Steisel, No Date, "TANF Checklist for State Legislators", on-line at http://www.ncsl.org/statefed/ chklist1.htm, downloaded December 22, 2008. 1

Paraphrased from Celia Hagert, March 28, 2007, “The Negative Impact of Full-family Sanctions on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program in Texas” submitted to Subcommittee #1 on Health & Human Services, California Assembly Budget Committee, on-line at http://www.cppp.org/ research.php?aid=647, downloaded December 18, 2008. 2

Dan Bloom, Don Winstead, January 2002, Sanctions and Welfare Reform, on-line at http:// www.mdrc.org/publications/191/policybrief.html, downloaded December 18, 2008. 3

4

Ibid.

Gregory Acs, Pamela J. Loprest, September 1, 2003, "A Study of the District of Columbia's TANF Caseload", p. 3, on-line at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410863&renderforprint=1, downloaded December 18, 2008.

5

Gregory Acs, Pamela J. Loprest, January 3, 2001, "The Status of TANF Leavers in the District of Columbia, Final Report", pp. 2, 3, on-line at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410022&renderforprint=1, downloaded December 18, 2008. 6

Gregory Acs, Pamela J. Loprest, September 1, 2003, "A Study of the District of Columbia's TANF Caseload", p. 4, on-line at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410863&renderforprint=1, downloaded December 18, 2008. 7

National Center for Education Statistics, February 1998, "Parent Involvement in Children's Education: Efforts by Public Elementary Schools," on-line at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/frss/publications/98032/, downloaded December 18, 2008. 8

DC Women's Agenda, No Date, "Guiding Principles for Legislation or Regulations that Impact TANF Households". 9

Jennifer Mezey from the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia assisted with this publication; she edited and made substantive contributions. Her knowledge of TANF and the history of welfare reform in the District are invaluable to this analysis.

Prepared by Susie Cambria, MSW, Public Policy Consultant Contact information: (301) 832-2339 cell, [email protected] Publication Date: December 22, 2008 8