| Contents | Previous | Next |
| The goals of PRWORA are to move people quickly from welfare to work, increase welfare recipients’ self-reliance, encourage the formation of two-parent families, and reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies. This law abolished the individual federal entitlement to Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), JOBS, and Emergency Assistance and replaced them with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant to states. All states were required to implement TANF by July 1, 1997. The law requires that 50% of a state’s one-parent families receiving assistance must have an adult working 30 hours a week by 2002. For two-parent families, 90% of these families must have a working adult in 1999. Lifetime welfare benefits will be limited to five years, but 20 percent of adult recipients can be exempted as hardship cases. Individual states may set more rigid limits, may deny benefits to teen parents, and may end all aid to families that do not comply with TANF requirements. The law penalizes states for not meeting work participation goals and gives states a bonus for reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies without an increase in abortions; emphasis is placed on preventing non-marital teenage pregnancies. Federal benefits are restricted for most non-citizens who enter the United States after August 22, 1996; however, refugees and asylum seekers are eligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid for seven years after entering the country. In contrast to the open-ended funding commitment of AFDC, now federal funding to states is capped at historical levels. |
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193) signed into law on August 22, 1996, transforms large parts of the Nation’s welfare system. The most important change is that the entitlement to cash welfare under title IV-A of the Social Security Act is ended. In place of the entitlement concept, the new law creates two block grants that provide States with the funds necessary to help families escape welfare. In particular, States are given a block grant to provide cash and other benefits to help needy families support their children while simultaneously requiring families to make verifiable efforts to leave welfare for work and to avoid births outside marriage. In addition, funds from the block grant can be used by States to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
The second block grant provides funds to States to help them subsidize child care for families on welfare, families leaving welfare, and low-income families whose precarious financial status may result in future welfare spells.
The new law also limits the provision of welfare benefits to several categories of recipients for whom the continued provision of permanent entitlement benefits was viewed as inappropriate. These groups include most noncitizens, families that have been on welfare for more than 5 years, and children who are judged to be disabled solely because of age-inappro-priate behavior. In earlier versions of the welfare reform bill in the 104th Congress, the entitlement to cash payments under the Supplemental Security Income Program for drug addicts and alcoholics also was ended. Congress passed this provision as part of Public Law 104-121, the Contract With America Advancement Act.
The welfare reform law also contains major new policies aimed at reducing the rate of nonmarital births as well as substantial revisions in the Federal-State child support enforcement program, in the food stamp and commodity distribution programs, and in child nutrition programs. Taken together, the provisions of this legislation constitute the most far-reaching reform of the Nation’s welfare system in several decades.
Since creation of the first Federal welfare entitlements in 1935 to help States aid the needy who were aged, blind, or children, the Federal Government has gradually expanded the entitlement concept. As a result, the Nation’s welfare system now provides millions of families headed by able-bodied adults with a package of guaranteed benefits. These entitlement benefits include cash, medical care, and food stamps. The combined value of this package of benefits in 1995 was about $12,000 per year in the median State (about $8,300 of which was paid with Federal funds). In addition to these entitlement programs, scores of additional programs, most provided on a nonentitlement basis, are available to poor and low-income individuals and families. In fiscal year 1994, one-sixth of the Federal budget—about $246 billion—was spent on means-tested aid (Burke, 1995).
Although roughly half the families that enter AFDC leave the rolls within 1 year, most of them return. In fact, as indicated in chart 1, of the 4.4 million families now on welfare, about 65 percent or 2.9 million will eventually be on welfare for 8 years or more (Ellwood, 1986). Research also shows that despite the short welfare spells of some families, the average length of stay on welfare, counting repeat spells, for families enrolled at any given moment is 13 years (Pavetti, 1995).
The major goal of Public Law 104-193 is to reduce the length of welfare spells by attacking dependency while simultaneously preserving the function of welfare as a safety net for families experiencing temporary financial problems. Based on the view that the permanent guarantee of benefits plays a major role in welfare dependency, Congress is fundamentally altering the nature of the AFDC Program by making cash welfare benefits temporary and provisional. Both food stamps and Medicaid, however, continue as individual entitlements.
Welfare under the new block grant is made temporary by limiting the receipt of cash benefits from the block grant to 5 years (although the law allows States to exempt up to 20 percent of their caseload from this provision). Welfare under the block grant is made contingent by requiring recipients to work. All able-bodied adults who have been on welfare for 2 years must participate in some activity designed to help them become self-supporting. In addition, the law establishes strict work standards. When fully implemented, States are required to have one-half of their recipients in work programs for 30 hours per week.
