Social Services T

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

INDEX AND FILE NOTES VIOLATION –TITLE XX: NO UNCONDITIONAL ASSISTANCE OR WELFARE: A. THE LAW 1. TITLE XX LEGISLATIVE HISTORY MEANS THAT SOCIAL SERVICES MUST REDUCE WELFARE DEPENDENCY

STEWART 78 SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, WRITING FOR A UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT MAJORITY QUERN, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AID OF ILLINOIS, ET AL. v. MANDLEY ET AL. No. 76-1159 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 436 U.S. 725; 98 S. Ct. 2068; 56 L. Ed. 2d 658; 1978 U.S. LEXIS 101 And the declared purpose of the new Title XX social services program enacted in 1975, 42 U. S. C. § 1397 et seq. (1970 ed., Supp. V), was to "[encourage] each State, as far as practicable under the conditions in that State, to furnish services directed at the goal of . . . achieving or maintaining economic self-support to prevent, reduce, or eliminate dependency. . . ." 2. ELIMINATING DEPENDENCY IS HISTORICALLY THE CLEAREST DEFINING FEATURE OF SOCIAL SERVICE

BLEDSOE ET AL 72 Productivity Management in the California Social Services Program # Ralph C. Bledsoe, Dennis R. Denny, Charles D. Hobbs and Raymond S. Long # Public Administration Review, Vol. 32, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 1972), pp. 799-803 Dr. Bledsoe earned his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in public administration from the University of Southern California. He received his B.A. degree from Texas A. & M. College.

Dr. Bledsoe previously served as a manager and executive with the System Development Corp., a faculty member and program director with the University of Southern California School of Public Administration, a professor of Federal management at the Federal Executive Institute, and a member of the Federal Government's Senior Executive Service.

1

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

B. VIOLATION – THE AFFIRMATIVE UNCONDITIONALLY GIVES ASSISTANCE WITHOUT TYING IT TO SELF-SUFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS

2

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

C. IMPACTS – VOTE NEGATIVE 1. PRECISION: SOCIAL SERVICES IS LEGISLATIVE TERM OF ART THAT REQUIRES UNIFORMITY UNDER TITLE XX

STATE OF MICHIGAN TITLE XX SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT PLAN, 8 http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dhs/DHS-SSBG-FY08-09_250475_7.pdf STATE OF MICHIGAN, Department of Human Services, Administration for Budget, Analysis and Financial Management Section 2006 of Title XX of the Social Security Act directs the Secretary to establish uniform definitions of services for use by the states in preparing the information to be submitted in the annual Social Services Block Grant report. These services are defined in title 45, part 96, appendix A of the code of federal regulations and are reflected in the state of Michigan's Title XX Social Services Block Grant Report. 2. ONLY OUR INTERP SOLVES LIMITS - THE COMMON USE OF SOCIAL SERVICES CAN COVER ANYTHING

PARHAM 82 Practice Issues in Social Welfare Administration, Policy and Planning, ED LEBOVITZ editor, google books Mr. Parham retired in 1994 as professsor of social welfare at the University of Georgia.

3

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

4

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

3. WE’RE BROAD ENOUGH – THE STATUTORY LIMIT OF TITLE XX FUNDING INCLUDES THOUSANDS OF PROGRAMS. IT’S THE ONLY WAY TO FIX MEANING ON THE TERM OF ART

Salomon 94

Who Benefits from the Nonprofit Sector? By Charles T. Clotfelter Google books, p. 135-6

Dr. Salamon is a leading expert on alternative tools of government action and on the nonprofit sector in the U.S. and around the world. He has served as deputy associate director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget and has taught at Harvard, Vanderbilt, and Duke Universities and at Tougaloo College in Mississippi. He holds a Ph.D. in government from Harvard University and a B.A. in economics and policy studies from Princeton University. He has written or edited over 20 books; his articles have appeared in Foreign Affairs, the New York Times, Voluntas, and numerous other publications. His most recent books include: The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance (Oxford University Press, 2002); The State of Nonprofit America (Brookings Institution Press, 2003); and Global Civil Society: Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector, Volume II (Kumarian Press, 2004).

5

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

VIOLATION: TITLE XX: GENERAL LIMIT A. TITLE XX DEFINES SOCIAL SERVICES

INDIANA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 02 http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/T04700/A00130.PDF. "Social services" means services purchased using Federal Social Services Block Grant Act funds and state and local funds THIS IS THE MOST UNIFORM FEDERAL DEFINITION HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WAY AND MEANS GREEN BOOK, 00 http://www.policyalmanac.org/social_welfare/archive/ssbg.shtml In the past, limited information has been available on the use of title XX funds by the States. Under the Title XX Social Services Block Grant Program, each State must submit a report to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) on the intended use of its funds. These preexpenditure reports are only required to include information about the types of activities to be funded and the characteristics of the individuals to be served. The Family Support Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-485) strengthened reporting requirements. That legislation required States to submit annual reports containing detailed information on the services actually funded and the individuals served through title XX funds. DHHS published a final rule on November 15, 1993 implementing the reporting requirements and providing uniform

definitions of services.

B. VIOLATION – THE AFF PROGRAM ISN’T FUNDED BY TITLE XX AND IT DOESN’T ADDRESS ONE OF THE FIVE GOALS. THIS IS A SPECIFIC STATUTORY LIMIT

STATE OF MICHIGAN FAMILY INDEPENDNECE AGENCY 00 http://www.michigan.gov/documents/FIA-RptBlockGrant01_13607_7.pdf. STATE OF MICHIGAN, FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY Administration for Budget, Analysis and Financial Management August, 2000 Social Services are directed at five goals in the Social Services Block Grant statute to: Prevent, reduce or eliminate dependency; achieve or maintain selfsufficiency; prevent neglect, abuse or exploitation of children and adults; prevent or reduce inappropriate care; and secure admission or referral for institutional care when other forms of care are not appropriate. Within the specific limitations of the law, each state has the flexibility to determine what services will be provided, who is eligible to receive services, and how funds are distributed among the various services within the state.

6

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

C. IMPACT – VOTE NEG TO UPHOLD OUR INTERPRETATION 1. PRECISION: SOCIAL SERVICES IS LEGISLATIVE TERM OF ART THAT REQUIRES UNIFORMITY UNDER TITLE XX

STATE OF MICHIGAN TITLE XX SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT PLAN, 8 http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dhs/DHS-SSBG-FY08-09_250475_7.pdf STATE OF MICHIGAN, Department of Human Services, Administration for Budget, Analysis and Financial Management

Section 2006 of Title XX of the Social Security Act directs the Secretary to establish uniform definitions of services for use by the states in preparing the information to be submitted in the annual Social Services Block Grant report. These services are defined in title 45, part 96, appendix A of the code of federal regulations and are reflected in the state of Michigan's Title XX Social Services Block Grant Report. 2. ONLY OUR INTERP SOLVES LIMITS - THE COMMON USE OF SOCIAL SERVICES CAN COVER ANYTHING

PARHAM 82 Practice Issues in Social Welfare Administration, Policy and Planning, ED LEBOVITZ editor, google books Mr. Parham retired in 1994 as professsor of social welfare at the University of Georgia.

7

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

8

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

3. WE’RE BROAD ENOUGH – THE STATUTORY LIMIT OF TITLE XX FUNDING INCLUDES THOUSANDS OF PROGRAMS. IT’S THE ONLY WAY TO FIX MEANING ON THE TERM OF ART

Salomon 94

Who Benefits from the Nonprofit Sector? By Charles T. Clotfelter Google books, p. 135-6

Dr. Salamon is a leading expert on alternative tools of government action and on the nonprofit sector in the U.S. and around the world. He has served as deputy associate director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget and has taught at Harvard, Vanderbilt, and Duke Universities and at Tougaloo College in Mississippi. He holds a Ph.D. in government from Harvard University and a B.A. in economics and policy studies from Princeton University. He has written or edited over 20 books; his articles have appeared in Foreign Affairs, the New York Times, Voluntas, and numerous other publications. His most recent books include: The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance (Oxford University Press, 2002); The State of Nonprofit America (Brookings Institution Press, 2003); and Global Civil Society: Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector, Volume II (Kumarian Press, 2004).

9

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

10

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

11

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

VIOLATION: TITLE XX: NO INCOME SUPPLEMENTS A. THE LAW – SOCIAL SERVICE BLOCK GRANTS EXPLICITLY PROHIBT INCOME SUPPLEMENTS UNDER TITLE XX

GISH 2 http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-3415:1 Domestic Social Policy Division, Congressional Research Service Specifically, SSBG funds cannot be used for capital purchases or improvements; cash payments to individuals (except that welfare reform allows vouchers for certain families, as described above); payment of wages as a social service; medical care; social services for residents of institutions; public education; child care that does not meet applicable state or local standards; or services provided by anyone excluded from participation in Medicare or other Social Security Act programs. ADMINSITRATIVE SEPERATION KEEPS SOCIAL SERVICES AND INCOME SUPPORT IN DISTINCT CATEGORIES

SCHLONSKY 8 Child Welfare Research, GOOGLE BOOKS Aron Shlonsky is associate professor and Factor-Inwentash Chair in Child Welfare at the University of Toronto

B. VIOLATION – THE AFFIRMATIVE PROVIDES INCOME SUPPORT

12

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

C. IMPACTS – VOTE NEGATIVE 1. PRECISION: SOCIAL SERVICES IS LEGISLATIVE TERM OF ART THAT REQUIRES UNIFORMITY UNDER TITLE XX

STATE OF MICHIGAN TITLE XX SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT PLAN, 8 http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dhs/DHS-SSBG-FY08-09_250475_7.pdf STATE OF MICHIGAN, Department of Human Services, Administration for Budget, Analysis and Financial Management Section 2006 of Title XX of the Social Security Act directs the Secretary to establish uniform definitions of services for use by the states in preparing the information to be submitted in the annual Social Services Block Grant report. These services are defined in title 45, part 96, appendix A of the code of federal regulations and are reflected in the state of Michigan's Title XX Social Services Block Grant Report. 2. ONLY OUR INTERP SOLVES LIMITS - THE COMMON USE OF SOCIAL SERVICES CAN COVER ANYTHING

PARHAM 82 Practice Issues in Social Welfare Administration, Policy and Planning, ED LEBOVITZ editor, google books Mr. Parham retired in 1994 as professsor of social welfare at the University of Georgia.

13

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

14

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

3. WE’RE BROAD ENOUGH – THE STATUTORY LIMIT OF TITLE XX FUNDING INCLUDES THOUSANDS OF PROGRAMS. IT’S THE ONLY WAY TO FIX MEANING ON THE TERM OF ART

Salomon 94

Who Benefits from the Nonprofit Sector? By Charles T. Clotfelter Google books, p. 135-6

Dr. Salamon is a leading expert on alternative tools of government action and on the nonprofit sector in the U.S. and around the world. He has served as deputy associate director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget and has taught at Harvard, Vanderbilt, and Duke Universities and at Tougaloo College in Mississippi. He holds a Ph.D. in government from Harvard University and a B.A. in economics and policy studies from Princeton University. He has written or edited over 20 books; his articles have appeared in Foreign Affairs, the New York Times, Voluntas, and numerous other publications. His most recent books include: The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance (Oxford University Press, 2002); The State of Nonprofit America (Brookings Institution Press, 2003); and Global Civil Society: Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector, Volume II (Kumarian Press, 2004).

15

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

INCOME/SOCIAL SERVICE DISTINCTION EXTENSIONS SOCIAL SERVICES MUST BE DISTINGUISHED FROM CASH PAYMENT, EVEN IF THEY’RE RELATED

DIXON AND KIM 85 Social welfare in Asia, P. GOOGLE BOOKS Professor of Public Policy and Management,, UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH

16

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

SOCIAL SERVICE AND INCOME SUPPORT ARE DISTINCT AND IN DIRECT COMPETITION

ALLARD 7 Assistant Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, Taubman Center for Public Policy, Brown University http://wcpc.washington.edu/news/seminars/docs/gettingThere2007-12-03.pdf “Getting There or Losing Out: Place, Race, and Access to the Safety Net” The Growing Centrality of Social Services to the Safety Net Although scholars and policymakers frequently discuss place-based, mobility-based, and person-based types of antipoverty assistance, even the most knowledgeable policy expert or community leader may not realize that the manner in which society and communities help low-income populations has changed dramatically in recent years. Even though welfare cash assistance, public housing, or Medicaid may be among the most visible safety net programs, it is social or human service programs that address personal well-being, basic material needs, and barriers to employment that compose a much larger share of public and private safety net expenditures. CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH DINSTINGUISHES SOCIAL SERVICES FROM CASH ASSISTANCE

ALLARD 7 Assistant Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, Taubman Center for Public Policy, Brown University http://wcpc.washington.edu/news/seminars/docs/gettingThere2007-12-03.pdf “Getting There or Losing Out: Place, Race, and Access to the Safety Net”

Congressional Research Services (CRS) has tracked federal, state, and local expenditures in a small number of social service program areas (job training, child care programs, and the SSBG) over the past thirty years to provide a conservative estimate of trends in social service spending and to compare those expenditures to more salient cash assistance programs. These CRS data are the best available data on annual social service spending, but are substantial underestimates of the public social service sector financed through thousands of programs and administered across thousands of governmental agencies. Nevertheless, these data provide useful insights into the character of the contemporary safety net. According to CRS data, federal, state, and local government spent $18.5 billion (in $2006) on social services in 1975, roughly half that spent on welfare cash assistance ($31.5 billion in $2006). Public expenditures for this narrow definition of social services almost doubled in real dollars between 1975 and 2002, reaching approximately $34 billion (in $2006). In contrast, federal and state welfare cash assistance expenditures have declined by two-thirds during the same period, hovering near $11 or $12 billion (in $2006) for the last several years.

17

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

SOCIAL SERVICE HISTORICALLY DISTINCT FROM ECONOMIC OR INCOME SUPPORT

WICKENDEN 76 # Elizabeth Wickenden # The Social Service Review, Vol. 50, No. 4 (Dec., 1976), pp. 570-585 # Published by: The University of Chicago Press a social welfare and Social Security policy consultant, analyst, and writer, and professor of public policy and urban studies. Documented are her positions in the Transient Bureau of the Works Progress Administration, Federal Security Agency, and Federal Emergency Relief Administration from 1933 to 1941; her membership on the Kennedy Task Force on Health and Social Security Legislation (1960-1961) and the Advisory Council on Public Welfare (1964-1967); her work for the American Public Welfare Association in 1941; her activities as a consultant to national social welfare organizations such as the National Social Welfare Assembly, YWCA, National Urban League, Child Welfare League of America, Children's Defense Fund, and Project on Social Welfare Law; and her leading role in the Study Group on Social Security and the Save Our Security coalition. Also reflected are her activities as Professor of Urban Studies at the City University of New York (1966-1974) and at Fordham University (1979-1983)

LEGAL CASES DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SOCIAL SERVICES UNDER TITLE XX AND CASH ASSISTANCE

STEWART 78 SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, WRITING FOR A UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT MAJORITY QUERN, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AID OF ILLINOIS, ET AL. v. MANDLEY ET AL. No. 76-1159 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 18

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

436 U.S. 725; 98 S. Ct. 2068; 56 L. Ed. 2d 658; 1978 U.S. LEXIS 101 The § 402 "state plan for aid and services to needy families with children" is the central, organizing element of the Title IV-A program. A State's plan establishes both its funding relationship with the Federal Government and the substantive terms of all Title IV-A programs in which it has elected to participate. Thus, the plan reflects not only the basic AFDC program of cash assistance defined in § 406 (b), but also Title XX social services, see § 402 (a)(15) and 42 U. S. C. § 1397 et seq. (1970 ed., Supp. V), and, if the State chooses to adopt them, the optional programs of EA, defined in § 406 (e), and AFDCUnemployed Fathers (AFDC-UF), established by § 407.

19

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

EXCLUDES NATIVE AMERICAN INCOME ASSISTANCE CODE FO FEDERAL REGULATION CONTEXTUALLY DISTINGUISHES FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM SOCIAL SERVICES FOR NATIVE AMERICANS

CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 8 http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=687121277991+79+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve 25 CFR Ch. I (4–1–08 Edition) § 20.102 What is the Bureau’s policy in providing financial assistance and social services under this part? (a) Bureau social services programs are a secondary, or residual resource, and must not be used to supplement or supplant other programs. (b) The Bureau can provide assistance under this part to eligible Indians when comparable financial assistance or social services are either not available or not provided by state, tribal, county, local or other federal agencies. (c) Bureau financial assistance and social services are subject to annual Congressional appropriations.

20

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

EXCLUDES EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT SOCIAL SERVICES AND INCOME SUPPORT THROUGH TAX CREDIT ARE DISTINCT – SOCIAL SERVICES ARE A PRECONDITION TO COLLECTING EITC

ALLARD 7 Assistant Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, Taubman Center for Public Policy, Brown University http://wcpc.washington.edu/news/seminars/docs/gettingThere2007-12-03.pdf “Getting There or Losing Out: Place, Race, and Access to the Safety Net” Perhaps surprisingly, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) has expanded to become the largest means-tested program providing cash assistance to low-income households in America. Yet, at $40 billion in credits in 2002 (in $2006), the EITC still lags far behind public investments in social services (House Committee on Ways and Means 2004). Moreover, individuals can only receive the EITC if they are working. Social service programs that alleviate barriers to work are critical to many lowincome households if they are to find a job and take advantage of the assistance available through the EITC. When looking at Figure 1, it is important to keep in mind that the CRS estimates capture only a fraction of publicly funded social services. More accurate estimates of public expenditures for the broader array of social or human services available to low-income populations would certainly exceed $100 billion annually.

21

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

TITLE XX :MUST MEET ONE OF 5 GOALS TITLE XX IS FULLY INCLUSIVE, SPECIFYING FIVE GOALS AND ALL OF THE NECESSARY SERVICE CATEGORIES

GISH 2 http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-3415:1 Domestic Social Policy Division, Congressional Research Service SSBG = SOCIAL SRVICES BLOCK GRANTS

Use of Funds There are no federal eligibility criteria for SSBG participants. Thus, states have total discretion to set their own eligibility criteria (except, as described above, the welfare reform law established an income limit of 200% of poverty for recipients of services funded by TANF allotments that are transferred to SSBG.) States also have wide discretion in the use of SSBG funds. Federal law establishes the following broad goals toward which social services must be directed: ! achieving or maintaining economic self-support to prevent, reduce, or eliminate dependency; ! achieving or maintaining self-sufficiency, including reduction or prevention of dependency; CRS-5 ! preventing or remedying neglect, abuse, or exploitation of children and adults unable to protect their own interests, or preserving, rehabilitating or reuniting families; ! preventing or reducing inappropriate institutional care by providing for community-based care, home-based care, or other forms of less intensive care; and ! securing referral or admission for institutional care when other forms of care are not appropriate, or providing services to individuals in institutions. The law also provides the following examples of social services that may relate to these broad goals: child care, protective services for children and adults, services for children and adults in foster care, home management, adult day care, transportation, family planning, training and related services, employment services, information, referral and counseling, meal preparation and delivery, health support services, and services to meet special needs of children, aged, mentally retarded, blind, emotionally disturbed, physically handicapped, alcoholics and drug addicts.

