When the Safety Net’s Ripped, the Babies Will Fall … and the Rest of the Family Too

February 17, 2015

In less than eight months, some 6,000 families in the District of Columbia will have no cash income whatever, unless the parents can land jobs PDQ. Most probably won’t because they would have if they could have.

The families I’m referring to have participated in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program for a lifetime total of 60 or more months. The benefits they’ve received have been, at best, extremely low — $428 a month for a parent with two children.

But their benefits have already been slashed. Our three-person TANF family facing a cut-off now receives $152 a month. Is this what a parent would choose over paying work of any legal kind, assuming s/he’s got someone to care for the kids?

Of course not. The parents who’ve perforce depended on TANF for a long time or recurrently often have what are euphemistically called severe barriers to work, e.g., debilitating physical and/or mental health problems, domestic violence trauma, functional illiteracy.

The District’s TANF program will count time spent receiving services to help overcome such barriers as compliance with its work activity requirements. But it won’t stop the clock ticking toward the cut-off date, except for the relatively few  parents who’ve been shifted out of TANF into a locally-funded program.

Most parents used to be placed in programs designed to get them into the workforce quickly, regardless of their needs and skills. No real attention to whether they could stay in the workforce. Most didn’t, as even the District’s short-term tracking showed.

Then the Department of Human Services revamped the TANF program, providing for individualized assessments and a range of services, including more diverse education and job training options. But time spent in the flawed program still counts toward the 60 months.

And parents who were deemed work-ready, either initially or after some “barrier-removal” services, had to wait for job training because the budget didn’t fund enough slots. Again, the clock kept ticking.

Now Mayor Bowser and the DC Council can let these very poor parents and their children fall into utter destitution or decide that the 60-month limit is, at the very least, too rigid, if not a bad idea altogether.

When they consider the options, as one hopes they will, they should recall that the Council hastily adopted the time limit as part of a budget-gap closing package that then-Chairman Vincent Gray pushed through shortly before he became mayor.

At least some Councilmembers — and we the public — were sold a bill of goods when a less draconian version of the benefits cut-off surfaced in the original gap-closing bill. DHS called it a measure “to more closely align with federal policy.”

But, as I said at the time, nothing in federal policy compels states or the District to cut — let alone end — TANF benefits at the end of five years. The rules only prohibit the use of federal funds to help pay for them.

And not altogether. States and the District may use federal funds to extend benefits for up to 20% of their average monthly caseload based on “hardship or domestic violence.” About 20 states do, in one form or another. The District has taken a pass. It exempts parents from their regular work requirements, but it keeps the clock running. And, as I already said, it set the clock to start when TANF families first enrolled.

So more than 6,100 families lost a portion of their benefits with virtually no warning — and little or no chance to first improve their employment prospects through the new, improved assessment and referral process.

Many would still have faced high barriers — not only those I’ve mentioned, but others that some states count as “hardship,” e.g., the need to care for a chronically ill or severely disabled child.

And then there’s that barrier confronting all local job seekers who don’t have a college degree. Last year, 19% of District residents without a high school diploma couldn’t find work, even part-time. The unemployment rate for those with, but no more was only 1% lower.

So we’ve undoubtedly got TANF parents who’ve been putting in their required work activity hours searching for a job, but to no avail. Yet we’re about to punish them — and their children — further by cutting off their benefits.

The DC Fiscal Policy Institute’s recommendations to the Mayor and Council include a temporary, renewable benefits extension for parents up against the time limit when they can’t find a job that offers enough hours for them to make ends meet.

Some other parents should get extensions too, it says — those who aren’t yet work-ready, for example, and those with the kinds of significant barriers I cited above. It also recommends extensions when families will otherwise suffer “serious hardship,” e.g., homelessness.

One can make lots of arguments, moral and pragmatic, for protecting families from the benefits reductions and cut-offs they face under the current law.

Among the most pressing of both sorts is what’s providing to be an unprecedented homeless family crisis. Stingy TANF benefits help explain it — as, of course, do the even stingier benefits the 60-month families are getting.

But there are still families who’ve managed to stay housed, at least for awhile — by doubling-up (or tripling-up) with other low-income families, for example, or by contributing to the household expenses of a hospitable friend of relative.

These arrangements are by no means ideal for the children, since housing instability of any sort tends to harm them — and in ways that have lasting effects. But they’re better for them than living in the DC General shelter — or on the streets when it’s not cold enough for them to get in.

And they’re better than the cut-offs for the District’s budget too, though I’d like to think our policymakers will take a broader view of their responsibilities when they decide whether to extend a lifeline to at-risk TANF families.

 

 

 

 


Some College Education Not Enough in DC’s Economy

February 5, 2015

As you may have noticed, this recovery that’s suppose to be more than five years old now hasn’t been one of those rising tides that lifts all boats. We’ve had scads of reports, media features and the like showing how more and more income is flowing to the already-rich, leaving the rest with a shrinking share.

A new report from the DC Fiscal Policy Institute zeroes in on one angle of this nationwide story — employment and wages in the District of Columbia. It does so mainly by comparing Census data for 2007, just before the recession set in, to comparable data for 2013.

The report’s subtitle tells that “DC’s Economic Recovery Is Not Reaching All Residents.” That’s an understatement. For example:

  • Low-wage workers, i.e., those with earnings in the bottom fifth, actually got paid a bit less per hour in 2013 than in 2007.
  • The unemployment rate for black workers was 6% higher late last summer than in 2007, though the overall unemployment rate in the District was just 2.1% higher.
  • About two and a half times as many black workers were jobless for at least six months in 2013 as in 2007.
  • Higher percents of black and Hispanic workers, especially the former, were working part time, though they wanted full-time jobs.