To help States meet their participation standards while encouraging adults to leave welfare for work, the legislation also combines funds from several child care programs under jurisdiction of the House Committees on Ways and Means and Economic and Educational Opportunities to create a single child care block grant. Money for the child care block grant is increased by more than $4 billion over the amount of money available under prior law. Equally important, States will have great flexibility in using the child care money to meet the needs of low-income parents for child care, thereby allowing available funds to be used more efficiently.
In addition to repealing the entitlement to cash benefits under the AFDC Program, the new law ends or modifies the entitlement benefits of several other groups receiving welfare benefits. Although the concept of entitlement has been the focus of congressional debate for several years, Public Law 104-193 marks the first time that major welfare entitlement benefits have been repealed or substantially altered.
The children’s entitlement under the Supplemental Security Income Program is also reformed by the act. The number of children on SSI has increased substantially in recent years, rising from about 300,000 in 1989 to nearly 900,000 in 1994, an increase of 200 percent in just 5 years. If recent trends had been allowed to continue, SSI enrollment could have reached 1.9 million by the year 2000, according to the U.S. General Accounting Office (1995a).
The new law focuses on the “Individualized Functional Assessment” (IFA) process that purports to detect whether a child behaves in an age-inappropriate manner and therefore qualifies for SSI. A recent U.S. General Accounting Office report (1995b) concluded that there were fundamental flaws in the IFA. The report stated that “each step of the process relies heavily on adjudicators’ judgments, rather than objective criteria from the Social Security Administration, to assess the age-appropriateness of children’s behavior. As a result, the subjectivity of the process calls into question the Social Security Administration’s ability to assure reasonable consistency in administering the SSI program” (p. 2). By the end of 1994, about 225,000 of the 890,000 children on SSI had qualified under an IFA.
Public Law 104-193 ends the IFA process. Children who are truly disabled continue to receive benefits through the reformed program. Although the new approach prevents the provision of benefits to about 235,000 children annually who would have qualified under the IFA process, the number of children receiving SSI will nonetheless grow from 995,000 to 1,089,000 between 1996 and 2002.
Another major area of entitlement reform taken up by the Congress was welfare benefits for noncitizens. The reforms of entitlement benefits for noncitizens include a broad ban on benefits for illegal aliens that applies to most entitlement and nonentitlement programs. The result is that, with the exception of selected emergency benefits and benefits that promote public health, illegal aliens no longer qualify for most public benefits, including means-tested benefits.
Since Congress passed the first immigration law in 1882, it has been a basic tenet of American immigration policy that legal aliens should not be eligible for public aid. Immigration officials are charged with being certain that immigrants will be self-supporting before they can be admitted to the United States. Moreover, for over 100 years, immigration law has stated that becoming a public charge is cause for deportation. Even so, welfare use among noncitizens has increased rapidly in recent years. By 1995, the Federal Government was spending about $8 billion annually on welfare for noncitizens, and spending was increasing dramatically each year. In the Supplemental Security Income Program, for example, the number of noncitizens receiving benefits increased from over 244,000 in 1986 to almost 800,000 in 1996, an increase of about 230 percent (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1996). By 1995, slightly more than one-half the SSI benefits provided to the elderly were collected by noncitizens. GAO (1995a) has estimated that if current policies had remained in place, by the year 2000, nearly 2 million noncitizens would have been receiving SSI benefits.
Given the expansion of welfare use by noncitizens, the original welfare reform bill (H.R. 1157) reported by the House Committee on Ways and Means on March 15, 1995, ended welfare benefits for most noncitizens. The exact provisions were modified several times during the course of congressional debate, particularly by exempting from the ban military veterans and families that had combined work histories of 10 years or more. In addition, several programs were exempted from the ban, including education and training programs that noncitizens could use to better prepare for work and public health programs designed to protect public safety.
Thus, Public Law 104-193 returns American policy on welfare for noncitizens to its roots by barring most noncitizens who arrive in the future from receiving welfare benefits. Current resident noncitizens face changes only in those programs subject to abuse (SSI and food stamps) or with a significant State financial commitment (cash welfare, Medicaid, and social services).
In addition to welfare dependency and entitlements, another major social problem addressed by this legislation is the high rate of nonmarital births. In 1994, nearly one-third of the Nation’s children were born outside marriage; among black Americans the rate was 70 percent. In some inner-city neighborhoods, 8 of 10 babies are born to single mothers.
There is substantial evidence that children reared without the active involvement of two parents are at a substantial disadvantage. These children are more likely to be abused, to make poor grades in school, to quit school, to be unemployed as adults, to be poor, to go on welfare, to have long welfare spells, and to commit crimes (Maynard, 1996; Zill, 1996). In addition, research shows that teens who give birth outside marriage are very likely to use welfare. Within 5 years of a nonmarital birth, more than 75 percent of teen mothers are or have been on welfare (Adams & Williams, 1990). Nor are the impacts of nonmarital births on welfare use confined to teen mothers. Across all mothers who give birth outside marriage, the percentage of those who have welfare spells of 10 years or more is nearly 3 times greater than the percentage of divorced mothers who have spells totaling 10 years or more (Ellwood, 1986).