22

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

FEDERAL CODE FIXES THE FIVE PURPOSES OF SOCIAL SERVICES

UNITED CODE SERVICE 9 TITLE 42. THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 7. SOCIAL SECURITY ACT TITLE XX. BLOCK GRANTS TO STATES FOR SOCIAL SERVICES LN For the purposes of consolidating Federal assistance to States for social services into a single grant, increasing State flexibility in using social service grants, and encouraging each State, as far as practicable under the conditions in that State, to furnish services directed at the goals of-(1) achieving or maintaining economic self-support to prevent, reduce, or eliminate dependency;

(2) achieving or maintaining self-sufficiency, including reduction or prevention of dependency; (3) preventing or remedying neglect, abuse, or exploitation of children and adults unable to protect their own interests, or preserving, rehabilitating or reuniting families; (4) preventing or reducing inappropriate institutional care by providing for community-based care, home-based care, or other forms of less intensive care; and (5) securing referral or admission for institutional care when other forms of care are not appropriate, or providing services to individuals in institutions, there are authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this title [42 USCS §§ 1397 et seq.].

23

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

SOCIAL SERVICES: TITLE XX KEY TO PRECISION/PREDICTABILITY SOCIAL SERVICES IS LEGISLATIVE TERM OF ART THAT REQUIRES UNIFORMITY UNDER TITLE XX

STATE OF MICHIGAN TITLE XX SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT PLAN, 8 http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dhs/DHS-SSBG-FY08-09_250475_7.pdf STATE OF MICHIGAN, Department of Human Services, Administration for Budget, Analysis and Financial Management

Section 2006 of Title XX of the Social Security Act directs the Secretary to establish uniform definitions of services for use by the states in preparing the information to be submitted in the annual Social Services Block Grant report. These services are defined in title 45, part 96, appendix A of the code of federal regulations and are reflected in the state of Michigan's Title XX Social Services Block Grant Report.

24

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL FUNDS IS THE CLEAREST STANDARD – EVEN IF IT’S IMPERFECT, IT’S THE ONLY LIMITING FUNCTION

BLEDSOE ET AL 72 Productivity Management in the California Social Services Program # Ralph C. Bledsoe, Dennis R. Denny, Charles D. Hobbs and Raymond S. Long # Public Administration Review, Vol. 32, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 1972), pp. 799-803

Dr. Bledsoe earned his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in public administration from the University of Southern California. He received his B.A. degree from Texas A. & M. College. Dr. Bledsoe previously served as a manager and executive with the System Development Corp., a faculty member and program director with the University of Southern California School of Public Administration, a professor of Federal management at the Federal Executive Institute, and a member of the Federal Government's Senior Executive Service.

25

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

FULL TEXT OF DEFINITION OF SERVICES – FYI US FEDERAL CODE, NO DATE PROVIDED

title 45, part 96, appendix A of the code of federal regulations AVAILABLE AT http://dhhs.nv.gov/Grants/Grants_SSBG.htm. http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=683459322247+13+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve Uniform Definitions of Services for Title XX These services are the categories used in reporting to the federal government on the use of Title XX, the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). 1. Adoption Services Adoption services are those services or activities provided to assist in bringing about the adoption of a child. Component services and activities may include, but are not limited to, counseling the biological parent(s), recruitment of adoptive homes, and pre- and post-placement training and/or counseling. 2. Case Management Services Case management services are services or activities for the arrangement, coordination, and monitoring of services to meet the needs of individuals and families. Component services and activities may include individual service plan development; counseling; monitoring, developing, securing, and coordinating services; monitoring and evaluating client progress; and assuring that clients' rights are protected. 3. Congregate Meals Congregate meals are those services or activities designed to prepare and serve one or more meals a day to individuals in central dining areas in order to prevent institutionalization, malnutrition, and feelings of isolation. Component services or activities may include the cost of personnel, equipment, and food; assessment of nutritional and dietary needs; nutritional education and counseling; socialization; and other services such as transportation and information and referral. 4. Counseling Services Counseling services are those services or activities that apply therapeutic processes to personal, family, situational, or occupational problems in order to bring about a positive resolution of the problem or improved individual or family functioning or circumstances. Problem areas may include family and marital relationships, parent-child problems, or drug abuse. 5. Day Care Services--Adults Day care services for adults are those services or activities provided to adults who require care and supervision in a protective setting for a portion of a 24-hour day. Component services or activities may include opportunity for social interaction, companionship and self-education; health support or assistance in obtaining health services; counseling; recreation and general leisure time activities; meals; personal care services; plan development; and transportation. 6. Day Care Services--Children Day care services for children (including infants, pre-schoolers, and school age children) are services or activities provided in a setting that meets applicable standards of state and local law, in a center or in a home, for a portion of a 24-hour day. Component services or activities may include a comprehensive and coordinated set of appropriate developmental activities for children, recreation, meals and snacks, transportation, health support services, social service counseling for parents, plan development, and licensing and monitoring of child care homes and facilities. 7. Education and Training Services Education and training services are those services provided to improve knowledge or daily living skills and to enhance cultural opportunities. Services may include instruction or training in, but are not limited to, such issues as consumer education, health education, community protection and safety education, literacy education, English as a second language, and General Educational Development (G.E.D.). Component services or activities may include screening, assessment and testing; individual or group instruction; tutoring; provision of books, supplies and instructional material; counseling; transportation; and referral to community resources. 8. Employment Services Employment services are those services or activities provided to assist individuals in securing employment or acquiring or learning skills that promote opportunities for employment. Component services or activities may include employment screening, assessment, or testing; structured job skills and job seeking skills; specialized therapy (occupational, speech, physical); special training and tutoring, including literacy training and pre-vocational training; provision of books, supplies and instructional material; counseling, transportation; and referral to community resources. 9. Family Planning Services Family planning services are those educational, comprehensive medical or social services or activities which enable individuals, including minors, to determine freely the number and spacing of their children and to select the means by which this may be achieved. These services and activities include a broad range of acceptable and effective methods and services to limit or enhance fertility, including contraceptive methods (including natural family planning and abstinence), and the management of infertility (including referral to adoption). Specific component services and activities may include preconceptional counseling, education, and general reproductive health care, including diagnosis and treatment of infections which threaten reproductive capability. Family planning services do not include pregnancy care (including obstetric or prenatal care). 10. Foster Care Services for Adults Foster care services for adults are those services or activities that assess the need and arrange for the substitute care and alternate living situation of adults in a setting suitable to the individual's needs. Individuals may need such services because of social, physical or mental disabilities, or as a consequence of abuse or neglect. Care may be provided in a community-based setting, or such services may arrange for institutionalization when necessary. Component services or activities include assessment of the individual's needs; case planning and case management to assure that the individual receives proper care in the placement; counseling to help with personal problems and adjusting to new situations; assistance in obtaining other necessary supportive services; determining, through periodic reviews, the continued appropriateness of and need for placement; and recruitment and licensing of foster care homes and facilities. 11. Foster Care Services for Children

26

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

Foster care services for children are those services or activities associated with the provision of an alternative family life experience for abused, neglected or dependent children, between birth and the age of majority, on the basis of a court commitment or a voluntary placement agreement signed by the parent or guardian. Services may be provided to children in foster family homes, foster homes of relatives, group homes, emergency shelters, residential facilities, child care institutions, pre-adoptive homes or supervised independent living situation. Component services or activities may include assessment of the child's needs; case planning and case management to assure that the child receives proper care in the placement; medical care as an integral but subordinate part of the service; counseling of the child, the child's parents, and the foster parents; referral and assistance in obtaining other necessary supportive services; periodical reviews to determine the continued appropriateness and need for placement; and recruitment and licensing of foster homes and child care institutions. 12. Health Related and Home Health Services Health related and home health services are those in-home or out-of-home services or activities designed to assist individuals and families to attain and maintain a favorable condition of health. Component services and activities may include providing an analysis or assessment of an individual's health problems and the development of a treatment plan; assisting individuals to identify and understand their health needs; assisting individuals to locate, provide or secure, and utilize appropriate medical treatment, preventive medical care, and health maintenance services, including in-home health services and emergency medical services; and providing follow-up services as needed. 13. Home Based Services Home based services are those in-home services or activities provided to individuals or families to assist with household or personal care activities that improve or maintain adequate family well-being. These services may be provided for reasons of illness, incapacity, frailty, absence of a caretaker relative, or to prevent abuse and neglect of a child or adult. Major service components include homemaker services, chore services, home maintenance services, and household management services. Component services or activities may include protective supervision of adults and/or children to help prevent abuse, temporary non-medical personal care, house-cleaning, essential shopping, simple household repairs, yard maintenance, teaching of homemaking skills, training in self-help and self-care skills, assistance with meal planning and preparation, sanitation, budgeting, and general household management. 14. Home Delivered Meals Home-delivered meals are those services or activities designed to prepare and deliver one or more meals a day to an individual's residence in order to prevent institutionalization, malnutrition, and feelings of isolation. Component services or activities may include the cost of personnel, equipment, and food; assessment of nutritional and dietary needs; nutritional education and counseling; socialization services; and information and referral. 15. Housing Services Housing services are those services or activities designed to assist individuals or families in locating, obtaining, or retaining suitable housing. Component services or activities may include tenant counseling; helping individuals and families to identify and correct substandard housing conditions on behalf of individuals and families who are unable to protect their own interests; and assisting individuals and families to understand leases, secure utilities, make moving arrangements and minor renovations. 16. Independent and Transitional Living Services Independent and transitional living services are those services and activities designed to help older youth in foster care or homeless youth make the transition to independent living, or to help adults make the transition from an institution, or from homelessness, to independent living. Component services or activities may include educational and employment assistance, training in daily living skills, and housing assistance. Specific component services and activities may include supervised practice living and post-foster care services. 17. Information and Referral Services Information and referral services are those services or activities designed to provide information about services provided by public and private service providers and a brief assessment of client needs (but not diagnosis and evaluation) to facilitate appropriate referral to these community resources. 18. Legal Services Legal services are those services or activities provided by a lawyer or other person(s) under the supervision of a lawyer to assist individuals in seeking or obtaining legal help in civil matters such as housing, divorce, child support, guardianship, paternity, and legal separation. Component services or activities may include receiving and preparing cases for trial, provision of legal advice, representation at hearings, and counseling. 19. Pregnancy and Parenting Services for Young Parents Pregnancy and parenting services are those services or activities for married or unmarried adolescent parents and their families designed to assist young parents in coping with the social, emotional, and economic problems related to pregnancy and in planning for the future. Component services or activities may include securing necessary health care and living arrangements; obtaining legal services; and providing counseling, child care education, and training in and development of parenting skills. 20. Prevention and Intervention Services Prevention and intervention services are those services or activities designed to provide early identification and/or timely intervention to support families and prevent or ameliorate the consequences of, abuse, neglect, or family violence, or to assist in making arrangement for alternate placements or living arrangements where necessary. Such services may also be provided to prevent the removal of a child or adult from the home. Component services and activities may include investigation; assessment and/or evaluation of the extent of the problem; counseling, including mental health counseling or therapy as needed; developmental and parenting skills training; respite care; and other services including supervision, case management, and transportation. 21. Protective Services for Adults Protective services for adults are those services or activities designed to prevent or remedy abuse, neglect or exploitation of adults who are unable to protect their own interests. Examples of situations that may require protective services are injury due to maltreatment or family violence; lack of adequate food, clothing or shelter; lack of essential medical treatment or rehabilitation services; and lack of necessary financial or other resources. Component services or activities may include investigation; immediate intervention; emergency medical services; emergency shelter; developing case plans; initiation of legal action (if needed); counseling for the individual and the family; assessment/evaluation of family circumstances; arranging alternative or improved living arrangements; preparing for foster placement, if needed; and case management and referral to service providers. 22. Protective Services for Children Protective services for children are those services or activities designed to prevent or remedy abuse, neglect, or exploitation of children who may be harmed through physical or mental injury, sexual abuse or exploitation, and negligent treatment or maltreatment, including failure to be provided with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical care. Component services or activities may include immediate investigation and intervention; emergency medical services; emergency shelter; developing case plans; initiation of legal action (if needed); counseling for the child and the family; assessment/evaluation of family circumstances; arranging alternative living arrangement; preparing for foster placement, if needed; and case management and referral to service providers. 23. Recreational Services

27

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

Recreational services are those services or activities designed to provide, or assist individuals to take advantage of, individual or group activities directed towards promoting physical, cultural, and/or social development. 24. Residential Treatment Services Residential treatment services provide short-term residential care and comprehensive treatment and services for children or adults whose problems are so severe or are such that they cannot be cared for at home or in foster care and need the specialized services provided by specialized facilities. Component services and activities may include diagnosis and psychological evaluation; alcohol and drug detoxification services; individual, family, and group therapy and counseling; remedial education and GED preparation; vocational or pre-vocational training; training in activities of daily living; supervised recreational and social activities; case management; transportation; and referral to and utilization of other services. 25. Special Services for Persons With Developmental or Physical Disabilities, or Persons With Visual or Auditory Impairments Special services for persons with developmental or physical disabilities, or persons with visual or auditory impairments, are services or activities to maximize the potential of persons with disabilities, help alleviate the effects of physical, mental or emotional disabilities, and to enable these persons to live in the least restrictive environment possible. Component services or activities may include personal and family counseling; respite care; family support; recreation; transportation; aid to assist with independent functioning in the community; and training in mobility, communication skills, the use of special aids and appliances, and self-sufficiency skills. Residential and medical services may be included only as an integral, but subordinate, part of the services. 26. Special Services for Youth Involved in or at Risk of Involvement With Criminal Activity Special services for youth involved in or at risk of involvement with criminal activity are those services or activities for youth who are, or who may become, involved with the juvenile justice system and their families. Components services or activities are designed to enhance family functioning and/or modify the youth's behavior with the goal of developing socially appropriate behavior and may include counseling, intervention therapy, and residential and medical services if included as an integral but subordinate part of the service. 27. Substance Abuse Services Substance abuse services are those services or activities that are primarily designed to deter, reduce, or eliminate substance abuse or chemical dependence. Except for initial detoxification services, medical and residential services may be included but only as an integral but subordinate part of the service. Component substance abuse services or activities may include a comprehensive range of personal and family counseling methods, methadone treatment for opiate abusers, or detoxification treatment for alcohol abusers. Services may be provided in alternative living arrangements such as institutional settings and community-based halfway houses. 28. Transportation Services Transportation services are those services or activities that provide or arrange for the travel, including travel costs, of individuals in order to access services, or obtain medical care or employment. Component services or activities may include special travel arrangements such as special modes of transportation and personnel to accompany or assist individuals or families to utilize transportation. 29. Other Services Other Services are services that do not fall within the definitions of the preceding 28 services. The definition used by the State for each of these services should appear elsewhere in the annual report.

28

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

EFFECTS VIOLATION – CAN’T MANDATE OTHER PARTIES: REGULATION/SOCIAL SERVICE DISTINCTION A. SOCIAL SERVICES ARE CLEARLY DISTINCT FROM MANDATES ON THIRD PARTIES. STATUTORY REGULATION IS ITS OWN HUGE TOPIC.

MIDGLEY AND LIVERMORE 8 The Handbook of Social Policy, p. 10, google books MIDGELEY, Harry and Riva Specht Professor Dean Emeritus, 1997-2006, BERKELEY SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WELFARE, Livermore, Assistant Professor, School of Social Work,  Louisiana State University

B. VIOLATION – THE AFF DOESN’T DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTE TO A SOCIAL SERVICE. THEY JUST CHANGE REGULATIONS TO MAKE OTHER PARTIES INCREASE SOCIAL SERVICES. 29

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

C. IMPACT – VOTE NEG 1. LIMITS – ANY REGULATION COULD SOMEHOW SERVE SOCIETY. LETTING IN THIRD PARTY MANDATES ALLOWS ANY REGULATION OF BUSINESS, ADJUSTMENT TO THE TAX CODE, OR RELAXATION OF RESTRICTION ON THE STATES, WHICH ENCOMPASSES ALL DOMESTIC LEGISLATION. THAT’S UNFAIR AND MAKES DEBATE BAD BY FORCING US TO COMPENSATE WITH SHALLOW GENERICS 2. GROUND – STATUTORY REGULATION OF OTHER ENTITITES AVOIDS CORE DISADS AND COUNTERPLANS. REGULATIONS DON’T SPEND NEW MONEY OR REQUIRE LEGISLATIVE ACTION. IT MAKES THE TOPIC BIDIRECTIONAL BECAUSE THE AFF CAN JUST REPEAL EXISTING RESTRICTIONS 3. EFFECTS INDEPENDENTLY BAD – EVEN IF THE AFF INCREASES SOME SOCIAL SERVICE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ISN’T DIRECTLY INCREASING BUT ONLY ACTING INDIRECTLY THROUGH SOME PUPPET AGENT. THAT DESTROYS LIMITS AND NEG GROUND BECAUSE THE AFFS CAN PRESERVE CONDITIONS FOR SOCIAL SERVICES BY STOPPING A NUCLEAR WAR OR IMPROVING THE ECONOMY.

30

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

VIOLATION: 3-STEP PROCESS - MUST INVOLVE SOCIAL WORKERS A. DEFINITION AND COMPARATIVE LIMITS IMPACT – SOCIAL SERVICES MUST INCLUDE ASSESSMENT, COUNSELLING, THEN REFERRAL TO ANOTHER ORGANIZATION. IT’S THE BEST AND MOST PRECISE DEFINTION OF FEDERAL POLICY – BROADER ONES CREATE UNPREDICTABLE VAGUENESS

REIN 72 # Decentralization and Citizen Participation in Social Services # Author(s): Martin Rein # Source: Public Administration Review, Vol. 32, Special Issue: Curriculum Essays on Citizens, Politics, and Administration in Urban Neighborhoods (Oct., 1972), pp. 687-700 # Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration # Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/975233 Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Urban Studies and Planning,  1970 to Present

B. VIOLATION – THE AFFIRMATIVE DOESN’T INCLUDE ASSESSMENT, COUNSELLIG AND REFERRAL BY A SOCIAL WORKER. THEY CUT OUT THE “ESSENCE” OF SOCIAL SERVICES. C. VOTE NEG FOR THE LIMITS ARGUMENT IN REIN. WITHOUT A CLEAR IDENTIFYING ASPECT OF A PROGRAM, ALTERNATIVE DEFINTIONS CAN INCLUDE ANY MEDICAL PROGRAM OR EMPLOYMENT BOOSTER. THAT’S UNFAIR BECAUSE IT COVERS LITERALLY ALL OF DMOESTIC POLICY, AND BAD FOR DEBATE BECAUSE NEGS NECESSARILY RESORT TO SHALLOW GENERICS.

31

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

AND MORE EXPANSIVE DEFINTIONS EMPIRICALLY SNOWBALL TO INCLUDE NEARLY EVERTYHING – LEGISLATIVE HISTORY PROVES.

