States must find welfare recipients jobs (AP)

[Ron Burgundy]

AP - The welfare rolls aren't dropping as fast as they used to, and that could pose a big money problem for states from coast to coast when a new federal law takes effect next month.

More...

[thomez]

States must find welfare recipients jobs By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press Writer
37 minutes ago



The welfare rolls aren't dropping as fast as they used to, and that could pose a big money problem for states from coast to coast when a new federal law takes effect next month.

The states' task: find jobs for tens of thousands of people on welfare or risk losing millions in federal money. More than two dozen states have work to do, including Pennsylvania, California and Michigan.

The law requires states to place into job training, community service or other work activities 50 percent of their households that get welfare aid — and 90 percent of two-parent households that receive assistance.

"About half the states are in pretty good shape," said Wade Horn, assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services. "About a quarter of the states are really going to have to work hard."

Pennsylvania will have to add nearly 23,000 recipients to the work rolls, which amounts to a 220 percent increase in work participation, according to federal estimates obtained by The Associated Press.

California has to find work activities for more than 60,000 people_ a 100 percent increase in its work participation rate.

Michigan must add nearly 11,500, a 117 percent increase.

Several other large states, including Texas, Florida and Georgia, will meet the requirements easily, according to the federal estimates.

The requirements are part of broad rules that more strictly define what constitutes work and require states to verify that adults are doing the activities the states say they are.

This week, five Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee said the rules had placed new challenges on the states that would make the program more expensive and difficult to administer. They are asking for a congressional hearing.

Some analysts also are concerned that states will penalize beneficiaries as a way to get to 50 percent work participation, rather than help recipients land and keep jobs.

"The people who have the most barriers to employment, the most issues in their life, they tend to be sanctioned more than others," said Evelyn Ganzglass of the Center for Law and Social Policy. "But they often have problems that prevent them from complying. These can be mental health problems, physical disabilities, all kinds of issues that these families face."

Pennsylvania officials say their state has made significant strides since March, the last month included in the federal figures. Work participation is now up to about 32 percent instead of the 15 percent cited by the federal government, they said.

"We're confident we're going to hit the number," said Ted Dallas, executive deputy secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare.

Dallas said the new regulations have forced Pennsylvania to re-evaluate its program. He said there has been more one-on-one counseling and more accountability from contractors. He also said more recipients have been penalized when they did not comply with state requirements.

States can kick recipients out of the program if they have not met certain requirements, such as attending appointments with counselors or going to job interviews. Sanctions in Pennsylvania rose from 1,030 in February to 2,327 in July, state officials said. A sanctioned recipient in Pennsylvania becomes ineligible for benefits, such as cash assistance.

Horn stresses that states do not have to be at 50 percent work participation come Oct. 1, just at that average over the course of the year. Then, states will have a chance to take corrective action. The earliest that penalties could begin is 2009.

Those penalties could be severe. States face a reduction of their welfare block grant of up to 5 percent the first year they fail to meet the new threshold, and 2 percentage points for each additional year.

Pennsylvania, for example, gets $719 million. If it fails to meet the work requirement, it could lose as much as $36 million in federal funds in 2009.

One important feature of the 50 percent threshold is that states get extra credit when they reduce the number of welfare recipients. If a state's caseload drops by 5 percent from 2005 levels, then the work participation requirement will also drop by 5 percent.

Under the current welfare law, states are also supposed to have 50 percent work participation, but the extra credit that states got stemmed from caseload reductions since 1996. As a result, many states could have 10 or 20 percent work participation, such as Pennsylvania did, and still easily meet the federal requirements.

States that have reduced the number of welfare cases over the past year include Georgia, 22.8 percent, and Texas, 19.2 percent. That means those two states would need to have only about a third of their welfare rolls in work activities to meet the new guidelines, Horn said.

Larry Jones, communications director of the Texas Workforce Commission, said various factors play a role in reducing welfare rolls. The state's economy is strong, generating about 630,000 jobs in the past three years. The state also has stricter time limits in place than most states, with some beneficiaries allowed to collect cash assistance a maximum of one year before they have to work.

But mostly, Jones said, the state has been successful placing recipients into the work force.

He said that about three-quarters of participants get jobs and, of that group, 71 percent have those same jobs six months later. Jones said the jobs pay more than $7 an hour and recipients can continue to get food stamps, state-subsidized child care, Medicaid and other benefits.

"We very strongly emphasize work and a quick attachment to the work force," Jones said. "Through work, one builds the skills needed to stay employed and build a career."

.

[thomez]

more evidence of the federal government putting strain on the states because they have money to hold over their heads

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thomez

more evidence of the federal government putting strain on the states because they have money to hold over their heads

are you really complaining that the government wants states to help their welfare recipients to find jobs and get off the government's dollar?

[thomez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

are you really complaining that the government wants states to help their welfare recipients to find jobs and get off the government's dollar?

if I understand this correctly, the federal government is mandating a state activity by threat of withholding unrelated funds

if this is indeed what is happening, yes I'm complaining

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thomez

if I understand this correctly, the federal government is mandating a state activity by threat of withholding unrelated funds

if this is indeed what is happening, yes I'm complaining

I don't think withholding welfare funds would go over too well...

I have no problem with this. We need to force people off welfare and into the workforce. Making it a state responsibility is the first step. If they want to be a part of the national program then they have to do so on their terms. Otherwise they can provide their own welfare.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I don't think withholding welfare funds would go over too well...

I have no problem with this. We need to force people off welfare and into the workforce. Making it a state responsibility is the first step. If they want to be a part of the national program then they have to do so on their terms. Otherwise they can provide their own welfare.

well, after reading the article again, it does finally state what funds will be withheld, and they are welfare funds, so I guess I agree with it

I don't agree with the entire premise that the federal government hands out money to the states to run their individual welfare programs, and then can use such money and hold it over their heads for compliance on a variety of issues

terrible terrible policy

[Scrum]

I see no problem with this.

[Stylerod]

When did it become the states duty to "find" me a job?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

When did it become the states duty to "find" me a job?

When the state is giving out federal funds, they should be able to put limits on it. States shouldn't be entitled to take out as much welfare as they need without doing something to get people off welfare. The system shouldn't be set up in such a way that it can be so easily abused.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thomez

well, after reading the article again, it does finally state what funds will be withheld, and they are welfare funds, so I guess I agree with it

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

When did it become the states duty to "find" me a job?

since the state was bankrolling you