Given the negative impacts of nonmarital births on mothers and children, Public Law 104-193 contains several provisions designed to reduce nonmarital births in general and teen nonmarital births in particular. These measures include requiring teen mothers to live at home or with a responsible adult; requiring teen mothers to attend school; imposing a mandatory 25 percent benefit reduction on unmarried mothers who do not help establish paternity; providing entitlement funding for abstinence education; requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to annually rank States on their performance in reducing nonmarital birth ratios; providing $1 billion over 5 years for performance bonuses to reward States that achieve the goals of the act, including reduced nonmarital births and increased incidence of two-parent families; and providing $400 million in bonus payments to States that reduce their illegitimacy rates.
Finally, the new law addresses one of the most vexing social problems faced by the Nation today; namely, the remarkably low level of child support payments by noncustodial parents. Some scholars have estimated that a highly effective child support system could produce as much as $34 billion more for children than the amount now collected (Sorensen, 1995). The reformed child support program attacks this problem by pursuing five major goals: automating many child support enforcement procedures; establishing uniform tracking procedures; strengthening interstate child support enforcement; requiring States to adopt stronger measures to establish paternity; and creating new and stronger enforcement tools to increase actual child support collections. The law envisions a child support system in which all States have similar child support laws, all States share information through the Federal child support office, mass processing of information is routine, and interstate cases are handled expeditiously.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act creates a cash welfare block grant called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Its purpose is to increase State flexibility in providing assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for at home; end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. The TANF block grant replaces four current cash welfare and related programs: Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC), AFDC Administration, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) Program, and the Emergency Assistance Program. In addition, a new block grant for child care replaces AFDC-related child care, effective October 1, 1996. To allow States the opportunity to pass legislation needed to implement reformed welfare programs, the implementation date for the TANF block grant is July 1, 1997, but States may begin their block grant programs sooner.
Spending through the TANF block grant is capped and funded at $16.4 billion per year, slightly above fiscal year 1995 Federal expenditures for the four component programs. Each year between 1996 and 2002, the basic block grant provides each State with the amount of Federal money it received for the four constituent programs in fiscal year 1995, fiscal year 1994 (increased in some cases by higher Emergency Assistance spending in fiscal year 1995), or the average of fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 1994, whichever is highest.
To receive each year’s full TANF block grant, a State must spend in the previous year on behalf of TANF-eligible families a sum equal to 75 percent of State funds used in fiscal year 1994 on the replaced programs (its “historic” level of welfare expenditures). If a State fails to meet work participation rates, its required “maintenance of effort” spending rises to 80 percent.
Over 6 years, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that Federal spending on family support payments (a classification that includes cash welfare, work programs for welfare recipients, and welfare-related child care) will be $3.8 billion above projected spending under the superseded AFDC law. This increased spending is due to several factors: (1) States are eligible to receive a TANF block grant that matches the highest of recent annual funding levels; (2) Federal outlays under the new child care block grant are estimated by CBO to be $3.5 billion higher than projected outlays under old law; (3) States with above-average population growth or below-average Federal welfare funding per poor person will qualify for supplemental grants above their TANF block grant (out of a total of $800 million provided over 4 years); (4) States that attain a performance score (for achieving the goals of the TANF block grant) that equals a threshold set by the HHS Secretary will receive a high-performance bonus (out of a total of $1 billion provided over 5 years); and (5) up to 5 States will receive bonuses for achieving the largest percentage reduction in the number of out-of-wedlock births while also reducing the rate of abortion (a total of $400 million is available over 4 years). In addition, States undergoing recession, as shown by high and rising unemployment or rising food stamp caseloads, may be eligible to receive up to $2 billion over 5 years in matching “contingency” funds (CBO estimates Federal outlays of contingency funds at more than $1 billion). Taken together, these provisions are intended to ensure that States, even in times of recession, have sufficient funds to operate welfare programs that stress work instead of government dependence.
The new law earmarks some TANF funds (to be subtracted from relevant State block grants) for direct administration by applicant Indian tribes and Native Alaskan organizations. It entitles Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands to TANF grants plus reimbursement (at a 75 percent Federal rate) for welfare outlays above the Federal block grant level, but below new and enlarged funding ceilings. (For details of financing and State TANF allocations, see appendix.)
The individual entitlement to cash welfare payments currently provided under the Aid to Families With Dependent Children Program is ended by the new law. TANF block grant funds are guaranteed payments to States, but can be reduced if States fail to meet specified requirements such as providing data to the Federal Government, ensuring that funds are spent on children and families, enforcing penalties against persons who fail to cooperate in establishing paternity, maintaining specified levels of State spending, and meeting work participation requirements. State plans must set forth objective criteria for the delivery of benefits and the determination of eligibility and for fair and equitable treatment, and must explain how States will provide opportunities for appeal by adversely affected recipients.