WICKENDEN 76 # Elizabeth Wickenden # The Social Service Review, Vol. 50, No. 4 (Dec., 1976), pp. 570-585 # Published by: The University of Chicago Press a social welfare and Social Security policy consultant, analyst, and writer, and professor of public policy and urban studies. Documented are her positions in the Transient Bureau of the Works Progress Administration, Federal Security Agency, and Federal Emergency Relief Administration from 1933 to 1941; her membership on the Kennedy Task Force on Health and Social Security Legislation (1960-1961) and the Advisory Council on Public Welfare (1964-1967); her work for the American Public Welfare Association in 1941; her activities as a consultant to national social welfare organizations such as the National Social Welfare Assembly, YWCA, National Urban League, Child Welfare League of America, Children's Defense Fund, and Project on Social Welfare Law; and her leading role in the Study Group on Social Security and the Save Our Security coalition. Also reflected are her activities as Professor of Urban Studies at the City University of New York (1966-1974) and at Fordham University (1979-1983)

32

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

33

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

VIOLATION: HIERARCHY OF NEEDS T A. SOCIAL SERVICES ARE NOT HOUSING, WATER, HEALTH CARE, FOOD OR SANITATION. THEY’RE THE STEP UP THE LADDER FROM BASIC NEEDS

CARRIBEAN SUB REGIONAL CIVIL SOCIETY FORUM 10/31/8 CARIBBEAN SUB REGIONAL CIVIL SOCIETY FORUM IN PREPARATION FOR THE FIFTH SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS: “SECURING OUR CITIZENS’ FUTURE BY PROMOTING HUMAN PROSPERITY, ENERGY SECURITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY www.sasod.org.gy/files/FinalCaribCSForumPreliminaryreportofrecommendations.doc

Replace the phrase “social services” as used throughout this section with either “amenities” or “basic needs” given that water, housing, healthcare, food and sanitation are key to human survival and if one can achieve that then they move to the next level which is that of social services. B. VIOLATION – THE AFFIRMATIVE ADDRESSES BASIC NEEDS INSTEAD OF NEXT LEVEL SOCIAL NEEDS. C. VOTE NEG 1. RESOLUTIONAL MEANING – THEIR INTERPRETATION STRIPS SOCIAL OF ANY MEANING – THEY’RE JUST A SERVICE. DISCOUNTING WORDS IN THE RESOLUTION LEADS TO ARBITRARY AND SELF-SERVING INTERPRETATIONS, WHICH IS THE KEY INTERNAL LINK TO THE LIMITS DA 2. LIMITS – BASIC SURVIVAL NEEDS CAN COVER ALL OF HOUSING POLICY AND FOOD STAMPS AND DISEASE PREVENTION. ANYTHING THAT SAVES LIVES IN AN ENORMOUSLY EXPANSIVE TOPIC.

34

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

VIOLATION: “SOCIAL” EXCLUDES HEALTH AND EDUCATION – SOCIAL ROLES A. SOCIAL SERVICES ARE DEFINED BY THEIR EMPHASIS ON SOCIAL ROLES INSTEAD OF INDIVIDUAL NEEDS THIS EXCLUDES HEALTH, EDUCATION AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

BAHLE 8 http://cadmus.iue.it/dspace/bitstream/1814/328/1/sps20028.pdf Thomas Bahle is sociologist and assistant at the University of Mannheim. He is member of the international family policy project and researcher at the MZES. “Changing Social Service Systems in England, France and Germany: Towards Deinstitutionalisation or Institutionalisation?” European University Institute WORKING PAPER

B. VIOLATION – THE AFF SERVICE IS INDIVIDUAL NOT SOCIAL BECAUSE THEY ADDRESS ______ [HEALTH OR EDUCATION] C. IMPACT – VOTE NEG – 1. EACH WORD MUST HAVE MEANING – STRIPPING SOCIAL OF MEANING DESTROYS LIMITS, SINCE ANYTHING CAN BE CHARACTERIZED AS SOME SORT OF SERVICE. ONLY THE ADJECTIVE STOPS THE AFF FROM INCLUDING ANY PIECE OF DOMESTIC LEGISLATION. 2. LIMITS – HEALTH AND EDUCATION ARE LARGE ENOUGH TO BE TOPIC IN THEMSELVES. MEDICARE AND REFORMING STUDENT LOANS ARE DISTINCT CORE POLICY DEBATES, WITH THOUSANDS OF POSSIBLE VARIATIONS. INCLUDING MEDICARE, MEDICAID, STUDENT LOANS, MENTAL HEALTH IS UNFAIR AND DESTROYS EDUCATION THROUGH SHALLOW GENERIC DEBATES

35

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

SOCIAL SERVICES T: EXCLUDES HEALTH, ED, HOUSING, INCOME SOCIAL SERVICES EXCLUDE HEALTH, EDUCATION, HOUSING AND INCOME MAINTENANCE

SALOMON, 3 GOOGLE BOOKS, THE STATE OF NONPROFIT AMERICA, P. 152 Dr. Salamon is a leading expert on alternative tools of government action and on the nonprofit sector in the U.S. and around the world. He has served as deputy associate director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget and has taught at Harvard, Vanderbilt, and Duke Universities and at Tougaloo College in Mississippi. He holds a Ph.D. in government from Harvard University and a B.A. in economics and policy studies from Princeton University. He has written or edited over 20 books; his articles have appeared in Foreign Affairs, the New York Times, Voluntas, and numerous other publications. His most recent books include: The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance (Oxford University Press, 2002); The State of Nonprofit America (Brookings Institution Press, 2003); and Global Civil Society: Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector, Volume II (Kumarian Press, 2004).

36

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

SOCIAL SERVICES EXCLUDES EDUCATION BEST STATUTORY DEFINITION EXCLUDES EDUCATION

BURKE 4

Domestic Social Policy Division, Specialist in Income Maintenance, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, CRS REPORT FOR CONGRESS, “Social Service Provisions in the CARE Act and the Charitable Giving Act” http://www.wikileaks.de/leak/crs/RS21713.pdf

REFERENCES, S. 476 (The CARE Act of 2003) as passed by the Senate Definition of social service

Defines social services as helping people in need, reducing poverty, improving outcomes of lowincome children, revitalizing low-income communities, and services empowering low-income people to become self-sufficient. The term “social services” does not include programs delivering educational assistance under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act or the Higher Education Act

37

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

VIOLATION: EXCLUDES [MOST] MEDICAL CARE A. DEFINITIONS – MEDICAL SOCIAL SERVICES SOCIAL SERVICES DOESN’T INCLUDE MEDICAL TASKS – IT’S DISTINCT FROM THE HEALTH SECTOR

Pollack et al 94 Professor for Public Policy, Departments of Psychiatry, Public Health & Preeventive Medicine, and Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology, OHSU Prioritization of Mental Health Services in Oregon # David A. Pollack, Bentson H. McFarland, Robert A. George and Richard H. Angell # The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 72, No. 3 (1994), pp. 515-550

THE ONLY EXCEPTION - MEDICAL SOCIAL SERVICES - REQUIRE A SOCIAL WORKER

CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS, NO DATE http://www.dora.state.co.us/INSURANCE/mcexam/2000/chic98.pdf

“Medical Social Services” are those services provided by an individual who possesses a baccalaureate degree in social work, psychology or counseling or the documented equivalent in a combination of education, training and experience, which services are provided at the recommendation of a physician for the purpose of assisting the insured or the family in dealing with [emphasis added] a specific medical condition.

38

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

MEDICARE DEFINES MEDICAL SOCIAL SERVICES ONLY THOSE THAT ASSIST IN DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT – THAT’S A KEY LIMIT

Department of health and human services 4 http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1994-12-20/html/94-31065.htm From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-31065]

Comment: One commenter objected to this section's requirement that covered medical social services must be necessary to resolve social or emotional problems that are expected to be an impediment to the treatment of the beneficiary's medical conditionor to his or her rate of recovery. The commenter stated that the services of a social worker may address a wide range of difficulties in addition to those that present an impediment to the treatment of the beneficiary's medical condition. Response: The Act at section 1861(m) specifically defines medical social services as a covered home health service. In addition, section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act excludes from Medicare coverage any service that is not reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of the patient's illness or injury. Therefore, Medicare is limited to covering those social services that are provided to treat the patient's medical condition; that is, they are directed at resolving impediments to the treatment of the patient's illness or injury. B. VIOLATION – THE AFFIRMATIVE COVERS HEALTH CARE THAT ISN’T A SOCAIL SERVICE – THEIR SERVICES DON’T INVOLVE A SOCIAL WORKER AND AREN’T JUST A SUPPLEMENT TO ALLOW TREATMENT OF THE ILLNESS. C. VOTE NEG 1. PRECISION – THIS IS THE MOST RIGOROUS DEFINITION

FRANK AND DAWSON 00

Barbara W. Frank and Steven L. Dawson of the Paraprofessional Health­ care Institute, with assistance from Andy   Van Kleunen and Mary Ann Wilner of the Paraprofessional Health­ care Institute, and Dorie Seavey, a labor   economist in the Boston area

http://www.forumsinstitute.org/publs/mass/gt-mhpf_workforce_issue_brief.pdf. “Health Care Workforce Issues in Massachusetts” Federal and state public payers are influenced by the broader political process of apportioning tax dollars to an array of public services—health care being only one among many. Similarly, private insurers, 13 account- able to purchasers and shareholders who drive prices down, have created capitation arrangements, utilization reviews, and a rigorous definition of what constitutes health care (as distinct from social services) in order to control costs.

39

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

2. LIMITS – LETTING IN THE ENTIRE FIELD OF MEDICAL INSURANCE OR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE IS A HUGE DEBATE – IT’S THE BIGGEST SECTOR OF OUR ECONOMY

BROWNLEE 8 http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/5_myths_our_sick_health_care_s ystem_8451 Shannon Brownlee is a writer whose stories, essays, and opinion pieces about medicine and health care have appeared in such publications as The Atlantic Monthly, The New York Times Magazine, The New Republic, Slate, Time, Discover, BusinessWeek, Washington Monthly, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and The Wilson Quarterly. Her most recent awards include the 2004 AHCJ Award for Excellence in Health Care Journalism, the Victor Cohn Prize for Excellence in Medical Science Reporting, the National Association of Science Writers Science-in-Society Award, and the Sigma Delta Chi Award from the Society of Professional Journalists. Her work has been featured in The Real State of the Union, a collection of the best stories from The Atlantic Monthly’s “Real State of the Union” series, and in The New Science Journalists, a collection of the best science writing edited by Ted Anton and Rick McCourt. She holds a master’s degree in biology from the University of California. As a former Schwartz Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation, Ms. Brownlee’s work focused on the U.S. health care system, and the cultural, economic, and political forces that result in poor quality and high cost. She has written extensively about the lack of scientific evidence for many medical practices, and the problem of unnecessary care, which accounts for as much as a third of the nation’s health care bill. She is currently writing Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine is Making Americans Sicker and Poorer, which will be published by Bloomsbury Press in 2007. At 17 percent of gross domestic product, health care is the biggest single sector of the economy, and it's consuming a larger and larger proportion every year. AS A DEBATE TOPIC, IT’S TOO BIG TO HANDLE

STANLEY 9 PETOSKEY NEWS-REVIEW MANAGING EDITOR http://www.petoskeynews.com/articles/2009/06/12/columns/doc4a32b83a87c3a105904620.txt

Petoskey News-Review (Newspapers industry) Currently holds this position Petoskey News-Review (Newspapers industry) 1978 — Present (31 years)

Editor

Editor

The health care “debate” is so multi-faceted, so complex, so stunningly different across the country that it’s enough to make you want to throw up your hands in frustration. 3. TOPICAL VERSION OF YOUR AFF – WE CAN LET IN HEALTH CARE AS LONG AS IT MEETS THE STRICT DEFINTION SET OUT IN FEDERAL LAW FOR MEDICAL SOCIAL SERVICES 4. VOTE NEG ON EXTRATOPICALITY – IT PROVES THE RESOLUTION ISN’T SUFFICIENT. ALSO, IT’S ABUSIVE IN WAYS COUNTERPLANS CAN’T SOLVE – WE CAN’T COUNTERPLAN BACK DISAD LINKS AND FORCED COUNTERPLANNING CRUSHES OUR POLITICS AND SPENDING GROUND.

40

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

HEALTH CARE T: MEDICARE DEF EXTENSIONS MEDICAL SOCIAL SERVICES CAN ONLY INVOLVE A LIMITED SET OF INTERVENTIONS BY A SOCIAL WORKER

OXFORD HEALTH PLANS 8 https://www.oxhp.com/secure/policy/home_health_oma_1208.html UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES UnitedHealth Group Incorporated NYSE: UNH is a managed health care company. According to its company literature, UnitedHealth Group is a diversified health and wellbeing company dedicated to making health care work better. Headquartered in Minnetonka, Minnesota, UnitedHealth Group offers a broad spectrum of products and services through seven operating businesses: UnitedHealthcare, Ovations, AmeriChoice, Uniprise, OptumHealth, Ingenix, and Prescription Solutions.. Through its family of businesses, UnitedHealth Group serves approximately 70 million individuals nationwide. In 2004, the company posted a gross profit of $10.2 billion.[1] UnitedHealth Group is the parent of UnitedHealthcare, one of the largest health insurers in the U.S. It was created in 1977, as UnitedHealthCare Corporation (it renamed itself in 1998), but traces its origin to a firm it acquired in 1977, Charter Med Incorporated, which was founded in 1974. In 1979, it introduced the first network-based health plan for seniors. In 1984, it became a publicly traded company. Medical Social Services (MSS) MSS are used to assess the social and emotional factors related to the patient’s illness, counseling based on this assessment, and searching for available community resources. Medical social services are provided by a qualified medical social worker when the patient meets the criteria above for home health care agency services and: 1. The services of these professionals are necessary to resolve social and emotional problems that are or are expected to be an impediment to the effective treatment of the patient’s medical condition or his or her rate of recovery; and 2. The plan of care indicates how the services that are required necessitate the skills of a qualified social worker or a social work assistant under the supervision of a qualified medical social worker to be performed safely and effectively. When the two requirements above are satisfied, services of these professionals that may be covered include, but are limited to:

* Assessment of the social and emotional factors related to the patient’s illness, need for care, response to treatment and adjustment to care; * Assessment of the relationship of the patient’s medical and nursing requirements to the patient’s home situation, financial resources and availability of community resources; * Appropriate action to obtain available community resources to assist in resolving the patient’s problem. * Counseling service which are required by the patient; and * MSS furnished to the patient’s family member or caregiver on a short-term basis when the home health agency can demonstrate that a brief intervention (that is, 41

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

two or three visits) by a medical social worker is necessary to remove a clear and direct impediment to the effective treatment of the patient’s medical condition or to his/her rate of recovery. To be considered clear and direct, the behavior or actions of the family member or caregiver must plainly obstruct, contravene, or prevent the patient’s medical treatment rate of recovery.

42

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

MEDICAL SOCIAL SERVICES MUST TREAT A DIRECT IMPEDIMENT TO CURING AN ILLNESS – BEST FEDERAL DEFINTIONS PROVE

COMMERCE CLEARING HOUSE 2 2004 Medicare Explained, GOOGLE BOOKS Provider of information services, software and workflow tools for tax, accounting, legal and business professionals.

MEDICAL SOCIAL SERVICES REFERS EXCLUSIVELY TO SOCIAL SERVICES PERFORMED BY A SOCIAL WORKER

CONNECTICUT LEGISLATURE 96 http://www.cslib.org/pa/pa019.htm PUBLIC ACT NO. 96-19 AN ACT REVISING THE GENERAL STATUTES TO REFLECT THE AUTHORITY OF ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSES AND PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS. Medical social services are defined to mean services rendered, under the direction of a physician by a qualified social worker holding a master's degree from an accredited school of social work, including but not limited to (A) assessment of the social, psychological and family problems related to or arising out of such covered person's illness and treatment; (B) appropriate action and utilization of community resources to assist in resolving such problems; (C) participation in the development of the overall plan of treatment for such covered person.

43

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

MEDICAL SOCIAL SERVICES IS A LIMITED TERM OF ART UNDER MEDICAID: ASSESSMENT, COUNSELLING, AND REFERRAL

LEVINE AND BARRY 3 Dr.Sharon A. Levine, Geriatric Medicine, Internal Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts,(MA), Dr. Patricia Barry is an Adjunct Professor of Clinical Internal Medicine at the Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk Geriatric medicine, GOOGLE BOOKS By Christine K. Cassel, Rosanne M. Leipzig, Harvey Jay Cohen, Eric B. Larson, Diane E. Meier

44

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

SOCIAL SERVICES T: EXCLUDES FOOD STAMPS FOOD STAMPS AND SOCIAL SERVICES ARE DISTINCT

ALLARD 7 Assistant Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, Taubman Center for Public Policy, Brown University http://wcpc.washington.edu/news/seminars/docs/gettingThere2007-12-03.pdf “Getting There or Losing Out: Place, Race, and Access to the Safety Net” Even though social services are categorized as person-based assistance, they have a distinct spatial or place component. Promoting economic self-sufficiency and greater well-being through a service-based safety net hinges on how accessible services are to those in need. Place matters more in a service-based safety net reliant upon local governmental and nonprofit agencies than a system that primarily provides assistance through cash assistance of income maintenance programs. Unlike welfare cash assistance, the EITC, or food stamps, social services cannot be mailed or electronically transferred to an individual.

45

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

IMPACT EXT: BROAD DEFINITION OF SOCIAL SERVICES DESTROYS LIMITS BROAD DEFINTIONS OF SOCIAL SERVICES COVER A QUARTER OF A THE POPULATION AND TOO MANY PROGRAMS TO DEBATE OR COUNT

MORRIS AND ANDERSON 75 Personal Care Services: An Identity for Social Work * Robert Morris and Delwin Anderson * The Social Service Review, Vol. 49, No. 2 (Jun., 1975), pp. 157-174 * Published by: The University of Chicago Press He was a professor of social planning at Brandeis University, Florence Heller Graduate School University for Advanced Studies in Social Welfare. Morris was a professor emeritus from 1959-1979. In 1970 he became director of the Levinson Policy Institute at Brandeis thus he was a very instrumental figure in the development of the university's role in social policy studies and research.

46

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

THE COMMON USE OF SOCIAL SERVICES CAN COVER ANYTHING – YOUR COUNTERINTERP CAN’T SOLVE LIMITS.

PARHAM 82 Practice Issues in Social Welfare Administration, Policy and Planning, ED LEBOVITZ Mr. Parham retired in 1994 as professsor of social welfare at the University of Georgia.

47

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

IMPACT EXT: BROAD DEFINITION OF SOCIAL SERVICES DESTROYS POLICY BROAD DEFINTIONS OF SOCIAL SERVICE CAUSE POLICY FAILURE

WICKENDEN 76 # Elizabeth Wickenden # The Social Service Review, Vol. 50, No. 4 (Dec., 1976), pp. 570-585 # Published by: The University of Chicago Press a social welfare and Social Security policy consultant, analyst, and writer, and professor of public policy and urban studies. Documented are her positions in the Transient Bureau of the Works Progress Administration, Federal Security Agency, and Federal Emergency Relief Administration from 1933 to 1941; her membership on the Kennedy Task Force on Health and Social Security Legislation (1960-1961) and the Advisory Council on Public Welfare (1964-1967); her work for the American Public Welfare Association in 1941; her activities as a consultant to national social welfare organizations such as the National Social Welfare Assembly, YWCA, National Urban League, Child Welfare League of America, Children's Defense Fund, and Project on Social Welfare Law; and her leading role in the Study Group on Social Security and the Save Our Security coalition. Also reflected are her activities as Professor of Urban Studies at the City University of New York (1966-1974) and at Fordham University (1979-1983)

48

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

49

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

A/T CONTEXTUAL EVIDENCE IS ENOUGH: REDUCTION AD ABSURDUM CONTEXTUAL EVIDENCE IS TERRIBLE AT DEFINING SOCIAL SERVICE – IT LETS IN ABSURDITY A. TWITTER

RUBEL 3/18/9 http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202429165569&slreturn=1 Gina F. Rubel Esq. is president and CEO of Furia Rubel Communications Inc. Twitter is a social service for people to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of 140-character answers to one simple question: What are you doing? B. CHAT ROOMS

Kaynar and Hamburger 7 a Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel b Bezeq International Research Center for Internet Psychology, Sammy Ofer School of Communications, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya 46150, Israel Computers in Human Behavior Volume 24, Issue 2, March 2008, Pages 361-371 Part Special Issue: Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age A possible reason for these findings may lie in our definition of social services as information services. Our social services factor includes mainly items that enable the user to maintain his social connections on-line, such as Chat rooms, real-time messaging systems, and on-line Forums enabling the exchange of opinions between Internet users C. HAPPINESS

DUBOS 82 http://www.tfwallace.com/pages_blocks_v3/images/links/CelebrationofLife.pdf Rene Dubos, a Pulitzer Prize winning biologist, died February 20, 1982. Happiness is contagious. For this reason its expression is a social service and almost a duty. The Buddhists have a saying about this commendable virtue: "Only happy people can make a happy world."

50

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

A/T DEFINITIONS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES [LOOK FOR SUFFIX – UK, EU, ETC.] INTERNATIONAL DEFINITIONS ARE UNIQUELY UNPREDICTABLE - SOCIAL SERVICE DEFINITIONS VARY BROADLY BY COUNTRY.

HALL AND MIDGELEY 4 Social Policy for Development, GOOGLE BOOKS, 207-8 ANTHONY HALL is a Reader in Social Planning in Developing Countries at the London School of Economics and Political Science, MIDGELEY, Harry and Riva Specht Professor Dean Emeritus, 1997-2006, BERKELEY SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WELFARE

51

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

CAN’T MIX AND MATCH INTERNATIONAL CARDS – IT RESULTS IN HOPELESS TERM CONFUSION

SHLONSKY 71 Paul Baerwald School of Social Work, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

# Hagith R. Shlonsky # The Social Service Review, Vol. 45, No. 4 (Dec., 1971), pp. 414-425 # Published by: The University of Chicago Press Welfare Programs and the Social System: A Conceptual Examination of "Social Services" and "Income Maintenance Services"

52

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

A/T DEFINITIONS FROM THE UK US DEFINITIONS ARE DISTINCT AND MORE NARROW THAN THE BRITISH DEFINTION

Salomon 94 Who Benefits from the Nonprofit Sector? By Charles T. Clotfelter Google books, p. 135-6

Dr. Salamon is a leading expert on alternative tools of government action and on the nonprofit sector in the U.S. and around the world. He has served as deputy associate director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget and has taught at Harvard, Vanderbilt, and Duke Universities and at Tougaloo College in Mississippi. He holds a Ph.D. in government from Harvard University and a B.A. in economics and policy studies from Princeton University. He has written or edited over 20 books; his articles have appeared in Foreign Affairs, the New York Times, Voluntas, and numerous other publications. His most recent books include: The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance (Oxford University Press, 2002); The State of Nonprofit America (Brookings Institution Press, 2003); and Global Civil Society: Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector, Volume II (Kumarian Press, 2004).

53

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

A/T UN DEFINITION THE UNESCO DEFINTION IS WEAK – IT’S A PRESCRIPTION, NOT A DESCRIPTION

SPICKER 84 Rev. ed. of the author's thesis (Ph. D.)--University of London. Stigma and social welfare, GOOGLE BOOKS

54

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

A/T YOUR INTERP IS ARBITRARY NON-UNIQUE - SOCIAL SERVICE DEFINTIONS ARE INHERENTLY ARBITRARY

WICKENDEN 76 # Elizabeth Wickenden # The Social Service Review, Vol. 50, No. 4 (Dec., 1976), pp. 570-585 # Published by: The University of Chicago Press a social welfare and Social Security policy consultant, analyst, and writer, and professor of public policy and urban studies. Documented are her positions in the Transient Bureau of the Works Progress Administration, Federal Security Agency, and Federal Emergency Relief Administration from 1933 to 1941; her membership on the Kennedy Task Force on Health and Social Security Legislation (1960-1961) and the Advisory Council on Public Welfare (1964-1967); her work for the American Public Welfare Association in 1941; her activities as a consultant to national social welfare organizations such as the National Social Welfare Assembly, YWCA, National Urban League, Child Welfare League of America, Children's Defense Fund, and Project on Social Welfare Law; and her leading role in the Study Group on Social Security and the Save Our Security coalition. Also reflected are her activities as Professor of Urban Studies at the City University of New York (1966-1974) and at Fordham University (1979-1983)

55

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

SERVICE T: EXCLUDES GOODS AND INCOME FEDERAL ASSISTANCE DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN SERVICES, GOODS AND INCOME

BURKE 11/25/3 http://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/RL32233.pdf Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited Income: Eligibility Rules, Recipient and Expenditure Data, FY2000-FY2002 Vee Burke, Specialist in Income Maintenance, Domestic Social Policy Division, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Most of these programs base eligibility on individual, household, or family income, but some use group or area income tests (see Table 7 — page 16); and a few offer help on the basis of presumed “need.” Most provide income “transfers.” That is, they transfer income, in the form of cash, goods, or services, to persons who make no payment and render no service in return.

56

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

SOCIAL SERVICE: BROAD STATUTORY DEFINITION [NOTE: REHIGHLIGHT TO INCLUDE SPECIFIC AFF IF POSSIBLE] SOCIAL SERVICE MEANS FEDERAL POVERTY PROGRAMS

GEORGE BUSH – IN AN EXECUTIVE ORDER 2 EO 13279 “Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-Based and Community Organizations” http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/docs/legal/wh-20021212.pdf. "Social service program" means a program that is administered by the Federal Government, or by a State or local government using Federal financial assistance, and that provides services directed at reducing poverty, improving opportunities for low-income children, revitalizing low-income communities, empowering lowincome families and low-income individuals to become self-sufficient, or otherwise helping people in need. Such programs include, but are not limited to, the following: (i) child care services, protective services for children and adults, services for children and adults in foster care, adoption services, services related to the management and maintenance of the home, day care services for adults, and services to meet the special needs of children, older individuals, and individuals with disabilities (including physical, mental, or emotional disabilities); (ii) transportation services; (iii) job training and related services, and employment services; (iv) information, referral, and counseling services; (v) the preparation and delivery of meals and services related to soup kitchens or food banks; (vi) health support services; (vii) literacy and mentoring programs; (viii) services for the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency and substance abuse, services for the prevention of crime and the provision of assistance to the victims and the families of criminal offenders, and services related to intervention in, and prevention of, domestic violence; and (ix) services related to the provision of assistance for housing under Federal law.

57

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

SOCIAL SERVICES: BROAD SOCIAL SERVICES MEANS ANY SERVICE TO PEOPLE IN POVERTY

BURKE 4

Domestic Social Policy Division, Specialist in Income Maintenance, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, CRS REPORT FOR CONGRESS, “Social Service Provisions in the CARE Act and the Charitable Giving Act” http://www.wikileaks.de/leak/crs/RS21713.pdf

REFERENCES H.R. 7 (The Charitable Giving Act of 2003) as passed by the HousE

Defines social services programs as programs providing benefits or services of any kind to persons and families in need. [Section 301] SOCIAL SERVICES CAN INCLUDE ANYTHING THAT IMPROVES PEOPLE’S STANDARD OF LIVING

DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION PROGRAM OF THE WORLD BANK 00 http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/TLSF/theme_c/mod13/www.worldbank.org/depweb /english/modules/glossary.htm Social services. Services generally provided by the government that help improve people's standard of living; examples are public hospitals and clinics, good roads, clean water supply, garbage collection, electricity, and telecommunications. SOCIAL SERVICES MEANS ANY PROVISION OF BASIC HUMAN NEEDS TO THE UNDERPRIVILEGED

SOCIAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD OF MANHATTAN, KANSAS, NO DATE http://www.ci.manhattan.ks.us/DocumentView.asp?DID=1954. The SSAB uses the following definition of social services: Those not-for-profit activities, programs, or agencies that are primarily engaged in providing basic human needs services such as temporary shelter, protection, nutrition, care, emergency support, and guidance to those members of our community who are in need because of their dependence, income status, health or other immediate circumstances, when those needs cannot be adequately met by other private or public services or agencies.

58

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

SOCIAL SERVICES INCLUDES EDUCATION EDUCATION IS A SOCIAL SERVICE

DIMMOCK AND WALKER 00 Clive Dimmock, Allan Walker. Compare. Oxford: Oct 2000. Vol. 30, Iss. 3; pg. 303, 10 pgs CLIVE DIMMOCK, Graduate School of Education, University of Western Australia ALLAN WALKER, Chinese University of Hong Kong That schools provide education and that education is a social service is undeniable.

59

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

SOCIAL SERVICES INCLUDES MEDICAID SOCIAL SERVIDES INCLUDES MEDICAID AND EXCLUDES MEDICARE

COUNCIL FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATION NO DATE http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.php?lesson=190&page=teacher The Council for Economic Education offers many programs promoting economic literacy in the United States and across the globe. Medicare provides health care coverage for 40 million elderly. Medicaid provides health care for 34 million poor people, people with disabilities, and seniors in nursing homes. Medicare is an entitlement. Medicaid is a social service.

60

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

SOCIAL SERVICES INCLUDES HOUSING HOUSING IS CLEARLY A SOCIAL SERVICE

Chan Chun Wai 3 http://sunzi.lib.hku.hk/hkuto/view/B31969069/ft.pdf. Master of Housing Management dissertation, University of Hong Kong,

AN ASSESSMENT ON THE CHANGING ROLE OF THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT IN PUBLIC HOUSING PROVISION DURING THE 1990s It is generally recognized that housing is a form of social services. As Richard M. Titmuss pointed out. social services can be defined as all collectively provided services which are deliberately designed to meet certain socially recognized needs. Therefore, government regarded housing as a form of social services which is provided jointly with education, medical and health and other services to the most needed in the society

61

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

SOCIAL SERVICES INCLUDES FAMILY PLANNING: XX/SSBG SOCIAL SERVICES INCLUDES FEDERAL FAMILY PLANNING SOLLOM GOLD AND SAUL 84 http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2816696.pdf

Terry Sollom is policy analyst, Rachel Benson Gold is senior public policy associate and Rebekah Saul is senior public policy assistant at The Alan Guttmacher Institute, Washington, D. C. The study on which this article is based was supported by the office of Population Affairs, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, grant no. FPR000057. Public funds to provide subsidized family planning come from diverse federal and state programs. The federal government makes funds available for family planning services through four major sources: Title X of the Public Health Service Act, and Titles V, XIX and XX of the Social Security Act. The latter three sources are better known as the maternal and child health (MCH) block grant, Medicaid and the social services block grant, respectively. The importance of each of these individual funding sources for family planning services varies across states, since each state can structure its family planning effort individually.

62

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

SOCIAL SERVICES SHOULD BE DEFINED BROADLY SOCIAL SERVICES IS THE BROADER TERM – IT’S CONTEXTUALLY DISTINCT FROM ITS NARROWER COUNTERPART

WILTSE 58 Social Casework and Public Assistance Kermit T. Wiltse The Social Service Review, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Mar., 1958), pp. 41-50 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Dean of School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley

63

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

SOCIAL SERVICES: BROAD IS STILL MEANINGFUL INCLUSIVE DEFINTION STILL HAS MEANING – IT DISTINGUISHES SOCIAL SERVICES FROM PUBLIC WELFARE LIKE HIGHWAYS

SPICKER 84 Rev. ed. of the author's thesis (Ph. D.)--University of London. Stigma and social welfare, GOOGLE BOOKS

64

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

A/T TITLE XX TITLE XX FAILS – IT DOESN’T PROVIDE ANY LIMIT BECAUSE LITERALLY ANYTHING CAN BE INTERPRETED WITHIN ITS FIVE GOALS. ALOS – IT TECHNICALLY PROHIBITS EXCLUSIONS.

WICKENDEN 76 # Elizabeth Wickenden # The Social Service Review, Vol. 50, No. 4 (Dec., 1976), pp. 570-585 # Published by: The University of Chicago Press a social welfare and Social Security policy consultant, analyst, and writer, and professor of public policy and urban studies. Documented are her positions in the Transient Bureau of the Works Progress Administration, Federal Security Agency, and Federal Emergency Relief Administration from 1933 to 1941; her membership on the Kennedy Task Force on Health and Social Security Legislation (1960-1961) and the Advisory Council on Public Welfare (1964-1967); her work for the American Public Welfare Association in 1941; her activities as a consultant to national social welfare organizations such as the National Social Welfare Assembly, YWCA, National Urban League, Child Welfare League of America, Children's Defense Fund, and Project on Social Welfare Law; and her leading role in the Study Group on Social Security and the Save Our Security coalition. Also reflected are her activities as Professor of Urban Studies at the City University of New York (1966-1974) and at Fordham University (1979-1983)

65

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

“FOR PERSONS LIVING IN POVERTY” VIOLATION A. INTERPRETATION – TOPICAL AFFS MUST USE THE OFFICIAL POVERTY THRESHOLD AS AN ELIGIBILITY CRITERION 1. FOR IS A TERM OF EXCLUSION WHICH MUST BE GIVEN STATUTORY MEANING US CUSTOMS COURT 39 AMERICAN COLORTYPE CO. v. UNITED STATES C. D. 107, Protest 912094-G against the decision of the collector of customs at the port of New York UNITED STATES CUSTOMS COURT, THIRD DIVISION 2 Cust. Ct. 132; 1939 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 35

The same reasons used by the appellate court may be adopted in construing the language of the statute herein involved. If the words "for industrial use" mean no more than the words "articles of utility," there could be no reason for inserting the additional words"for industrial use" in the paragraph. Therefore, it must be held that the [*135] new language "for industrial use" was intended to have a different meaning from the words "articles of utility," as construed in the case of Progressive Fine Arts Co. v. United States, [**8] supra. Webster's New International Dictionary defines the word "industrial" as follows: Industrial. 1. Relating to industry or labor as an economic factor, or to a branch or the branches of industry; of the nature of, or constituting, an industry or industries * * * . The transferring of the scenes on an oil painting to a printed copy is a branch of industry under the definition above quoted. Some of the meanings of the preposition "for" signify intent, as shown by the following definition in the same dictionary: For. 2. Indicating the end with reference to which anything is, acts, serves, or is done; as: a. As a preparation for; with the object of; in order to be, become, or act as; conducive to. * * *. d. Intending, or in order, to go to or in the direction of. Therefore, the words "articles for industrial use" in paragraph 1807 imply that Congress intended to exclude from that provision articles either purchased or imported with the intention to use the same in industry for manufacturing purposes.

66

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

2. POVERTY IS CLEARLY DEFINED BY THE USFG

INSTITUTE FOR POVERTY RESEARCH 3/19/9 http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq1.htm IRP is a center for interdisciplinary research into the causes and consequences of poverty and social inequality in the United States. It is based at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. As one of three Area Poverty Research Centers sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, it has a particular interest in poverty and family welfare in the Midwest. What are poverty thresholds and poverty guidelines? Each year, generally in the fall, the U.S. Census Bureau issues a report on poverty in the United States. Among other information, it provides statistics on how many people are poor, and on how poverty is distributed by age, by race or ethnicity, by region, and by family type. Individuals or families are poor if their annual pretax cash income falls below a federal measure of poverty that is also recalculated each year. The Census Bureau's most recent poverty report is for 2007, and was issued in August 2008 as a combined report, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007. Since 1965, there have been two slightly different versions of the federal poverty measure: * the poverty thresholds, and * the poverty guidelines. The poverty thresholds are the original version of the federal poverty measure (developed by Mollie Orshansky of the Social Security Administration). They are updated each year by the Census Bureau. The thresholds are used mainly for statistical purposes—for instance, preparing the estimates of the number of Americans in poverty for each year's report. Values of the poverty thresholds for the years 1980–2007 for families of different sizes are available on the Census Bureau's Web site. For example, for a four-person family unit with two children, the 2007 poverty threshold is $21,027. For one- or two-person family units, the poverty thresholds differ by age; the 2007 threshold for one individual under age 65 is $10,787, whereas for an individual 65 or over it is $9,944. The poverty guidelines are the other version of the federal poverty measure. They are issued each year, generally in the winter, in the Federal Register by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The guidelines are a simplification of the poverty thresholds for use for administrative purposes—for instance, determining financial eligibility for certain federal programs. They are adjusted for families of different sizes. Poverty guidelines for the years since 1982 and other historical information appear on the Web page "Poverty Guidelines, Research, and Measurement" of the Office of the 67

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Separate HHS poverty guidelines for Alaska and Hawaii reflect Office of Economic Opportunity administrative practice beginning in the 1966-1970 period. Both the thresholds and the guidelines are the same for all mainland states, regardless of regional differences in the cost of living. Both are updated annually for price changes using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). The poverty guidelines are sometimes loosely referred to as the "federal poverty level" or "poverty line," but these terms are ambiguous, and should be avoided in situations (e.g., legislative or administrative) where precision is important.

68

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

A DETERMINATE SET OF PROGRAMS USE THE POVERTY THRESHOLD TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY

INSTITUTE FOR POVERTY RESEARCH 3/19/9 http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq1.htm IRP is a center for interdisciplinary research into the causes and consequences of poverty and social inequality in the United States. It is based at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. As one of three Area Poverty Research Centers sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, it has a particular interest in poverty and family welfare in the Midwest. The HHS poverty guidelines are used in setting eligibility criteria for a number of federal programs. Some programs actually use a percentage multiple of the guidelines, such as 125 percent, 150 percent, or 185 percent. This is not the result of a single coherent plan; instead, it stems from decisions made at different times by different congressional committees or federal agencies. Some examples of federal programs that use the guidelines in determining eligibility are: * HHS: Community Services Block Grant, Head Start, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance, Children's Health Insurance Program * Department of Agriculture: Food Stamps; Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); the National School Lunch and School Breakfast programs * Department of Energy: Weatherization Assistance * Department of Labor: Job Corps, Senior Community Service Employment Program, National Farmworker Jobs Program * Legal Services Corporation: Legal services for the poor Certain relatively recent provisions of Medicaid use the poverty guidelines; however, the rest of that program (accounting for roughly three-quarters of Medicaid eligibility determinations) does not use the guidelines. Major means-tested programs that do NOT use the poverty guidelines in determining eligibility include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (and its predecessor, Aid to Families with Dependent Children), Supplemental Security Income, the Earned Income Tax Credit program, the Department of Housing and Urban Development's means-tested housing assistance programs, and the Social Services Block Grant. B. VIOLATION – THE AFF DOESN’T USE POVERTY AS AN ELIGIBILITY CRITERION, SO THEY AREN’T FOR PERSONS LIVING IN POVERTY, EVEN IF THEY AFFECT PERSONS IN POVERTY

69

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

C. VOTE NEG FOR OUR INTERPRETATION 1. SUBJECT SPECIFIC FIELD CONTEXT – POVERTY PROGRAMS TARGET WITH MEANS TESTING TO ENSURE THEY ARE FOR THE POOR. THAT’S A KEY LIMIT

COONTZ ET AL 99 American families By Stephanie Coontz, Maya Parson, Gabrielle Raley Author Stephanie Coontz teaches history and family studies at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA.