The new law contains three provisions requiring work or work preparation by adults in welfare families:
For purposes of calculating State participation rates described in (2) above, the new law defines 12 activities as “work activities:” unsubsidized employment; subsidized private employment; subsidized public employment; work experience; on-the-job training; job search and job readiness assistance, for up to 6 weeks (12 weeks, if the State’s unemployment rate is 50 percent above the national average), of which only 4 can be consecutive; community service programs; vocational education training (for a maximum of 12 months); provision of child care to TANF recipients participating in a community service program; job skills training directly related to employment; education directly related to employment (for high school dropouts only); or satisfactory attendance at secondary school or in a course of study leading to an equivalency certificate (for high school dropouts only). Not more than 20 percent of the required number of work participants can qualify because they participated in vocational training or were a teen head-of-household in secondary school.
In order to count toward fulfilling a State’s participation rate, a recipient generally must engage in one of the first nine activities above (that is, one other than job skills training or education) for an average of 20 hours weekly. The total number of required hours of work rises to 25 in fiscal year 1999 and to a peak of 30 in fiscal year 2000. However, required work hours of a single parent of a child under 6 do not rise above 20, and a teen head of household (under age 20) without a high school diploma is counted as a work participant if she maintains secondary school attendance or, for the required minimum number of hours, participates in education directly related to employment.
Special rules apply to two-parent families. An adult in these families must work an average of 35 hours weekly, with at least 30 hours attributable to one of the first nine activities cited above. Also, if the family receives federally funded child care, the second parent, unless disabled or caring for a disabled child, must make satisfactory progress for at least 20 hours weekly in employment, work experience, on-the-job training, or community service.
Expressed as a percentage, work participation rates equal the number of all recipient families in which an individual is engaged in work activities for the month, divided by the number of recipient families with an adult recipient, but excluding families with children under 1 for up to a total of 12 months per family, if the State exempts them from work, and excluding families being sanctioned (for no more than 3 months within the preceding 12 months) for refusal to work.
A TANF recipient may fill a vacant employment position in order to engage in a work activity. However, no adult in a work activity who receives Federal funds shall be employed or assigned to a position when another person is on layoff from the same or any substantially equivalent job. States must establish and maintain a grievance procedure for resolving complaints of alleged job displacement.
Adults who refuse to engage in required work will face at least pro rata reductions in benefits. Thus, if a parent is required to work 20 hours and works only 10, her benefit will be reduced by at least 50 percent. States may not penalize single parents with children under 6 if the parent proves her inability to obtain needed child care for a specified reason. States are encouraged to place the highest priority on requiring adults in two-parent families and single parents with school-age children (especially older school-age children) to participate in work activities. Congressional committees are to review the implementation of State work programs during fiscal year 1999.
As noted before, States are required to maintain 75 percent of their 1994 level of State spending on the replaced programs for 6 years, fiscal year 1997 through 2002; however, States that fail to meet required work participation rates must maintain at least 80 percent of historic spending levels. In addition, the law creates a $1 billion performance bonus to provide cash rewards to States that succeed in meeting program goals, as measured by a formula to be developed by the Secretary in consultation with the National Governors’ Association and the American Public Welfare Association
The Secretary is required to annually rank the States in order of their success in placing recipients of assistance in long-term private sector jobs and in reducing the overall caseload.
The act repeals the child care guarantee for recipients of cash aid who need it to work or study and, for up to 1 year, for individuals who leave welfare bcause of employment. The act also ends existing AFDC-related child care programs. It entitles States to $13.9 billion for child care under title IV-A of the Social Security Act for a period of over 6 years. This amount is comprised of $1.2 billion annually in 100 percent Federal grants (roughly equal to recent Federal spending for AFDC-related child care) and an average of about $1.1 billion yearly in matching grants, which are subject to maintenance-of-effort spending rules. At least 70 percent of these entitlement funds must be spent for services for TANF recipients or ex-recipients or low-income working families at risk of TANF eligibility. These welfare-related child care funds are transferred to the lead agency under the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) and made subject to its rules. For CCDBG, the law authorizes $1 billion annually in discretionary funds. (For further information, see title VI: Child Care, below.)
The new law gives States wide flexibility along with added funds to combat the rising number of out-of-wedlock births, which increase welfare use and long-term dependency. For example, unmarried teen parents must live at home or in another adult-supervised setting and attend school in order to be eligible for payments; States may end cash payments altogether for teen parents who have children outside marriage. Further, States may end the practice of providing extra Federal payments to families that have an additional child while on welfare, employing a policy sometimes called the “family cap.”