2. LIMITS – ALL PROGRAMS AFFECT THE POOR IN SOME WAY, AND ALL SOCIAL PROBLEMS DISPROPRTIONATELY IMPACT PEOPLE IN POVERTY, INCLUDING WAR, NANOTECH, POLLUTION, AND INJUSTICE. THE PREPOSITION HAS TO BE A STATUTORY LIMIT – NOT JUST A CHARACTERISTIC – TO STOP UNFAIR AND SHALLOW DEBATES OVER EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING 3. PRECISION AND CLARITY – OUR INTERPRETATION ALLOWS A RESOLUTION BASED ON A DETERMINATE LIST OF PROGRAMS. YOU LOOK AT A CHART – BAM! THAT TRUMPS ARBITRARY AND SELF-SERVING DECLARATIONS OF INTENT

70

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

FOR IS A TERM OF EXCLUSION FOR IS A TERM OF EXCLUSION: FIFTH AMENDMENT PROVES

FALLS 5

B.A., 2000, Southwest Missouri State University; J.D. Candidate 2005, Washburn University School of Law. I 44 Washburn L.J. 355

Legal scholars have struggled to determine the scope of the public use requirement as envisioned by the Framers. n134 This struggle has occurred due to the lack of evidence as to what the Framers intended by implementing the public use language of the Fifth Amendment. n135 According to strict textualists, the three words "for public use," located just after "taken" but before "without just compensation," imply that private property must be taken for a "public use." n136 Additionally, textualists argue that the phrase "for public use" is narrowing rather than broadening the public use requirement under the Takings Clause. n137 For example, the preposition "for" appears only two other times in the Fifth Amendment, and both times, there is little doubt that the phrases are seen as narrowing the scope of the Amendment. n138 Finally, if the Framers intended a broad interpretation of "for public use," the Framers would have used such a phrase.n139 For example, [*370] the Takings Clause does not state "nor shall private property be taken, unless for public use" or "taken for legitimate public purpose." n140 THE PREPOSITION FOR DENOTES THE CHIEF USE OF A GIVEN STATUTORY PROVISION UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS 79 THE UNITED STATES V. SORTEX CO. OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. NO. 78-14, C.A.D. 1221 UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS 66 C.C.P.A. 57; 596 F.2D 1002; 1979 CCPA LEXIS 276; C.A.D. 1221 We cannot adopt the Government's interpretation [***12] of TSUS 666.25, because it ignores the grammatical construction of the provision. In the heading "Industrial machinery for preparing and manufacturing food of drink" both verbs are used in the identical form, as gerunds following the preposition "for." The Government would have us construe the first gerund, "preparing," as establishing for what the machine must be used, and the second gerund, "manufacturing," as establishing where (in or at what place) the machine must be used. Such a construction disregards the fact that both gerunds are objects of the preposition "for." If Congress had intended to create a where-used requirement, it would have used another prepositional phrase, e.g., industrial machinery for preparing food or drink in a manufacturing operation. Since both gerunds follow the preposition for, both must be construed as establishing the for-what-use requirement. Furthermore, since TSUS item 666.25 is a chief use provision, the phrase "for preparing and manufacturing food or drink" cannot be construed as creating two for-what chief use requirements, it being impossible to have two chief uses under the definition of chief use in TSUS General Interpretative [***13] Rule 10(e)(i). This rule defines chief use as "the use which exceeds all other uses (if any) combined." Obviously, there cannot be two uses each of which exceeds all other uses combined. In view of this and the fact that there is only a subtle distinction between [**1007] the meaning of the verbs "prepare" and "manufacture" when used in the context of foods (e.g., Is frozen orange juice 71

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

prepared or manufactured?), we conclude that the phrase "for preparing and manufacturing food or drink" must be construed as creating just one for-what chief use requirement.

72

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

“FOR” – PREPOSITION IMPACTS PREPOSITIONS ARE KEY TO ACTUALLY SPEAKING ENGLISH

BOND AND HAYASHI 6 Kanto Gakuin University, Japanese translator http://opac.kanto-gakuin.ac.jp/cgi-bin/retrieve/sr_bookview.cgi/U_CHARSET.utf8/NI20000010/Body/link/02hayashi.pdf The importance of prepositions and their use in the English language cannot be overstated. Prepositions show relationships in time and space. Prepositions also help establish logical relationships between ideas. Communicative English that is logical and easy to understand does rely strongly on the correct use of prepositions and prepositional phrases. PREPOSITIONAL INTERPRETATION KEY TO MEANING - OUTWEIGHS THEIR DISTINCTION

EMERSON 1896 http://grammar.about.com/od/basicsentencegrammar/a/teachgrammar_2.htm Dr. Oliver Farrar Emerson (1860-1927) was for many years a highly regarded professor of rhetoric and English philology at Cornell University. A specialist in medieval English literature, he wrote and edited several books, including The History of the English Language (1894) and A Middle English Reader (1905). Further, owing to misconceptions of language, our text-books of English grammar show an entire neglect of some fundamental distinctions. In an inflected language, syntactical relations are made evident by inflectional endings. How are syntactical relations shown in an analytical language like English? Manifestly, first, by certain relational words, as prepositions and auxiliary verbs, and, second, by the order of words. Now I know of no grammar of English which begins to do justice to the syntactical importance of prepositions. Certainly there is none which attempts to treat word order in any adequate manner. Yet these are fundamental facts of English syntax, more important than all the logical distinctions with which our text-books are filled. PREPOSITIONS KEY TO MEANING

English Tap, no date School of English www.englishtap.net/dipti/grammar/prep_added.htm The importance of prepositions Omitting or including just one article or preposition can completely change the meaning.

73

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

DEFINTIONS OF “POVERTY”: US FEDERAL GOVERNMNET PRECISION – THE CENSUS BUREAU OFFICIALLY DEFINES THE TERMS “PEOPLE IN POVERTY”

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 9 http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/faq.shtml#programs How many people are in poverty in the United States? How many people are in poverty in [my state OR my county OR my city]? The Census Bureau is the federal agency that prepares statistics on the number of people in povertyin the United States. To obtain figures on the number of people in poverty since 1959, visit the Poverty section of the Census Bureau’s web site, or contact the Census Bureau’s Demographic Call Center Staff at (301) 763-2422 or 1866-758-1060 (toll-free), or visit . The Census Bureau’s poverty statistics represent the number of people below the Census Bureau poverty thresholds. Neither the Census Bureau nor the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services prepare tabulations of the number of people below the HHS poverty guidelines, which are a simplified version of the poverty thresholds used for program eligibility purposes. The best approximation for the number of people below the HHS poverty guidelines in a particular area would be the number of persons below the Census Bureau poverty thresholds in that area. [ Go to Questions ] Since there is an official federal definition of “poverty,” does the federal government also have official definitions for such terms as “middle class,” “middle income,” “rich,” and “upper income”? No. The federal government does not have official definitions for such terms as “middle class,” “middle income,” “rich,” and “upper income.” THE CENSUS BUREAU DEFINES POVERTY ACCORDING TO USFG DIRECTIVES

US CENSUS BUREAU 8 http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povdef.html

Following the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family’s total income is less than the family’s threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated for inflation using Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps).

74

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

POVERTY GUIDELINES UNIQUELY PREDICTABLE POVERTY DEFINITIONS ARE DEEPLY ENTRENCHED WITHIN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT – THEY’RE UNIQUELY PREDICTABLE BECAUSE THEY’RE USED BY SO MANY PROGRAMS

BLANK 7 http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/u/working_paper07-30.pdf Rebecca Blank, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan and Brookings Institution “How to Improve Poverty Measurement in the United States” National Poverty Center Working Paper Series #07-30, November 2007 This paper was prepared as the Presidential Address to the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management at their annual conference, November 8-10, 2007. Second, changes in poverty have become harder the longer that the statistic has gone without changes, in part because the current poverty measure is used by a large number of programs. According to a recent Congressional Research Service estimate (Gabe, 2007), 82 federal programs use the official poverty rate (typically as a basis for 20 allocating funds) or the Poverty Guidelines (typically as one element in their eligibility determinations.) POVERTY GUIDELINES ARE THE MOST COMMON DEFINITIONS

besharov and germanis 4 http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/poverty/povmeasure.description.pdf. Douglas J. Besharov, a lawyer and the first director of the U.S. National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, is also a professor at the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy. There, he directs the university's Welfare Reform Academy and teaches courses on family policy, welfare reform, evaluation, and the implementation of social policy. As the director of AEI's Social and Individual Responsibility Project, Mr. Besharov led research on state welfare and Medicaid policy reforms; private and community efforts to restore stability to inner cities; and the effectiveness of federal nutrition, rehabilitation, and vocational training programs. Peter Germanis is assistant director of the. University of Maryland's Welfare Reform Academy The federal poverty measure is the most commonly used indicator of the material wellbeing of low-income Americans. It compares an individual’s or a family’s income to the amount believed necessary to meet a minimum standard of living. For almost four decades, it has been the primary statistic by which the extent of U.S. poverty is measured and by which federal, state, and local governments allocate means-tested social welfare benefits. THE POVERTY DEFINITION IS UNUSUALLY WELL CODIFIED

BLANK 7 http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/u/working_paper07-30.pdf Rebecca Blank, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan and Brookings Institution “How to Improve Poverty Measurement in the United States” National Poverty Center Working Paper Series #07-30, November 2007 75

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

This paper was prepared as the Presidential Address to the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management at their annual conference, November 8-10, 2007. This methodology was imbedded as the official poverty calculation when the Bureau of the Budget (now the Office of Management and Budget, OMB) issued a directive in 1969 stating that the Census Bureau should calculate and report this figure annually.6 I will return to this point below, but note here that this is relatively unusual. Most government statistics are not defined by an OMB directive, but are under the control and jurisdiction of one of the U.S. statistical agencies which has authority to implement improvements and updates over time. In contrast, any change in the official measurement of poverty requires a change in this directive. Since OMB sits within the Executive Office of the President, this means the White House needs to sign off on any change, a point that will be quite important later in this paper

76

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

RESOLUTIONAL CONTEXT NET BENEFIT: POVERTY DEFINITION USES “PERSONS IN POVERTY” CENSUS FORMULA IDENTIFIES PEOPLE IN POVERTY

besharov and germanis 4 http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/poverty/povmeasure.description.pdf. Douglas J. Besharov, a lawyer and the first director of the U.S. National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, is also a professor at the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy. There, he directs the university's Welfare Reform Academy and teaches courses on family policy, welfare reform, evaluation, and the implementation of social policy. As the director of AEI's Social and Individual Responsibility Project, Mr. Besharov led research on state welfare and Medicaid policy reforms; private and community efforts to restore stability to inner cities; and the effectiveness of federal nutrition, rehabilitation, and vocational training programs. Peter Germanis is assistant director of the. University of Maryland's Welfare Reform Academy The “poverty thresholds” are used by the Census Bureau to calculate the number of people

in

poverty. THE RESOLUTIONAL PHRASE IS A CENSUS TERM OF ART

GOVERNOR’S OFFICE FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION NO DATE http://www.data.gosap.governor.virginia.gov/GOSAP_App/DocumentsUploaded/200506 06132236.Poverty%20All%20Ages.pdf This database is a project of the Governor's Office for Substance Abuse Prevention (GOSAP) Collaborative. Virginia’s state agencies are collaborating to provide information that impacts the development of our children and the well-being of our communities on this easy-to-use site. Please visit often as we frequently are adding data and enhancing what the database can do. Please use the Feedback form (upper right) to give us your comments and ideas for making it more useful.’

Persons Living in Poverty Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) program. Definition: The total number of people in poverty. THE RESOLUTUIONAL PHRASE REFERS TO DERIVATIONS FROM CENSUS COUNTS

LANG AND POLANKSY 94 http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/331/23/1542

From the Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy and Immunology (D.M.L.), and the Department of Humanities, Social Sciences, and Biometrics (M.P.), Hahnemann University Hospital, Philadelphia. Presented in part at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy and Immunology, Chicago, March 16, 1993.

Volume 331:1542-1546 December 8, 1994 Number 23 Patterns of Asthma Mortality in Philadelphia from 1969 to 1991”

77

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

Persons living in poverty were identified with a standard used by federal government agencies: total income is adjusted to a poverty threshold that varies depending on the size and composition of a family.

78

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

POVERTY GUIDELINES MEANS TESTING: LIST OF EXCLUSION THE FOLLOWING MEANS-TESTED PROGRAMS DON’T MEET OUR DEFINTION OF “FOR PERSON IN POVERTY”

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 9 http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/faq.shtml#programs

Major means-tested programs that do not use the poverty guidelines in determining eligibility include the following: * Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and its predecessor, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) (in most cases) * Supplemental Security Income (SSI) * Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) * State/local-funded General Assistance (in most cases) * Large parts of Medicaid (69 percent of eligibles in Fiscal Year 2004) * Section 8 low-income housing assistance * Low-rent public housing

79

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

EXCLUDES VETERAN’S AND SOCIAL SECURITY SOCIAL SECURITY AND VETERANS BENEFITS DON’T DO ANY MEANS TESTING – THEY AREN’T FOR POVERTY

BURKE 11/25/3 http://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/RL32233.pdf Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited Income: Eligibility Rules, Recipient and Expenditure Data, FY2000-FY2002 Vee Burke, Specialist in Income Maintenance, Domestic Social Policy Division, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE This report excludes income maintenance programs that are not income-tested, including social insurance and many veterans’ benefits, and all but two tax-transfer programs. Thus, it excludes Social Security cash benefits, unemployment compensation, and Medicare. Outlays for the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance programs (Social Security cash benefit programs) in FY2002 totaled $456 billion, financed primarily from payroll tax collections. The report also excludes payments, even though financed with general revenues, that may be regarded as “deferred compensation,” such as veterans’ housing

benefits and medical care for veterans with a service-connected disability. VETERANS BENEFITS DON’T DIRECT TO POVERTY – THEY APPLY TO ALL VETERAN’S AND PRIORITIZE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY

BURKE 11/25/3 http://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/RL32233.pdf Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited Income: Eligibility Rules, Recipient and Expenditure Data, FY2000-FY2002 Vee Burke, Specialist in Income Maintenance, Domestic Social Policy Division, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH Eligibility Requirements3 Unlike other medical benefit entitlements such as Medicare or Medicaid, eligibility for medical benefits from VA conveys varying degrees of rights. In principle, all veterans are eligible to receive services from VA medical facilities, although the potential total amount of services available to all veterans is contingent on appropriations. Veterans with high-priority rights under VA law are generally assured a full array of services, and those with lower-priority are provided services if space and resources are available. Highest priority for the full range of medical services is granted to veterans with severe, service-connected disabilities. Other veterans have varying degrees of access for the different types of medical services, with distinctions based on the severity of the condition, whether or not it is serviceconnected, level of income, and type of medical service provided. In practice, there is no evidence that any veterans were denied services at any VA facility in FY2002, and no denials are expected during FY2003 (except for nursing home care, which is provided only on a space-available basis, regardless of priority status). As a general rule, no veteran is denied medical services upon presenting a health complaint to qualified personnel at a VA medical facility. For administrative purposes, and to best manage the medical needs of individual patients, veterans are encouraged to enroll in regional VA health care plans 80

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

(enrollment for veterans who do not have a service-connection, whose enrollments are above the threshold for means-tested services, or who are not already enrolled has been temporarily halted). There are 23 of these Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) nationwide.

81

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

SOME VETERAN’S AFFS MEET [TOPICAL VERSION OF YOUR CASE] CERTAIN VETERAN’S MEDICAL ASSISTANCE CATEGORIES ARE EXPLICITLY DIRECTED TO PEOPLE IN POVERTY

BURKE 11/25/3 http://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/RL32233.pdf Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited Income: Eligibility Rules, Recipient and Expenditure Data, FY2000-FY2002 Vee Burke, Specialist in Income Maintenance, Domestic Social Policy Division, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH The largest category of veterans provided free medical care by VA consists of persons who qualify for that care because their assets and income are below certain annually adjusted standards (in 2003: single person, $24,644; with one dependent, $29,576; for each additional dependent, $1,586), with possible additional adjustments for regional differences in medical costs. VA estimates that out of 25 million veterans, about 7 million would qualify for free care because they meet the lowincome standards. Veterans whose incomes in the previous calendar year were no higher than the pension of a veteran in need of regular aid and attendance (in 2003: single person, $16,169; with one dependent, $19,167; for each additional dependent, $1,653) are also eligible for free medications; others pay copayments of $7 monthly for prescriptions filled in VA pharmacies, up to a maximum of $840 per year. A veteran applying for care under the low-income eligibility test is advised that reported income is subject to verification by matching the amount shown on the application with income reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Once eligible under the income rules, a veteran remains eligible until determined upon (annual) reevaluation to no longer meet the income standard. VA has estimated that about 38% of the applications for medical services are from veterans entitled to free care because of meeting the income standards.4

82

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

FOR PERSONS IN POVERTY: EXCLUDES HOUSING, INCOME TAX credit MEASUREMENT BY THE POVERTY GUIDELINES EXCLUDES HOUSING AND EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT

WILLIS 00 http://www.ocpp.org/poverty/how.htm OREGON CENTER OFR PUBLIC POLICY, The Oregon Center for Public Policy (OCPP) does in-depth research and analysis on budget, tax, and economic issues. Our goal is to improve decision making and generate more opportunities for all Oregonians. Poverty guidelines differ slightly from poverty thresholds. The guidelines are a simplification of the poverty thresholds for administrative purposes such as determining the financial eligibility for certain federal programs. The Department of Health and Human Services issues poverty guidelines each year in the Federal Register. Poverty guidelines are designated by the year that they are issued. For instance, the guidelines issued generally in the beginning of 1999 are designated the 1999 poverty guidelines, but reflect only the price changes through the 1998 calendar year; they are approximately equal to the Census Bureau poverty thresholds for the 1998 calendar year. Programs and policies that use poverty guidelines to determine eligibility include Head Start, the National School Lunch Program, the Food Stamp Program, the LowIncome Home Energy Assistance Program, the Oregon Health Plan, and the Oregon Working Families Child Care Credit. These guidelines are used for many, but not all, federal, state, and local poverty programs. The Federal Earned Income Tax Credit is one example that does not use the poverty guidelines. Public Housing programs, such as Section 8, uses the area median income to determine eligibility.

83

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

EXCLUDES INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES HAVE NO INCOME REQUIREMENT

BURKE 11/25/3 http://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/RL32233.pdf Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited Income: Eligibility Rules, Recipient and Expenditure Data, FY2000-FY2002 Vee Burke, Specialist in Income Maintenance, Domestic Social Policy Division, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH Eligible under Public Health Service regulations are persons of American Indian or Alaskan Native (AI/AN) descent who: (1) are members of a federally recognized Indian tribe; (2) reside within an IHS Health Service Delivery Area (HSDA); or (3) are the natural minor children (18 years old or younger) of such an eligible member and reside within an IHS HSDA. The program imposes no income test; any eligible AI/AN can receive health services. The program serves Indians living on federal reservations, Indian communities in Oklahoma and California, and Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut communities in Alaska. According to the 2000 census, more than 57% of AI/AN reside in urban areas. Under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976, P.L. 94-437, as amended, the IHS contracts with 34 urban Indian organizations to make health services more accessible to 605,000 urban Indians. Combined, all IHS programs serve between 1.6 million AI/AN.

84

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

EXCLUDES COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS DON’T IMPOSE INDIVIDUAL INCOME REQUIREMENTS – THEY SERVE AREAS IN POVERTY, NOT PERSONS IN POVERTY

BURKE 11/25/3 http://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/RL32233.pdf Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited Income: Eligibility Rules, Recipient and Expenditure Data, FY2000-FY2002 Vee Burke, Specialist in Income Maintenance, Domestic Social Policy Division, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH Eligibility Requirements1 A health center is an entity that provides health care services to a medically underserved population, or a special medically underserved population comprised of migratory and seasonal agricultural workers, the homeless, and residents of public housing by providing required primary health services and additional health services as may be appropriate for particular centers. By regulation, medically underserved areas are designated by the HHS Secretary on the basis of such factors as: (1) ratio of primary care physicians to population, (2) infant mortality rate, (3) percentage of population aged 65 and over, and (4) percentage of population with family income below the poverty level. Profit-making organizations are not eligible for health center grants. All residents of an area served by a health center are eligible for its services.

85

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

A/T NO CASE MEETS: LIST OF INCLUSION FAMILY PLANNING FOR LOW INCOME MEETS

BURKE 11/25/3 http://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/RL32233.pdf Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited Income: Eligibility Rules, Recipient and Expenditure Data, FY2000-FY2002 Vee Burke, Specialist in Income Maintenance, Domestic Social Policy Division, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH Eligibility Requirements1 The law requires that priority for clinic services go to persons from low-income families. Clinics must provide family planning services to all persons who request them, but the priority target group has been women aged 15-44 from low-income families who are at risk of unplanned pregnancy. Clinics are required to encourage family participation. Clinics must provide services free of charge (except to the extent that Medicaid or other health insurers cover these services) to persons whose incomes do not exceed 100% of the federal poverty income guidelines ($18,400 for a family of four in the 48 contiguous states in 2003). A sliding payment scale must be offered for those whose incomes are between 100% and 250% of the poverty guideline. REFUGEE AND ASYLEE SOCIAL SERVICE MEET – THEY’RE CONTINGENT ON POVERTY REQUIREMENTS

BURKE 11/25/3 http://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/RL32233.pdf Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited Income: Eligibility Rules, Recipient and Expenditure Data, FY2000-FY2002 Vee Burke, Specialist in Income Maintenance, Domestic Social Policy Division, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH A person must (a) have been admitted to the United States as a refugee or asylee under the Immigration and Nationality Act or have been paroled as a refugee or asylee under the Act, (b) be a Cuban or Haitian paroled into the United States between April 15 and October 20, 1980, and designated a “Cuban/Haitian entrant,” or be a Cuban or Haitian national paroled into the United States after October 10, 1980, (c) be a person who has an application for asylum pending or is subject to exclusion or deportation and against whom a final order of deportation has not been issued, or (d) be a Vietnam-born Amerasian immigrant fathered by a U.S. citizen. If a needy person in one of the above groups meets the income and assets tests prescribed by his state for Medicaid eligibility but does not otherwise qualify for that program because of its categorical requirements, such as family composition, the person is eligible for RMA. Under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193), as amended by P.L. 105-33, these persons are now eligible for 7 years after entry (earlier law gave permanent eligibility). After 7 years their continued participation is at state option, as it is with other legal permanent residents.5

86

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

[FYI] POVERTY GUIDELINES MEANS TESTING: LIST OF INCLUSION THE FOLLOWING PROGRAMS MEET OUR INTERPRETATION OF POVERTY

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 9 http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/faq.shtml#programs What programs use the poverty guidelines? The HHS poverty guidelines, or percentage multiples of them (such as 125 percent, 150 percent, or 185 percent), are used as an eligibility criterion by a number of federal programs, including those listed below. For examples of major means-tested programs that do not use the poverty guidelines, see the end of this response. * Department of Health and Human Services: o Community Services Block Grant o Head Start o Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) o Community Food and Nutrition Program o PARTS of Medicaid (31 percent of eligibles in Fiscal Year 2004) o Hill-Burton Uncompensated Services Program o AIDS Drug Assistance Program o State Children’s Health Insurance Program o Medicare – Prescription Drug Coverage (subsidized portion only) o Community Health Centers o Migrant Health Centers o Family Planning Services o Health Professions Student Loans — Loans for Disadvantaged Students o Health Careers Opportunity Program o Scholarships for Health Professions Students from Disadvantaged Backgrounds o Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals o Assets for Independence Demonstration Program * Department of Agriculture: o Food Stamp Program o Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) o National School Lunch Program (for free and reduced-price meals only) o School Breakfast Program (for free and reduced-price meals only) o Child and Adult Care Food Program (for free and reduced-price meals only) o Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program * Department of Energy: o Weatherization Assistance for Low-Income Persons * Department of Labor: o Job Corps o National Farmworker Jobs Program o Senior Community Service Employment Program o Workforce Investment Act Youth Activities * Department of the Treasury: o Low-Income Taxpayer Clinics * Corporation for National and Community Service: o Foster Grandparent Program o Senior Companion Program * Legal Services Corporation: o Legal Services for the Poor Most of these programs are non-open-ended programs — that is, programs for which a fixed amount of money is appropriated each year. The only open-ended or “entitlement” programs that use the poverty guidelines for eligibility are Food Stamps, the National School Lunch Program, certain parts of Medicaid, and the subsidized portion of Medicare – Prescription Drug Coverage.

87

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

[FYI CHART] FOR PERSONS IN POVERTY: EXCLUDES GRAPH – HERE’S WHAT’S TESTED ACCORDING TO POVERTY

BURKE 11/25/3 http://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/RL32233.pdf Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited Income: Eligibility Rules, Recipient and Expenditure Data, FY2000-FY2002 Vee Burke, Specialist in Income Maintenance, Domestic Social Policy Division, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH

88

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

89

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

90

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

91

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

POVERTY THRESHOLD GRAPH FYI

US CENSUS BUREAU 7 http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh07.html

92

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

POVERTY GUIDELINES ARE PRECISE: A/T PROGRAMMATIC VARIATION EVEN IF THE MEANS TESTING FORMULA VARIES, THE THRESHOLD IS UNIFORM AND INVARIABLE

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 9 http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/faq.shtml#programs

While there is no standard definition of income for program eligibility purposes, the Census Bureau uses a standard definition of income for computing poverty statistics based on the official poverty thresholds. More information is available on the Census Bureau’s web site.

93

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

A/T POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD NO COUNTERDEFINTION – EVEN OPPONENTS AGREE THAT THERE IS NOT A PREDICTABLE ALTERNATIVE

BLANK 7 http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/u/working_paper07-30.pdf Rebecca Blank, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan and Brookings Institution “How to Improve Poverty Measurement in the United States” National Poverty Center Working Paper Series #07-30, November 2007 This paper was prepared as the Presidential Address to the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management at their annual conference, November 8-10, 2007. Let me take stock of this history. Despite widespread agreement about some of the deficiencies of the current official poverty line, no substantial changes in that measure have occurred. Furthermore, while the overall thrust of the NAS recommendations were viewed as a credible alternative by many policy analysts and researchers, there was disagreement about some of the specific recommendations. As a result, agreement has not coalesced around one specific alternative calculation. While the Census Bureau has been very interested in poverty measurement and devoted substantial resources to new experimental and alternative measures, its efforts have largely resulted in a proliferation of alternatives measures without agreement on the comparative merits of different measures. ARBITRARINESS IS NON-UNIQUE – IT’S A IMPRECISE CONCEPT, WHICH IS WHY WE DEFAULT TO STATUTE

BLANK 7 http://ww.npc.umich.edu/publications/u/working_paper07-30.pdf Rebecca Blank, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan and Brookings Institution “How to Improve Poverty Measurement in the United States” National Poverty Center Working Paper Series #07-30, November 2007 This paper was prepared as the Presidential Address to the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management at their annual conference, November 8-10, 2007. Third, a key difficulty in seeking agreement about a new alternative poverty measure is that ‘poverty’ is an inherently vague concept, and developing a poverty measure requires a number of relatively arbitrary assumptions. While all statistics require some value judgment about how they are constructed, the very concept of ‘economic need’ is vague. There is no ‘right’ way to develop poverty thresholds or resource measures. Substantial disagreements exist about the nature of need among low income American families, which have echoed through our debates over welfare reform for many decades. At the end of the day, the statistician must make a call that balances good statistical measurement with astute political and social judgment about acceptable public definitions of poverty. The decisions are not always obvious, however, as indicated by the ongoing debates about whether and how to make 94

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

geographical adjustments, child care expense adjustments, and medical expense adjustments to the measure of poverty. The NAS committee discussed this explicitly in developing their measure for the poverty thresholds, trying for a measure that would be acceptable to a broad population (hence, expenditures on necessities plus a little more). Of course, given the role for judgment in this decision, those who engage in poverty measurement can often be quite influenced by their sense of where they want to end up. It is, perhaps, not surprising that persons who believe poverty is an over-rated problem in the U.S. have argued for imputing the value of in-kind benefits in resources without changing the thresholds (which would unambiguously lower poverty counts.) Meanwhile, those who believe that poverty is a serious problem are more likely to argue for methodologies that lead to substantially higher thresholds (and hence higher poverty counts.)

95

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

A/T “BLANK” EVIDENCE BLANK’S ULTIMATE CONCLUSION IS NORMATIVE NOT DESCRIPTIVE – SHE WANTS A CHANGED DEFINTION, BUT ACKNOWLEDGES IT DOESN’T EXIST NOW

BLANK 7 http://ww.npc.umich.edu/publications/u/working_paper07-30.pdf Rebecca Blank, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan and Brookings Institution “How to Improve Poverty Measurement in the United States” National Poverty Center Working Paper Series #07-30, November 2007 This paper was prepared as the Presidential Address to the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management at their annual conference, November 8-10, 2007. If we are serious about improving the measurement of poverty in the United States, I would recommend taking four actions. None of these are quickly done, but will require the active intervention of Congress, which means finding Members who will help make these changes happen. Some support for these changes within the relevant cabinet agencies would be helpful as well, as would support within the Administration for such changes. Strong support from within the research community for these changes also will be necessary. 1. Assign a statistical agency the authority to develop an alternative measure of income poverty, based on the work already done to develop alternative poverty measures. An important part of the assignment is the authority for this measure to be regularly improved and updated. We must remove control over poverty measurement from within the Executive Office of the President if we want to produce a regularly updated and improved poverty measure. Poverty measurement should be treated like all other statistics. Note that nothing in this recommendation overturns the OMB directive asking that Census continue to compute and report the current official poverty counts. Given this directive requires 32 Census to call this line the poverty rate, it might be very helpful to call the new measure something else. My own recommendation is to call it the Revised Poverty Measure. It is important that the agency be directed to produce one primary Revised Poverty Measure, although of course ongoing reports in appendix tables on alternative definitions are always useful. It is not useful, however, to produce 4 or 5 alternative Revised Poverty Measures and expect people to figure out which is the best one to use. The agency should be given a reasonable time line, by which point it should be annually reporting the Revised Poverty Measure as part of its official responsibilities. THEIR BEST AUTHOR CONCEDES THAT IT’S THE BEST EXISTANT GROUNDING

BLANK 7 http://ww.npc.umich.edu/publications/u/working_paper07-30.pdf Rebecca Blank, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan and Brookings Institution “How to Improve Poverty Measurement in the United States” National Poverty Center Working Paper Series #07-30, November 2007 This paper was prepared as the Presidential Address to the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management at their annual conference, November 8-10, 2007. 96

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

I have spent some amount of my time over the past two decades working to change the official poverty measure. This paper argues that working to change the current OMB directive is not the appropriate place to expend effort. The current poverty measures are what they are, imbedded inside a necessarily political agency which has many reasons to avoid change. We need to escape the argumentative box we have been in for several decades and assign responsibility for calculating a Revised Poverty Measure to an agency prepared to take on such a task. At the same time, we need to recognize the inherent limitations in any measure of income poverty.

97

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

POVERTY GUIDELINES IMPRECISE: PROGRAM VARIATION DIFFERENT PROGRAMS USE DIFFERENT CALCULATIONS FOR MEANS TESTING – IT ISN’T UNIFORM OR PRECISE

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 9 http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/faq.shtml#programs

Are the poverty guidelines before-tax or after-tax? Are they gross income or net income? What definition of income is used with the poverty guidelines? There is no simple answerto these questions. When determining program eligibility, some agencies compare before-tax income to the poverty guidelines, while other agencies compare after-tax income. Likewise, eligibility can be dependent on gross income, net income, or some other measure of income. Federal, state, and local program offices that use the poverty guidelines for eligibility purposes may define income in different ways. To find out the specific definition of income (beforetax, after-tax, etc.) used by a particular program or activity, one must consult the office or organization that administers that program.

98

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

POVERTY THRESHOLDS AND GUIDELINES BAD:UNDERCOUNTING THE OFFICIAL POVERTY MEASURES FAIL IN MUTLIPLE WAYS – IT’S IMPRECISE

WILLIS 00 http://www.ocpp.org/poverty/how.htm OREGON CENTER OFR PUBLIC POLICY, The Oregon Center for Public Policy (OCPP) does in-depth research and analysis on budget, tax, and economic issues. Our goal is to improve decision making and generate more opportunities for all Oregonians. Over the years there have been a number of critiques of the way the government measures poverty. One on-going critique is of the types of income that are included in (or excluded from) the poverty measure. By failing to include income that many lowincome people receive in the form of public assistance, some critics maintain that the extent of poverty is over-stated. If the value of food stamps, publicly provided health insurance benefits, and cash welfare payments were counted as income in the poverty calculation, many people would no longer be considered poor. Another important critique of the official poverty measure is that it is seriously flawed in continuing to assume that families spend one-third of their income on food. This may have been true when the measure was devised 30 years ago, but it is not an accurate reflection of current realities. Families no longer spend one-third of their income on food and two-thirds on other basic needs. Food now accounts for something closer to one-sixth of the family budget. Housing, transportation and utilities are much larger components of family spending. Furthermore, expenses most families now regard as crucial elements of their household budget are simply excluded from consideration in the poverty calculation. The cost of childcare is not figured in to the thresholds because the families in the 1955 USDA household survey Orshansky used had one wage earner and a stay-at-home parent. Commuting and other travel and work-related expenses that are a part of modern life have a huge impact on family budgets. Expenses associated with today's living have grown. Additional basic expenses mean that more money is required to maintain the same standard of living in today's world. By ignoring these factors, the poverty measure underestimates poverty. LIVING WAGE MORE ACCURATE – THE POVERTY THRESHOLD UNDERCOUNTS

WILLIS 00 http://www.ocpp.org/poverty/how.htm OREGON CENTER OFR PUBLIC POLICY, The Oregon Center for Public Policy (OCPP) does in-depth research and analysis on budget, tax, and economic issues. Our goal is to improve decision making and generate more opportunities for all Oregonians. In recent years there have been more fundamental challenges to the poverty measure. Concerned that the poverty rate is far too low, community-based organizations around the country have advocated for "living wages." These groups have argued that instead of using "poverty" as the standard to measure people's economic well-being, we should 99

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

develop a measure of "living wages." Policy and research institutes around the country have developed living wage budgets that take into account the full range of costs required for families of different sizes to maintain a decent standard of living. The bottom line is that the current system of measurement is out-dated and seriously underestimates the count of the number of poor people in this country. If the government were to acknowledge the true extent of poverty, it would need to dedicate a greater share of its resources to pay the costs of programs to help the poor. It is unfortunately cheaper to use an outdated system of measurement so that fewer people will be in poverty by government standards.

100

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD: OVERCOUNTING CENSUS POVERTY DEFINTION DRAMATICALLY OVERSTATES POVERTY

Rector 9/23/91 http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/EM309.cfm Robert Rector Policy Analyst, HERITAGE FOUNDATION The United States Census Bureau on September 26 will release its official report on poverty and family income for 1990. And once again, this annual report will present a misleading picture because of serious deficiencies in the way the Bureau measures income and defines poverty. According to Census Bureau figures for recent years there are still over thirty million Americans living in "poverty." This is a number larger than that recorded in the mid- 1960s, when the War on Poverty was launched. To be sure, such figures raise legitimate concerns about the persistence of poverty in an otherwise prosperous society. This unremitting poverty is more perplexing because total welfare spending, even after adjusting for inflation, rose throughout the 1970s and 1980s and is now at an all-time high. Why does the Census Bureau's poverty level remain unchanged even while welfare spending increases? The answer is that once again the Census Bureau's poverty figures are inaccurate. The Census Bureau's report seriously misleads policy makers and American taxpayers, who are spending over $180 billion a yea to fight "poverty." In other words, the Census Bureau is dramatically overstating the number of persons in poverty and understating the living standards of low-income Americans. Key facts missing from Census report are that: 38 percent of the persons whom the Census Bureau identifies as "pooe"own their own homes. The median value of homes owned by poor persons in 1987 was $39,200 or 58 percent of the median value of all homes owned by Americans in that year. 4; Nearly a half million "poor"persons own homes worth over $100,000; 36,000 "poor"persons own homes worth over $300,000; 62 percent of "poor"households own a car, 14 percent own two or m6rd-cars; Nearly half of all "poor" households have air conditioning; 31 percent of all "poor"housiholds have microwave ovens; Poor persons on average consume that same level of vitamins, minerals, and protein as do middle class persons; poor children actually-eat more meat and protein than do middle class children. The poor are not hungry and undernourished; in fact poor adults are more likely to be overweight than are middle-class persons. These facts are taken from unpublicized surveys gathered by the Census Bureau and other government .s. But they are ignored by the Census Bureau's official poverty report. They underscore the large conceptual gap betiveen the "poor" as defined by the Census B 'ureau and what most ordinary Americans- consider to be poverty..In reality, numerous other government reports indicate that most "pW" Americans - -today are better housed, better fed, andown more personal property than average U.S. citizens throughout most of this century. In 1988, for example, and: after adjusting for inflation, the per capita expenditures of the lowest income one-fift of the U.S. population exceeded the per capita income of the median American household in 1955-.