The new law contains several provisions that encourage marriage and family and discourage out-of-wedlock childbearing. More specifically, the legislation:
To increase State flexibility in the use of Federal funds, States are allowed to transfer up to 30 percent of their Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant into the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) and the title XX social services block grant. However, States may shift no more than one-third of the total amount transferred (that is, no more than 10 percent of the TANF block grant) into the social services block grant; funds transferred into the social services block grant must be used only for programs and services for children and families with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty level. The law explicitly permits use of funds transferred into the Social Services Block Grant for families who lose TANF eligibility because of the 5-year time limit or because the State adopts a family cap.
To assist in recessions or other emergencies, States may: (1) receive matching grants from the $2 billion contingency fund described above; (2) borrow from a $1.7 billion Federal loan fund; and (3) save an unlimited amount of their TANF block grant funds for use in later years.
The new law also contains supplemental grants to assist States with above average population growth and below average Federal welfare funding per poor person (reflecting historically low benefit levels). These grants will provide eligible States with an additional $800 million in Federal funds between fiscal year 1998 and 2001.
States may provide families on welfare moving into the State with the same benefit they received in their former State for a period of up to 12 months.
States shall not be prohibited by the Federal Government from testing recipients for use of controlled substances nor from sanctioning those who test positive.
To encourage work, States may use TANF block grant funds to operate an employment placement program. States may not use block grant funds to provide medical services (but may use them for family planning) and may not spend more than 15 percent of the block grant on administrative expenses. Spending for information technology and computerization required to perform case tracking and monitoring, however, is not counted toward the 15 percent cap on administrative expenditures.
To encourage saving for specified purposes, States may use block grant funds to help fund individual development accounts (IDAs) for persons eligible for TANF, with no dollar limit.
In recognition of the fact that creating block grants and increasing State control over program operation will lessen Federal control, the law requires a reduction of 75 percent of the full-time positions at the Department of Health and Human Services that relate to any direct spending program, or program funded through discretionary spending, that is converted into a block grant program. The law specifies that the Secretary of HHS must reduce the Federal welfare work force by 245 full-time positions related to the AFDC Program and by 60 full-time equivalent managerial positions.
To encourage States to involve religious and other private organizations in the delivery of welfare services to the greatest extent possible, States are specifically authorized to administer and provide family assistance services through contracts with charitable, religious, or private organizations or through vouchers or certificates that may be redeemed for services at charitable, religious, or private organizations.
To encourage States to adopt an electronic benefits transfer (EBT) system for TANF, the new law permits use of TANF funds for implementing EBT and limits State liability for lost/ stolen benefits distributed via EBT.
States will set TANF eligibility standards and benefit levels. They may deny or offer aid to two-parent families or to any group; however, as noted above, if States offer TANF to unmarried teen parents they must require them to meet Federal conditions concerning living arrangements and school.
The new law gives States the widest possible latitude in developing innovative programs that will get families off welfare and into jobs. Nonetheless, a small set of principles must be followed to ensure the nationwide success of welfare reform. States therefore are prohibited from using Federal cash welfare block grant funds to:
In addition, only families with minor children and pregnant women are eligible for assistance under the block grant. No assistance can be provided to families that include a child who has been absent from the home for more than 45 days, nor can assistance be given to a parent or caretaker who fails to report a missing child within 5 days.
Individuals convicted of fraudulently misrepresenting residence to obtain Federal welfare benefits in two or more States at the same time must be denied benefits for 10 years. States are prohibited from providing assistance from the Temporary Family Assistance Block Grant, food stamps, or Supplemental Security Income to fugitive felons fleeing prosecution or confinement or violating probation or parole. State welfare agencies are required to share information on fugitive felons with law enforcement officials under most circumstances.
Unless a State “opts out” by enacting a new law, an individual convicted after August 22, 1996, of a felony involving the possession, use, or distribution of illegal drugs shall not be eligible for cash welfare benefits or food stamps. States may limit the period of ineligibility by passage of a new law, and children in families that include an adult affected by this prohibition would continue to be eligible to receive benefits.
States are required to provide Medicaid coverage to:
The first two provisions are designed to maintain current law standards ensuring Medicaid coverage for families who move off welfare. The third provision, by requiring Medicaid coverage for families according to recent AFDC standards, assures medical assistance to many families that might not qualify for benefits under States’ new TANF block grant programs. To encourage work, however, States may end medical coverage for parents who become ineligible for TANF benefits because of a failure to work (children in these families would remain eligible for medical assistance). The law also extends the authorization of the first two provisions above until 2002.