101

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD: CONSENSUS ACADEMIC CONSENSUS PROVES THAT THE FEDERAL POVERTY THRESHOLDS ARE ARBITRARY

BRADY 7 http://www.duke.edu/~elb13/Papers/Brady_Roundtable.pdf Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Duke University Chapter 2 of Politicizing Poverty, Socializing Equality (manuscript in progress) The vast majority of U.S. research on poverty is based on the official U.S. measure.2 Occasionally, scholars modestly augment the measure with slight alterations or supplement it with other indicators. However, most survey data sets supply researchers with dichotomous variables identifying respondents as below or above the official level. Typically, analysts simply use these simple dummy variables. Others analyze and present historical trends in official poverty and debate whether poverty has increased since the official measure was adopted in the early 1960s. This widespread use of the official measure stands in stark contrast to what social scientists know and have written about the limitations of the official measure. In recent years, a consensus has emerged that is deeply critical of this measure.3 Betson and Warlick emphasize that the U.S. measure, “Is commonly acknowledged to be inadequate for measuring poverty.”4 Wilson argues that the U.S. measure, “Does not capture the real dimensions of hardship and deprivation, it also does not reflect the changing depth or severity of poverty;” and that its income thresholds are “arbitrary.”5 In 1988, the Family Support Act called for a scientific review of the U.S. measure. In 1995, the National Research Council (NRC), and specifically the Panel on Poverty and Family Assistance, published the results of this review. The NRC panel, which included many of America’s most influential poverty researchers, concluded, “The current poverty measure has weaknesses both in the implementation of the threshold concept and in the definition of family resources. Changing social and economic conditions over the last three decades have made these weaknesses more obvious and more 3 consequential. As a result, the current measure does not accurately reflect differences in poverty across population groups and across time. We conclude that it would be inadvisable to retain the current measure for the future.”6 BEST CONSENSUS CONCEDES THE CURRENT DEFINITION IS BAD

BLANK 7 http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/u/working_paper07-30.pdf Rebecca Blank, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan and Brookings Institution “How to Improve Poverty Measurement in the United States” National Poverty Center Working Paper Series #07-30, November 2007 This paper was prepared as the Presidential Address to the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management at their annual conference, November 8-10, 2007. While there is widespread consensus that the current official measure of poverty in the United States is badly flawed, three decades of discussion and debate have not 102

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

resulted in any changes to this statistic. To a casual observer, this may seem puzzling in a nation with a long tradition of regularly updated national statistics.

103

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD: RECANT THE AUTHOR OF THE THRESHOLD ARGUES IT’S OBSOLETE

BLANK 7 http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/u/working_paper07-30.pdf Rebecca Blank, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan and Brookings Institution “How to Improve Poverty Measurement in the United States” National Poverty Center Working Paper Series #07-30, November 2007 This paper was prepared as the Presidential Address to the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management at their annual conference, November 8-10, 2007. Even though the work of Mollie Orshansky was well-done, based on the data available in the early 1960s, the statistic that she suggested makes little sense in 2007 (and Orshansky herself argued strongly for updating the poverty calculation in later years.)

104

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD: COMMODITY STANDARD POVERTY THRESHOLD’S NONSENSICAL – IT CALCULATES BASED ON COMMODITY BASKETS FROM THE 50S

BLANK 7 http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/u/working_paper07-30.pdf Rebecca Blank, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan and Brookings Institution “How to Improve Poverty Measurement in the United States” National Poverty Center Working Paper Series #07-30, November 2007 This paper was prepared as the Presidential Address to the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management at their annual conference, November 8-10, 2007. The criticisms of this methodology as a way to define a 2007 poverty rate are too numerous to list in any complete form here.7 It is not too strong a statement to say that, forty-three years after they were developed, the poverty thresholds are nonsensical numbers. They are based on data from 1955 and do not reflect any information related to current expenditures or needs. If one sticks with a threshold based only on food costs, the current multiplier would be much higher, since food has become relatively cheaper and food expenditures have declined precipitously as a share of overall expenditures.8 But basing the threshold numbers on a single commodity is almost surely not the correct way to calculate these thresholds, since it leaves the numbers highly sensitive to the relative price of that commodity and insensitive to the price of any other likely expenditures, such as housing, among low income families. POVERTY THRESHOLD USES ANTIQUATED STATES FROM THE 50S

esharov and germanis 4 http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/poverty/povmeasure.description.pdf. Douglas J. Besharov, a lawyer and the first director of the U.S. National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, is also a professor at the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy. There, he directs the university's Welfare Reform Academy and teaches courses on family policy, welfare reform, evaluation, and the implementation of social policy. As the director of AEI's Social and Individual Responsibility Project, Mr. Besharov led research on state welfare and Medicaid policy reforms; private and community efforts to restore stability to inner cities; and the effectiveness of federal nutrition, rehabilitation, and vocational training programs. Peter Germanis is assistant director of the. University of Maryland's Welfare Reform Academy Poverty thresholds: The current poverty thresholds, often called the “poverty line,” are based on the Economy Food Plan, a minimally adequate food budget used in the 1960s when the poverty measure was developed. At the time, food expenditures represented about one-third of after-tax income for the typical family, so the food plan amount was multiplied by three to establish the poverty line. This outdated spending pattern probably does not represent the current cost of meeting basic needs, and ignores some unavoidable expenditures that were not as large forty years ago (such as taxes and child care expenses). In addition, the thresholds do not accurately reflect differences in family size and composition, as well as cost-of-living differences over time and between 105

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

geographic areas. Conversely, the thresholds have not been corrected for past overadjustments for inflation (especially for overstatements of the cost for home ownership)

106

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD: TAX COUNTING THE POVERTY THRESHOLD FAILS BY FAILING TO TAKE TAXATION INTO ACCOUNT

BLANK 7 http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/u/working_paper07-30.pdf Rebecca Blank, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan and Brookings Institution “How to Improve Poverty Measurement in the United States” National Poverty Center Working Paper Series #07-30, November 2007 This paper was prepared as the Presidential Address to the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management at their annual conference, November 8-10, 2007. The resource definition is also seriously flawed, as cash income alone is no longer an adequate description of the discretionary resources available to low income families. There is broad agreement that the resource measure should reflect after-tax income. In the years after 1964, an increasing number of poor families began to pay federal income taxes as inflation eroded the tax brackets. Tax reforms in the mid-1980s solved this problem, giving the poor more disposable income, but these changes were not reflected in the poverty numbers. In more recent years, the tax system has been a source of additional funds for low income working families because of the redistributive effects of refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).

107

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD: CASH INCOME MEASUREMENT THE POVERTY MEASURE FAILS BY NOT CALCULATING IN NON-CASH BENEFITS LIKE FOOD STAMPS

BLANK 7 http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/u/working_paper07-30.pdf Rebecca Blank, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan and Brookings Institution “How to Improve Poverty Measurement in the United States” National Poverty Center Working Paper Series #07-30, November 2007 This paper was prepared as the Presidential Address to the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management at their annual conference, November 8-10, 2007. Furthermore, the growth in in-kind benefits from public programs strongly suggests that in-kind benefits from near-cash programs such as food stamps or housing assistance should be imputed into family income.10 These programs have increased the resources available to low income families. INCOME COUNTING PROCEDURE BADLY DISTORTS THE POVERTY MEASURE

esharov and germanis 4 http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/poverty/povmeasure.description.pdf. Douglas J. Besharov, a lawyer and the first director of the U.S. National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, is also a professor at the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy. There, he directs the university's Welfare Reform Academy and teaches courses on family policy, welfare reform, evaluation, and the implementation of social policy. As the director of AEI's Social and Individual Responsibility Project, Mr. Besharov led research on state welfare and Medicaid policy reforms; private and community efforts to restore stability to inner cities; and the effectiveness of federal nutrition, rehabilitation, and vocational training programs. Peter Germanis is assistant director of the. University of Maryland's Welfare Reform Academy Income: The current poverty measure counts some but not all forms of income. It counts welfare payments (about $4,200), because they are in cash. But it does not count noncash benefits such as food stamps (about $2,200), housing assistance (about $5,400), Medicaid (about $6,000 for a family of four), the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) (about $1,000 per child), energy assistance (about $400), the school lunch and breakfast programs (as much as $600 per child), and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (about $400 per person). It also does not count refundable tax credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) (about $1,700), because they are “post-tax.” 2 It also ignores the value of assets (especially home ownership), although it counts any income generated by assets (but not capital gains or losses). And, although it counts the income of family members living in the household, it excludes the income of nonfamily household members  such as boyfriends

108

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD: HISTORICAL PROOF HISTORY PROVES THAT THE FEDERAL POVERY MEASURE IS ARBITRARY AND POLITICIZED

BRADY 7 http://www.duke.edu/~elb13/Papers/Brady_Roundtable.pdf Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Duke University Chapter 2 of Politicizing Poverty, Socializing Equality (manuscript in progress) The history of how the measure was constructed illustrates its deep flaws. Mollie Orshansky, a statistician in the Social Security Administration, constructed the measure in 1963. Orshansky used family consumption data from 1955 and what she called a “crude” calculus of family budgets.7 Orshansky used the Department of Agriculture’s (DOA) “low-cost food budget” and multiplied the dollar amount by three, speculating that food amounted to one-third of a family’s expenses. She developed the line as a research tool, never intended it as a policy instrument, and quickly repudiated it. Contrary to her intentions, President Johnson’s Office of Economic Opportunity adopted it as the official measure. But, they only did so after substituting the DOA’s “economy food plan” which was about 25% below the “low-cost” plan. The food budgets have never been revisited since the 1955 data, and the measure was solely adjusted for inflation – which effectively severed the food-income link. Historians, like O’Connor and Katz, have even shown that the threshold was intentionally set low in order to make the elimination of poverty an attainable political goal as part of Johnson’s “War on Poverty.”8 Rather than representing a scientific absolute standard, the official threshold is politically motivated to classify a large number of people as not poor that should reasonably be considered poor. The dubious origins and significant elapsed time since the measure’s inception, at a minimum, suggest routine review and updating. The NRC panel went one step further and argued, “Our major conclusion is that the current measure needs to be revised.”9 Ultimately, it is clear that the official measure was deeply flawed from the beginning.

109

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD: DEMOGRAPHIC VARIATION THE POVERTY MEASURE FAILS: CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS MAKE IT UNRELAIBLE AND ARBITRARY

BRADY 7 http://www.duke.edu/~elb13/Papers/Brady_Roundtable.pdf Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Duke University Chapter 2 of Politicizing Poverty, Socializing Equality (manuscript in progress)

Moreover, one can judge the official measure in terms of the two main ways that social scientists assess measurement: reliability and validity. By both of these standards, the official measure is deeply problematic. The official measure is the same across the entire U.S., is the same for all population groups, and has been basically the same since its adoption in the mid-1960s. Hence, it may seem surprising to fault its reliability. However, due to its constant application across time, region and demographic groups, the measure became clumsily incompatible with the changing realities of family life in the U.S.10 Because the measure remains unchanged after thirty years, significant demographic, economic, and policy changes are ignored. Most pressing, the official measure was constructed during a time when the average family had two parents and a male breadwinner, while the mother stayed home with the children. Now that many of the U.S. poor are single parent or dual-earning couples, the official measure is inadequate for appreciating the increased labor force participation of mothers, the relatedly escalating need and expenses for childcare and health insurance, and the inappropriateness of antiquated family size adjustments. Another development, the economic insecurity of the growing elderly population – and their growing average ages – is not captured well by the official measure. The official measure does not budget for chronic health conditions or health care necessities like medication. Relatedly, the share of family budgets devoted to different goods and services has dramatically changed.11 Food no longer amounts to one-third of a family’s budget, and more accurately is about one-sixth. When the official measure presumes that food is one-third of a family’s expenses, it significantly understates the economic needs of a household. Also, the inflationary adjustments to the official measure are based on the cost of a basket of goods for the entire U.S. population (or at least all urban consumers) – which may not represent price changes 5 for poor families. Over time, the U.S. measure has actually depreciated from its value in 1963, and become unreflective of what a family really needs to avoid poverty. Because of rising consumption and living standards, the NRC concluded that updating the poverty threshold solely with inflation is increasingly inadequate. In short, the U.S. measure lacks reliability due in large part to the limited and weak means of adjusting the measure since its inception.

110

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD: POLITICIZED POVERTY IS THE MOST POLITICIZED STATISTIC – IT’S AN EXAMPLE OF HOW NOT TO DEFINE

BLANK 7 http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/u/working_paper07-30.pdf Rebecca Blank, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan and Brookings Institution “How to Improve Poverty Measurement in the United States” National Poverty Center Working Paper Series #07-30, November 2007 This paper was prepared as the Presidential Address to the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management at their annual conference, November 8-10, 2007. Why are we stuck in this place? I think there are at least primary reasons. First, and most important is the odd historical accident that led the Executive Office of the President to be in charge of the official poverty measure. Primary responsibility for defining and updating virtually all other economic statistics lies within one of the statistical agencies. Updating and changing economic statistics occurs all the time within these agencies, even for statistics with much greater visibility, policy, and program value than the poverty rate. For instance, major changes in the ways in which questions were asked about employment created changes in employment and unemployment numbers in 1993. Debate about the appropriate benchmarking for the Consumer Price Index led to a series of quite substantial changes in how that statistic was calculated. The underlying analysis for these changes is overseen by the statistical agencies; while these agencies report to political appointees inside Executive Branch cabinet agencies, there is a long tradition of allowing them to do their job with minimal intervention. Control over the measure of poverty, however, resides at OMB. Any changes to the current OMB directive will necessarily pass through key political decision-makers within the White House. This means that they must take direct responsibility for any changes in official poverty measurement, as opposed to simply approving the recommendations of a statistical agency with some historical independence. Any White House (Republican or Democratic), is likely to see far more costs than gains from such changes. If we need an example of why economic statistics should be in the hands of statistical agencies, the long-term stalemate over poverty measurement provides an excellent one! At a minimum, this suggests that future poverty calculations need to be located in one of the statistical agencies, which should be given explicit authority to make decisions over time regarding this measure.

111

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD IMPACT: DESTROYS DEBATE DEEP METHODOLOGICAL FLAWS MAKE THE OFFICIAL MEASURE THE LEAST ACCURATE POSSIBLE – IT SHOULD BE DISCOUNTED AS A DEFINTION

BRADY 7 http://www.duke.edu/~elb13/Papers/Brady_Roundtable.pdf Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Duke University Chapter 2 of Politicizing Poverty, Socializing Equality (manuscript in progress)

The official measure’s lack of reliability is concerning, but its lack of validity may be even worse. Essentially, the official measure fails to capture the complex nature of poverty.12 Many increasingly burdensome family expenses (e.g. health care and childcare) were not included in the household budgets underlying the official measure. A household is defined as poor or not poor based on their income before taxation. In tandem, in-kind public assistance and near-cash benefits are entirely ignored when defining a household’s income. Of course, neglecting these results in an inaccurate estimate of a household’s economic resources.13 Even low-income workers pay payroll taxes, while the earned income tax credit, housing subsidies, and food stamps have clearly raised the economic resources of such households. Overall, however, failing to grasp the financial reality of households these ways probably results in an underestimation of poverty in the U.S.14 These validity problems have fluctuated over time and place and in turn, compromise reliability even further.15 Some taxes vary across the U.S., and other taxes like payroll taxes have increased enormously since the measure’s inception. Also, policy initiatives have not been integrated into the measure. When the Children’s Health Insurance Plan and Food Stamps program were implemented or Medicaid was updated, the official measure was never revised. Finally, these validity problems prevent a reliable comparison across population groups. For example, social security pensions, a major resource for the elderly, count as income. But, major 6 resources for young families like food stamps, housing subsidies and childcare vouchers do not. In the past fifteen years, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) has grown into the largest assistance program for families with children – even larger than Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF, what was previously called AFDC).16 Unfortunately, since the official measure is based on pretax income, the EITC is entirely ignored. As a result, the U.S. measure lacks both validity and reliability, and warrants revision. We should be cautious in reading any social science that solely relies on this problematic official U.S. measure. We should scrutinize any conclusions drawn from the official measure. While the government probably lacks the political will to implement a better measure of poverty, social scientists have no justification for continuing to rely on this fundamentally flawed measure.

112

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

THE INACCURACIES OF THE MEASURE DESTROY ITS APPLICATION IN AN ACADEMIC SETTING

BRADY 7 http://www.duke.edu/~elb13/Papers/Brady_Roundtable.pdf Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Duke University Chapter 2 of Politicizing Poverty, Socializing Equality (manuscript in progress) Measuring Comparative Historical Variation in Poverty For a poverty measure to be effective, it must be appropriate in different comparative and historical contexts. A truly useful poverty measure must consistently produce valid and reliable estimates across different countries and over recent history. At the same time, a poverty measure should be meaningful within each comparative historical context. As Smeeding and colleagues explain, “A poverty standard cannot be established independently of the economic and social context within which needs arise and are defined.”17 Unfortunately, the official U.S. measure is woefully inadequate for conducting comparative historical analyses. The official measure’s thresholds are even more problematic if applied in other affluent democracies. One cannot simply adjust the official measure for the exchange rates or purchasing power parities of other countries since the official measure is invalid and unreliable in the U.S. context to begin with. Even if the official measure was 7 defensible in the U.S., it is unknown if the thresholds would reasonably differentiate the poor from non-poor in other countries. For example, even if the official threshold’s line of roughly $17,000 for a family of four was appropriate in the U.S., what evidence would we have that this line makes sense in the U.K. or Germany? In short, converting the official measure to other countries’ currencies will not produce a meaningful poverty standard. As a result, poverty measures should be used that are grounded in each specific comparative historical context. Many analysts have shown that the paramount variations in poverty are cross-national.18 There are bigger differences between rich Western democracies than there are within most individual rich Western democracies. Hence, explaining these significant cross-country differences is essential to understanding poverty in contemporary societies. In addition, a comparative perspective enables us to assess different theoretical explanations of poverty. If a theory of poverty is truly effective, it should explain poverty across different countries. At the same time, several methodological concerns emerge when comparing poverty across nations. Several analysts note that different measures of poverty produce small but noticeable differences in the rank ordering of nations.19 Therefore, scholars have to be careful when drawing cross-national comparisons. One should probably replicate cross-national comparisons of poverty with different measures to provide further evidence that any differences are robust. Also, analysts have to be careful that measures appreciate cultural differences in the definitions of family units or households. Hence, a number of methodological and data concerns must be carefully addressed in order to conduct cross-national analyses.

113

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

USING THE POVERTY THRESHOLD IS THE WORST ACADEMIC STANDARD – IT’S SLOPPY AND INACCURATE

BRADY 7 http://www.duke.edu/~elb13/Papers/Brady_Roundtable.pdf Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Duke University Chapter 2 of Politicizing Poverty, Socializing Equality (manuscript in progress)

At the end of summer every year, U.S. citizens tell themselves a lie. Normally in the last week of August, the Census Bureau releases the official rates of poverty for the previous year. Following the Census report, pundits, politicians, the press and public and even the President engage in their annual rehearsal of empty remarks on why poverty is higher or lower than last year, and attribute this failure or success to things that really have nothing to do with poverty’s true causes. These poverty figures define how we see the trends and extent of poverty in society, and in turn, shape public debate and policies regarding poverty. This entire episode is profoundly dishonest. The reason that this ritual is so dishonest is because of the way that official U.S. poverty rates are measured. Though the official U.S. measure of poverty dominates our understanding of poverty, it simply lacks any justification as a measure of poverty. Thus, every year, we spend a great deal of time and energy reporting, debating and scrutinizing an official statistic that really is not defensible as a measure of poverty. The dishonesty of official poverty is not entirely the responsibility of politicians or government bureaucrats. Though guilty of an unwillingness to revise the official measure, it would be unusual for politicians to intentionally misrepresent poverty statistics. In some ways, the dishonesty is partly the fault of the American public and American social scientists. By participating in the commentary regarding the official measures and using the official measures, we give a credibility and legitimacy to a statistic that does not 1 warrant our respect. Rather than perpetuating the dishonesty, social scientists must move beyond the official measure and rethink the measurement of poverty. A wealth of scholarship has actually made tremendous advances in poverty measurement. Several social scientists have devised innovative and useful alternative techniques for the measurement of poverty. For example, Sen received a Nobel Prize in Economics in 1998 for work that included his revolutionary “Ordinal Approach” to measuring poverty. Though a few of these techniques are impractical and/or flawed, many significant theoretical and methodological advances have been made beyond the official measure. In the studies that have emerged around these advances, it has become clear that how we define poverty is truly consequential. As Hagenaars explained, “Both the population of poor and the extent of their poverty appear to depend to a large extent on the definition chosen.” Many scholars have shown that the number, composition and trends in U.S. poverty are significantly different depending on the particular measure chosen. In fact, simply ascertaining whether poverty has increased in the last thirty years has dramatically different answers with contrasting measures of poverty.1 Despite the very real consequences of poverty measurement, unfortunately these advances remain incompletely realized.

114

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD IMPACT: POLICY FAILURE POVERTY THRESHOLD MISCOUNTING DESTORYS GOOD POLICYMAKING BY FAILING TO MEASURE NONCASH BENEFITS. THIS DESTROYS DEBATE

BLANK 7 http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/u/working_paper07-30.pdf Rebecca Blank, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan and Brookings Institution “How to Improve Poverty Measurement in the United States” National Poverty Center Working Paper Series #07-30, November 2007 This paper was prepared as the Presidential Address to the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management at their annual conference, November 8-10, 2007. First, the statistic was remarkably impervious to most of the policies designed to improve life among low income families that were implemented in the following decades. The 1970s saw rapid growth in food stamp and housing benefits, in-kind programs not measured in the resource definition. The last 30 years have also seen large expansions in publicly paid medical care, another in-kind benefit. The 1980s saw major reforms in the tax system that reduced tax burdens in low income families; in the 1990s, the expansion of the EITC increased transfers from the tax system. Tax payments and tax refunds do not affect the poverty statistics. A primary reason to want to measure economic need is to track the trends over time, looking at the effects of economic change as well as policy change. The public dollars that we put into anti-poverty programs have grown enormously since the mid-1960s. But we have had an official poverty statistic that did not measure the impact of these changes on the economic resources of the poor. While the poverty measure was designed to measure cash income, most public assistance has come in the form of noncash transfers. The exception to this is the expansion of Social Security and Supplemental Security Income to elderly low income families. The sharp decline in 11 poverty among the elderly, relative to other groups, largely reflects the fact that expanded public support for the elderly took the form of cash transfers. As a result, Ronald Reagan was able to declare in 1988, “My friends, some years ago the Federal Government declared war on poverty and poverty won.”11 Looking at Figure 2, this is a reasonable conclusion given stagnant poverty rates after the early 1970s. Although this was a period of rapid growth in public spending on the poor, its effects were invisible since we had no official statistic that reflected how this public spending improved the resources or the lives of low income families. In a very fundamental way, our poverty statistics failed us and made it easy to claim that public spending on the poor had little effect. Indeed, the primary statistical measure which we used to evaluate economic need could not possibly have measured the impact of these effects. For policy analysts, this should provide a jarring and memorable lesson in the importance of good statistics to the public debate and to public understanding of the impact of policy changes. Even in the 1990s, when a strong economy led to substantially reduced poverty rates, the reductions would have been even larger if expanded post-tax EITC subsidies were counted as income. 115

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

116

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD IMPACT: DESTROYS DEBATE LACK OF ACCURACY DESTROYS THE VALUE FO FEDERAL DEFINTION FOR DEBATE

BLANK 7 http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/u/working_paper07-30.pdf Rebecca Blank, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan and Brookings Institution “How to Improve Poverty Measurement in the United States” National Poverty Center Working Paper Series #07-30, November 2007 This paper was prepared as the Presidential Address to the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management at their annual conference, November 8-10, 2007. Furthermore, because the poverty definition became more and more irrelevant as a way to evaluate economic need, this opened up a statistical vacuum, making it possible for a wide variety of groups to make counter-claims about levels and trends in economic need. While a common approach among those with a particular agenda is to calculate an ‘improved statistic’, this has been particularly noticeably in the public debate over poverty. On the one hand, Robert Rector (1999) has argued that poverty should be based on material hardship and claims that in 1992 only 9.8 percent of single parent families should be

counted as disadvantaged. In contrast, Trudi Renwick and Barbara Bergmann (1993) developed a poverty threshold by building a ‘Basic Needs Budget’ for low income singleparent families, emphasizing the amounts needed for adequate child care. In their estimates, poverty rates among single parents should be 47 percent.

117

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

COUNTERDEFINITION: NAS STANDARDS NAS ALTENRATIVE POVERTY STANDARDS SOLVE PROBLEMS WITH FEDERAL POVERTY THRESHOLD

BLANK 7 http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/u/working_paper07-30.pdf Rebecca Blank, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan and Brookings Institution “How to Improve Poverty Measurement in the United States” National Poverty Center Working Paper Series #07-30, November 2007 This paper was prepared as the Presidential Address to the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management at their annual conference, November 8-10, 2007. In 1990, the Joint Economic Committee held hearings on poverty measurement; at the same time the Council of Economic Advisers, under President George Bush (the elder), proposed a statistical improvement initiative which included improvements in poverty. 13 The discussion created by these initiatives led Congress to appropriate money for the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to appoint a panel to make recommendations for improving the measurement of poverty. The resulting NAS report presented a template for poverty measurement changes (Citro and Michael, 1995.) The NAS report recommended an approach that was conceptually consistent with Orshansky’s efforts, but which addressed many of the problems with the 1964 definition. The committee recommended basing the threshold on expenditures on necessities (defined as expenditures on food, housing, and clothing), ‘plus a little more’ (a multiplier of 1.10 to 1.15). A specified point below the median of the distribution of aggregate expenditures on necessities was chosen as the basis for this threshold. The committee recommended basing the resource definition on after-tax cash income, plus the imputed value of nearcash in-kind benefits, minus an adjustment for work expenses (transportation and child care expenses), minus an adjustment for out-of-pocket medical expenses. The committee also emphasized the importance of updating the threshold calculation regularly. This would lead to a quasi-relative poverty threshold. Expenditures on necessities increase when income grows, but more slowly than overall income growth. The committee suggested that the elasticity of expenditures on necessities to total income was between 0.65 and 0.80 (Citro and Michael, 1995, p144).

118

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

BRADY COUNTERDEFINITION POVERTY SHOULD BE DEFINED BY SOCIAL EXCLUSION INSTEAD OF THE OFFICIAL POVERTY MEASURE

BRADY 7 http://www.duke.edu/~elb13/Papers/Brady_Roundtable.pdf Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Duke University Chapter 2 of Politicizing Poverty, Socializing Equality (manuscript in progress)

Conceptualizing Poverty As Capability Deprivation and Social Exclusion In order to construct valid and reliable measures of poverty, it is essential to first theoretically define the nature of poverty. In the past few decades, enormous advances have been made in the conceptualization of poverty. Two interconnected notions collectively yield the best definition of poverty. First, European scholars have cultivated the notion of social exclusion as way of conceptualizing poverty and disadvantage.21 Silver has argued that social exclusion is polysemic, having multiple meanings in different contexts and for different purposes.22 At the same time, she explains that central common elements can be identified. Social exclusion is the antithesis of Durkheim’s concept of solidarity and connotes marginalization and irrelevance. 9 Theorists characterize social exclusion to entail “the multi-dimensional character of disadvantage and exclusion in modern market economies;”23 multiple deprivation or “cumulative misery;”24 those “who suffer from an accumulation of disadvantage which cannot be reached by macropolicies;”25 and, those difficult to reach with social policy.26 Ultimately, social exclusion means incomplete or unequal access to the status, benefits and experiences of typical citizens.27 Social exclusion unifies many of the definitions of poverty implicitly conveyed by theorists and analysts of poverty. The notion of social exclusion echoes Harrington’s classic concern that “the poor are losing their links with the greater world.”28 In addition, social exclusion is consistent with Wilson’s concept of social dislocation, which he describes as limited differential opportunities for economic resources, political privileges, organizational influence, and cultural experiences.29 Galbraith draws a connection between poverty and what others have called social exclusion: People are poverty-stricken when their income, even if adequate for survival, falls radically behind that of the community. Then they cannot have what the larger community regards as the minimum necessary for decency; and they cannot wholly escape, therefore, the judgment of the larger community that they are indecent. They are degraded for, in the literal sense, they live outside the grades or categories which the community regards as acceptable.30 Last, social exclusion theorists have been influenced by Rawls’ difference principle.31 Atkinson explains that a Rawlsian notion of poverty is concerned with the “least fortunate group in society” and these are the socially excluded who can be defined as poor.32 POVERTY IS BEST DEFINED AS CAPABILITY DEPRIVATION

BRADY 7 http://www.duke.edu/~elb13/Papers/Brady_Roundtable.pdf Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Duke University Chapter 2 of Politicizing Poverty, Socializing Equality (manuscript in progress) 119

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

Second, Sen has pioneered the concept of capability deprivation.33 Capability refers to the ability to function effectively in society and have the freedoms to participate fully and equally with the mainstream of society. The concept of capability also emerges from Rawls’ political philosophy.34 Rawls contended that basic liberties should be prioritized in a society. A society that deprives people of basic liberties can be understood as depriving those people of 10 capability. Sen has formulated his definition of poverty in terms of the poor’s lack of substantive freedom of choice to achieve valuable functionings and well-being. A functioning member of society must have basic freedoms (or capabilities) to participate in society.35 As Rainwater and Smeeding explain, “Without a requisite level of goods and services, individuals cannot act and participate as full members of their society.”36 In many ways, capability deprivation and social exclusion share common ground. If one is socially excluded, that person has a limited capability to effectively participate in society. Atkinson links social exclusion and capability deprivation by explaining that poverty involves, “people being prevented from participation in the normal activities of the society in which they live or being incapable of functioning.”37 Similar to social exclusion, one can think of the poor as “capability deprived” since they lack the basic liberties to participate equally in society.38 Thus, the concepts social exclusion and capability present an engaging, broadening direction for analysts of social inequality.

120

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

A/T BRADY DEFINITION IS CULTURAL CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC MEASURES INTERSECT – THE BRADY DEFINITION ACCOUNTS FOR MATERIAL DEPRIVATION

BRADY 7 http://www.duke.edu/~elb13/Papers/Brady_Roundtable.pdf Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Duke University Chapter 2 of Politicizing Poverty, Socializing Equality (manuscript in progress)

Because poverty is primarily an economic status and social exclusion and capability deprivation are multifaceted and complex, some readers might see them as incompatible. It might strike some as inappropriate to treat social exclusion and capability deprivation as market phenomena, rather than cultural, institutional or social concepts. However, the economic market is one of several main mechanisms triggering social exclusion and capability deprivation. In rich Western democracies, a low level of economic resources is a principal precursor to social exclusion and capability deprivation. Barry has argued that an interest in social exclusion demands an interest in economic inequality, and “A government professing itself concerned with social exclusion but indifferent to inequality is, to put it charitably, suffering from a certain amount of confusion.”39 Cantillion claims, “There is probably not a single characteristic that the 11 ‘socially excluded’ have in common, except perhaps, not having a stable well-paying job.”40 Atkinson exemplifies social exclusion as lacking a telephone in the home: “A person unable to afford a telephone finds it difficult to participate in a society where the majority have telephones.”41 While owning a telephone or lacking a job clearly reflects a person’s market standing, these simple conditions also suggest complex social processes of dislocation and marginalization. Even conceiving of poverty with the nuanced notions of capability deprivation and social exclusion, a minimal level of economic resources remains essential. In order to participate in society and take part in community life, it is essential to have a sufficient income.42 Thus, social exclusion and capability deprivation involve marginalization in society’s institutions and, especially the market.

121

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

A/T BRADY MEASURE IS IMPRECISE: RELATIVE BETTER RELATIVE MEASURES OF POVERTY WORK BEST FOR INDUSTRIAL COUNTRIES – ACADEMCI APPLICATION TRUMPS ABSTRACT NOTIONS OF PRECISION

BRADY 7 http://www.duke.edu/~elb13/Papers/Brady_Roundtable.pdf Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Duke University Chapter 2 of Politicizing Poverty, Socializing Equality (manuscript in progress)

Relative Versus Absolute Poverty Measures For many years, a vigorous debate persisted over relative versus absolute definitions of poverty.43 Each taps into contrasting notions of difference and deprivation.44 Also, absolute and relative standards produce different policy implications and accounts of the experience of poverty, and somewhat differ in the estimation of the extent of poverty. Despite this historical debate, poverty scholars increasingly conclude that in affluent democracies, a relative definition is more appropriate.45 Alternatively, absolute measures of “basic needs” are most useful in less developed countries. By reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of absolute and relative measures, I advocate for a relative measure. CONTEXT DEMANDS A RELATIVE MEASURE THAT TAKES CULTURE AND SOCIETY INTO ACCOUNT

BRADY 7 http://www.duke.edu/~elb13/Papers/Brady_Roundtable.pdf Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Duke University Chapter 2 of Politicizing Poverty, Socializing Equality (manuscript in progress)

Absolute Measures of Poverty Absolute measures involve a cross-nationally and historically constant and fixed threshold, which distinguishes poor from non-poor. For example, except for inflationary 12 adjustments, the U.S. measure intends to be absolute over time, regions, and family types. Absolute measures assume that a certain material level purchases an essential bundle of goods necessary for well-being. For example, the World Bank defines poverty absolutely as living on less than one dollar per day in developing countries and less than two dollars per day in former communist countries. Thus, absolute measures tend be tied to the concept of well-being, and indicators such as infant mortality, life expectancy, and caloric intake. Sen contends that when studying developing countries, absolute measures should be retained.46 Nevertheless, absolute measures suffer from serious limitations when applied to developed countries. Most international poverty analysts have become justifiably skeptical that absolute measures can be valid and reliable when studying industrialized democracies. Such scholars realize that a fixed bundle of goods or absolute threshold of well-being cannot capture the complexity of poverty. Most attempts to measure such absolute thresholds tend to be based on a series of questionable decisions. Thus, an absolute veneer is placed on top of a set of problematic indicators. Smeeding and his colleagues avoid an absolute measure because it “conveys an unwarranted objectivity.”47 Hagenaars contends, “The resulting estimates are not as absolute and objective as they are claimed to be.”48 Rainwater and Smeeding conclude: “The more experience countries have with absolute poverty definitions, the more obvious becomes the absurdity of the rationale for them.”49 Nevertheless, proponents of absolute 122

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

measures counter that such measures can capture concepts of well-being or basic needs. After all, if basic needs are unmet or well-being is low – in terms or physiological subsistence, and physical and mental health – poverty is truly present. For example, families that suffer from homelessness, hunger or disproportionate infant mortalities must certainly be poor. Other scholars provide evidence of a historical decline in 13 U.S. poverty based on measures of absolute consumption. While the argument is not new – Milton Friedman made the argument in the 1960s, and many made it before him – a number of economists contend that that U.S. poor presently are more affluent than the middle class in previous decades.50 As recently popularized in Cox and Alm’s book Myths of Rich and Poor, the U.S. poor consume like the middle class in previous generations with access to refrigerators, televisions, cars, indoor plumbing and housing.51 As a result, many conclude that poverty is not a serious problem in the contemporary U.S. On the surface, such absolute measures of consumption or wellbeing are intriguing. But, as one digs deeper, one again finds a number of shaky assumptions and questionable decisions.52 The greatest concern is with how these measures conceptualize and measure poverty divorced from cultural and historical context. Absolute measures explicitly presume that being poor is the same thing in the U.S. in the 1960s or 1990s, the same thing in Spain as in Sweden, or even the same in Kenya as in Germany. This presumption neglects that the concept of “need” is actually culturally and historically defined – reflecting contextualized norms of what is a “need.”53 It is highly unlikely that if one interviewed social scientists in each of these temporal and cultural contexts there would be much agreement about what constitutes poverty or what differentiates poor from non-poor. Ruggles has shown that consumption patterns have changed so dramatically over the past 40-50 years that defining the basic needs of American families is quite elusive.54 Ravallion notes that perceptions of “well-being” are contingent on the reference group’s circumstances, and argues, “There is an inherent subjectivity and social specificity to any notion of ‘basic needs.’”55 Hagenaars stresses that even nutritionists cannot agree about levels of calories needed for various ages, sexes, occupations and living conditions.56 Even U.S. policy makers have long conceded that as a society’s standard of living rises, more expensive 14 consumption is forced on the poor to remain integrated into society.57 Townsend concludes that, “Any rigorous conceptualization of the social determination of need dissolves the idea of ‘absolute’ need.”58 Thus, attempts to construct a list of basic needs that differentiate poor from non-poor in every society or across time-periods have not been successful. ANY MEASURE HAS TO CHANGE TO ACCOUNT FOR OVERALL RISE IN LIVING STANDARDS

BLANK 7 http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/u/working_paper07-30.pdf Rebecca Blank, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan and Brookings Institution “How to Improve Poverty Measurement in the United States” National Poverty Center Working Paper Series #07-30, November 2007 This paper was prepared as the Presidential Address to the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management at their annual conference, November 8-10, 2007. If the thresholds had been recalculated or rebenchmarked at any point since 1963, changes in methodology would surely have occurred. Without recalculation, if an appropriate price index is used, the poverty line would be at the same absolute level as 123

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

in 1963. This raises the question of whether an absolute poverty line makes sense. As incomes grow or as behavioral expectations change, the things required to fully participate in society change.9 For this reason, many argue that at least partial adjustment for changing living standards should occur in the poverty thresholds.

124

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

LINKS TO ABSOLUTE MEASURE BAD DA CURRENT POVERTY THRESHOLD IS ABSOLUTE

BLANK 7 http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/u/working_paper07-30.pdf Rebecca Blank, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan and Brookings Institution “How to Improve Poverty Measurement in the United States” National Poverty Center Working Paper Series #07-30, November 2007 This paper was prepared as the Presidential Address to the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management at their annual conference, November 8-10, 2007. An income-based measure of poverty requires agreement on at least four major definitional items. In this paper, I primarily address issues related to the first two of these. First, one needs to define a poverty threshold, the level of income or other resources below which a family is considered poor. Thresholds that are fixed over time in real terms (that is, they are entirely nonresponsive to economic growth or changes in living standards) are typically referred to as absolute. The official U.S. measure falls into this category. Thresholds that vary 1-to-1 with income growth (such as a threshold set at 50 percent of median income) are typically referred to as relative

125

Georgetown 2009-10 Opening T Salvo

ANTONUCCI

126