Ensuring That Prisoners and Other Criminals Do Not Receive SSI Benefits
The new law provides for incentive payments from SSI Program funds to State and local penal institutions for furnishing information (date of confinement and certain other identifying information) to the Social Security Administration (SSA) that results in suspension of benefits (up to $400 for information received within 30 days of confinement or up to $200 for information received from 31 to 90 days after confinement). The provision applies to individuals whose period of confinement commences on or after March 1, 1997.
In order to facilitate the exchange of information, the SSI reporting agreements under which incentive payments are made are exempted from the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988. SSA is authorized to provide, on a reimbursable basis, information obtained pursuant to SSI reporting agreements to any Federal or federally assisted cash, food, or medical assistance program for eligibility purposes.
The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration is required to study and report to Congress within 1 year of enactment on the feasibility of information exchange on prisoners, especially by electronic means, between SSA, the courts, and correctional facilities. SSA also is required to provide Congress not later than October 1, 1998, with a list of institutions that are and are not providing information on SSI recipients to SSA.
The law denies eligibility for SSI to individuals fleeing prosecution, to fugitive felons, or to those violating a condition of probation or parole imposed under State or Federal law. SSA must provide, upon written request of any law enforcement officer, the current address, Social Security number, and photograph (if available) of any SSI recipient who: is fleeing to avoid prosecution, custody, or confinement after a felonyfelony conviction; is violating a condition of probation or parole; or has information necessary for the officer to conduct his official duties.
The law denies SSI benefits for a period of 10 years to an individual convicted in Federal or State court of having made a fraudulent statement with respect to his or her place of residence in order to receive benefits simultaneously in two or more States.
The new law makes several changes designed to maintain the SSI Program’s goal of providing benefits for severely disabled children while preventing children without serious impairments from receiving benefits.
First, the act replaces the former law “comparable severity” test with the following new definition of childhood disability:
An individual under the age of 18 is considered disabled under SSI if the child has a SGA physical or mental impairment, which results in marked and severe functional limitations, and which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.
Second, the Commissioner of SSA is required to discontinue use of the Individualized Functional Assessment (IFA), an evaluation instrument that requires subjective judgment to determine children’s eligibility for SSI. The IFA is also the source of many complaints about SSI providing cash benefits to children who act up in school or demonstrate only mild impairments.
Third, the Commissioner of SSA must eliminate references to “maladaptive behavior” in the Listings of Impairments (among medical criteria for evaluation of mental and emotional disorders in the domain of personal/behavioral function).
The provisions eliminating the use of the IFA and eliminating references to maladaptive behavior in the listings are effective for all new and pending applications upon enactment. Current beneficiaries receiving benefits due to an IFA or maladaptive behavior listing will receive notice no later than January 1, 1997, that their benefits may end and their case will be redetermined. The Commissioner will redetermine eligibility of those currently receiving benefits using the new eligibility criteria within 1 year from the date of enactment. Should an individual be found ineligible for benefits, his benefits will end July 1, 1997, or the date of the redetermination, whichever is later.
At least once every 3 years, the Commissioner must conduct continuing disability reviews (CDRs) of children receiving SSI benefits. At the time of the CDR, the representative payee (usually a parent or other family member) must provide evidence demonstrating that the child is, and has been, receiving treatment, if appropriate. If the representative payee refuses to comply, an alternative representative payee will be found.
The eligibility of children qualifying for SSI benefits must be redetermined under the adult criteria within 1 year after the child turns 18. In addition, a CDR must be completed 12 months after the birth of a child who was allowed benefits because of low birth weight.
The new law makes several other changes designed to improve accountability in the SSI Program. First, the act requires lump sum payments in excess of $2,820 to children under age 18 (effective with respect to payments made after the date of enactment) to be paid into a dedicated savings account. Spending from this account must be for allowable expenses and must be monitored by the Commissioner. Allowable expenses include personal needs assistance, education or job skills training, special equipment, home modifications, medical treatment, therapy or rehabilitation services, or other items approved by the Commissioner so long as the expenses benefit the child or are related to the child’s disability.
Second, the act requires that past-due benefits (effective with respect to past-due benefits payable after the third month following the month of enactment) larger than $5,640 for an individual and $8,460 for a couple be paid via three installments in 6-month intervals. Installment limits may be exceeded, however, to pay certain debts and expenses, and certain other exceptions apply.
Finally, children in medical institutions with private insurance currently receiving a full SSI benefit will have their benefits reduced to a personal needs allowance of $30 per month, the same amount that is given to children in institutions for whom more than half the costs are paid by the Medicaid Program. This provision is effective with respect to benefits for months beginning 90 or more days after the date of enactment.
New regulations implementing the changes related to benefits for disabled children must be promulgated by SSA within 3 months after the enactment date. These regulations (with supporting documentation including a cost analysis, workload impact, and caseload projections that will result from the new regulations) must be provided to Congress at least 45 days before they are implemented.
Within 180 days of enactment, the Commissioner will send to Congress a report on the progress made in implementing the provisions of these amendments.
The act takes a number of steps to evaluate and improve the disability determination process and to assess the effect of changes on families and children:
The act authorizes the appropriation of an additional $150 million in fiscal year 1997 and $100 million in fiscal year 1998 for the costs of processing CDRs and redeterminations. Other SSI changes
The new law provides that an individual’s application for SSI benefits would be effective on the first day of the month following the date on which the application is filed, or on which the individual first becomes eligible, whichever is later. The law also permits the issuance of an emergency advance payment to an individual who is presumptively eligible and has a financial emergency in the month the application is filed. The emergency advance payment must be repaid through proportional reductions in benefits payable over a period of not more than 6 months. These provisions are effective for applications filed on or after the date of enactment.
A provision denying SSI or disability benefits to persons disabled solely because of addictions became part of H.R. 3136, the Contract With America Advancement Act (Public Law 104-121).
Title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act makes significant changes in the eligibility of noncitizens, both legal and illegal, for Federal, State, and local benefits.
Regarding Federal programs, the act contains three new restrictions on the eligibility of legal aliens for means-tested benefits. The first of these is a bar on qualified aliens, a term that includes legal immigrants, from Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and food stamps. The second is a bar of most qualified aliens arriving after August 22, 1996, from most means-tested programs during their first 5 years here. The third restriction, which applies to aliens in the United States on August 22, 1996, and to new entrants after their first 5 years, is a State option to deny qualified aliens assistance under the following federally funded programs: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which replaces AFDC; social services block grants; and Medicaid (other than emergency services). The new restrictions are not absolute, and the exceptions to them are discussed below.
Additionally, the act expands sponsor-to-alien deeming, which imputes the income and resources of a sponsor to an alien who is applying for needs-based assistance. This expansion may further affect eligibility for and the amount of needs-based benefits for certain qualified aliens who arrive after the date of enactment.
Separately, the act denies most Federal benefits, regardless of whether they are means tested, to aliens who are not qualified aliens—illegal aliens, aliens admitted temporarily for a limited purpose (nonimmigrants), aliens paroled into the United States by the Attorney General for briefer than a year, and other aliens allowed to reside in the United States (e.g., those granted deferred action status or stay of deportation). This denial covers many programs whose enabling statutes do not make citizenship or immigration status a criterion for participation.
Regarding State benefits, States are given broad authority to decide which noncitizens may participate in State and local programs, including authority to mirror Federal sponsor-to-alien deeming rules. However, the act initially denies illegal aliens most State and local benefits, and illegal aliens may qualify for those benefits only through newly enacted State laws which explicitly extend eligibility for benefits to illegal aliens.
While the act’s new restrictions on the eligibility of aliens for public benefits are extensive, they cease to apply upon naturalization. Once an alien becomes a citizen, she becomes eligible for benefits on the same basis as other citizens.
“Qualified” aliens–Section 402 of the act restricts eligibility for major programs for qualified aliens, including legal permanent residents, aliens paroled into the United States for at least 1 year, refugees, and aliens granted asylum or certain similar relief. The restrictions include a direct bar on eligibility for: (1) the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Program under title XVI of the Social Security Act, including State supplementary payments paid through the Federal Government; and (2) the Food Stamp Program. The restrictions also include a State option to restrict the eligibility of some or all qualified aliens under: (1) block grants to States for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); (2) block grants to States for social services under title XX of the Social Security Act; and (3) Medicaid, except that treatment for emergency medical conditions (other than those related to an organ transplant) may not be restricted.
The act contains three exceptions to the SSI/food stamp bar and the State option for qualified aliens who meet other eligibility requirements. The first is a time-limited exception for humanitarian entrants. Under this exception, benefits may not be restricted during the 5 years after an alien is admitted as a refugee or is granted asylum or similar relief.
The second exception is based on service in the United States Armed Forces. Honorably discharged veterans, active duty service personnel (other than those on active duty for training), and their spouses and unmarried dependent children fall within the service-related exception. The third exception is premised on working in the United States. The work-related exception covers permanent resident aliens who have worked, or may be credited with, at least 40 qualifying quarters of employment for purposes of title II of the Social Security Act. In applying this test, the alien may take into account qualifying quarters of work performed by:
(1) the alien; (2) the alien’s spouse after their marriage (but only if the alien remains married to the spouse or the spouse is deceased); or (3) the alien’s parent before the alien reached age 18. At the same time, no qualifying quarter beginning after 1996 may be credited if the worker (be it the alien or the alien’s spouse or parent) received means-based Federal assistance during the period.
Agencies that administer the SSI and Food Stamp Programs are to redetermine the eligibility of recipients within 1 year of enactment. The State option regarding TANF, social services block grants, and Medicaid may not be exercised until January 1, 1997, for legal residents who were receiving benefits on the date of enactment.
Five-year bar on new entrants.----With limited exception, section 403 of the act makes qualified aliens who enter the United States after enactment ineligible for Federal means-tested benefits for 5 years after entry. Honorably discharged veterans, active duty service personnel (other than those on active duty for training), and their spouses and unmarried dependent children are excepted from the 5-year bar, as are refugees and aliens granted asylum or similar relief.
Several types of benefits are also excepted, including:
A separate exception is made for refugee and entrant assistance under title IV of the Immigration and Nationality Act and section 501 of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980 provided to Cuban and Haitian entrants (as defined in section 501 of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980).
Once the initial 5-year period expires, an alien becomes subject to other restrictions on alien eligibility for Federal benefits in the act (i.e., the SSI/food stamp bar; the State option for Medicaid, TANF, and social services block grants; and sponsor-to-alien deeming) or, if those restrictions do not pertain, to alienage restrictions in pertinent enabling statutes or other applicable laws.
Aliens other than “qualified” aliens.–Section 401 of the act makes ineligible for Federal public benefits aliens who are not qualified aliens. These aliens include illegal aliens, aliens in the United States without valid immigration documents or other legal permission; nonimmigrant aliens, or aliens admitted into the United States for a limited time for a limited purpose (e.g., tourists, students, business visitors); aliens paroled into the United States by the Attorney General for briefer than 1 year; and other aliens allowed by the Attorney General to reside in the United States (e.g., those granted deferred action status or stay of deportation).
The Federal public benefits denied other aliens are broadly defined to include: (1) grants, contracts, loans, and licenses and (2) retirement, welfare, health, disability, housing, food, unemployment, postsecondary education, and similar benefits. Excepted programs include:
Section 401 also excepts Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance benefits under title II of the Social Security Act that are protected by that title or by treaty or that are paid under applications made before enactment. Licenses and contracts related to a nonimmigrant’s lawful employment activities also are excepted. Separately, section 742 of the act states that individuals who are eligible for free public education benefits under State and local law shall remain eligible to receive school lunch and school breakfast benefits. (The act itself does not address a State’s obligation to grant all aliens equal access to education in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Plyler v. Doe.) Section 742 further states that nothing shall prohibit or require a State to provide aliens who are not qualified aliens other benefits under the National School Lunch Act or the Child Nutrition Act or under the Emergency Food Assistance Act, section 4 of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act, or the food distribution program on Indian reservations under the Food Stamp Act.
Sponsor-to-alien deeming and affidavits of support.— The Immigration and Nationality Act excludes from the United States aliens who appear likely to become a public charge at any time. Unless this ground for exclusion is waived, as it is in the case of refugees and asylees, an alien seeking to become a legal permanent resident must show adequate resources or job prospects or, in their absence, must present one or more affidavits of support signed by U.S. residents. Under sponsor-to-alien deeming, the income and resources of an individual who signed an affidavit (the “sponsor”) and those of the sponsor’s spouse are added to the means of a sponsored alien who applies for needs-based assistance during the applicable “deeming period” in determining whether the alien is sufficiently needy to qualify for assistance.
Approximately one-half of the aliens who obtain permanent resident status have had affidavits of support filed on their behalf. Despite the frequency of their use, the pledges of support contained in affidavits have not been regarded by the courts to be legally enforceable. Section 423 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act aims to rectify this problem. Under the act, sponsors must sign affidavits of support that allow sponsored aliens to seek support. The affidavits also would permit government agencies to obtain reimbursement of benefits provided to sponsored aliens. Sponsors are not required to reimburse benefits made available under those programs that are excepted from the 5-year bar for new entrants, which are listed above. However, the obligation to reimburse covered benefits applies to all benefits provided before a sponsored alien becomes a citizen even if sponsor-to-alien deeming has ended before then.
Section 421 of the act imposes additional sponsor-to-alien deeming requirements on sponsored aliens who have had one of the new, enforceable affidavits filed for them. Generally, if a sponsor has executed an affidavit that complies with the act’s requirements, the income and resources of the sponsor and the sponsor’s spouse are added to those of the sponsored alien in determining the eligibility of the alien under Federal needs-based programs until the alien becomes a citizen. Nevertheless, sponsor-to-alien deeming may end before the alien becomes a citizen if the alien meets the 40 qualifying quarter test that applies under the SSI/food stamp restrictions, described above. The programs that are excepted from the 5-year bar for new entrants, which are listed above, also are excepted from the sponsor-to-alien deeming requirements.
Earned income credit.— The act conditions eligibility for the earned income credit (EIC) on an individual’s including his or her Social Security number and that of the individual’s spouse on their tax return for the applicable taxable year. This requirement is intended to disqualify illegal aliens and other noncitizens who are not authorized to work in the United States.