The big message underlying many of the figures and related graphs is that residents without at least a four-year college degree are no better off than they were before the recession. In some respects, they’re worse off.

We’re used to seeing dismal wage figures and relatively high unemployment rates for workers without a high school diploma or the equivalent. And we’ve surely got them in DCFPI’s report.

But the figures for District residents with some college education, including those with an associate’s degree are an eye-opener. We learn, for example, that:

  • The median hourly wage for the some-college group fell more, in dollars, than the median for workers with no more than a high school diploma.
  • At the same time, the median for residents with at least a four-year college degree increased by $2.00 an hour — roughly the same as what the some-college workers lost.
  • The unemployment rate for the some-college group was close to 15% in 2013. This is nearly three times the rate in 2007 — and only about 4% higher than the rate for residents without a high school diploma.
  • About 22% of the some-college workers were involuntary part-timers, i.e., wanted full-time work, but couldn’t get it.

Yet when DCFPI turns to what needs to be done, it focuses largely on the District’s lowest-wage workers — and those who either can’t get jobs or could, but can’t afford the collateral costs.

Our some-college workers may benefit from most of the recommendations, but only to the extent they’re as disadvantaged in our labor market as workers and potential workers without their formal education credentials.

For example, DCFPI puts in another plug for career pathways that integrate basic literacy and job training programs — not, one hopes, an approach our some-college residents need.

It also recommends that the District take better advantage of federal funds available for job training and related supports, e.g., transportation subsidies, through SNAP  (the food stamp program). This, I take it, means invest more local dollars because the U.S. Department of Agriculture will reimburse half of what’s spent on an approved plan.

Two other recommendations would help ease conflicts between work and family obligations. One would enable a worker to take paid leave in order to care for a new baby or ill family member. Obviously preferable to quitting, getting fired or, in the best of cases, losing wages you and other family members need.

Another recommendation — oft made and still not fully funded — would increase the reimbursement rates the District pays providers that care for children with publicly-funded subsidies.

We know that some providers won’t accept such children and that others limit the number they’ll accept because, in at least some cases, the reimbursements don’t even cover the costs of care.

Some parents who don’t work could. Others could work more. Wouldn’t do a thing for their wage rates or job prospects. But there’d be more income to spend on other needs.

Still another oft-made recommendation could boost earnings for thousands of workers in the District’s growing “hospitality” sector, as well as some others, e.g., hairdressers, the folks who deliver our pizzas. These are workers whom employers can pay as little as $2.77 an hour because they regularly receive tips.

DCFPI suggests a 70% increase in the tip credit wage — borrowing, it seems, from the long-stalled minimum wage bill in Congress. But it also notes that seven states have no tip credit wage at all — a model the District could follow, if policymakers would stand up to the restaurant and hotel industry lobbyists.

Don’t look to me — or, I would guess, other progressives — to argue against any of these recommendations. But, so far as I can see, none of them gets to the heart of the problem DCFPI illuminates.

If you live in the District, you’ll have a tough time getting — and keeping — a job that will pay enough to support a reasonably secure, comfortable lifestyle unless you’ve got at least a four-year college degree.

What our local policymakers can do about this I’m hard put to say. And I’m certainly not faulting DCFPI for teeing up a handful of quite modest recommendations they could adopt right now — or as part of the budget the mayor’s people are already working on.

But I don’t think we should just shrug our shoulders either. An economy that works for only about half the adults in the city isn’t, to borrow from DCFPI, “enabling all residents to succeed.”

 

 

 


DC Coalition Calls for Some Spending Increases, But They Could Save Money … and Lives

January 29, 2015

A new mayor in the District of Columbia. New appointments to senior administrative positions. Three new Councilmembers — and two more to come.

Unexpected challenges for them all because the current fiscal year’s budget seems likely to be short about $83.3 million. It could be considerably more if the District decides to, at along last, settle its overtime dispute with the firefighters.

And there’s a bigger potential budget gap for next fiscal year — perhaps $161.3 million, according to the Chief Financial Officer’s latest estimate of the costs of District agency operations.

Into this still-fluid environment comes the Fair Budget Coalition, with its annual recommendations for (what else?) a budget and related policies that are fair to all District residents. “Fair,” as its mission statement says, means policies, including budgets, that “address poverty and human needs.”

As I’ve remarked before, FBC’s recommendations, worthy as they all may be, tend to be difficult to wrap up in a blog post because they’re a compendium of top priorities identified by working groups that focus on diverse issue areas — housing and homelessness, workforce development and income supports, etc.

So, at least for now, just a few observations.

Everything Is Connected To Everything Else

Though FBC offers diverse recommendations, they fit together, as all speakers on the panel the coalition hosted on report release day emphasized.

For example, if you’re homeless, free health care — and prescription drugs — won’t keep you from suffering life-threatening emergencies because it’s hard to follow a doctor’s recommendations when you’re out on the streets. And impossible, of course, to keep medications refrigerated, though you know some won’t be effective if you don’t.

Thus, said panelist Maria Gomez, the founder and CEO of Mary’s Center, “Health care will not help without other investments” — in the immediate case, obviously affordable housing. Perhaps other public benefits also, e.g., nutrition assistance, transportation subsidies.

A Budget Gap Doesn’t Make Spending Recommendations Moot

FBC’s recommendations seem to involve about $45.2 million in additional spending, plus some unspecified amounts, at least one of which would add to the tab. Some of the total could be offset by a pair of tax recommendations, however.

One would make the local income tax system “more progressive,” i.e., shift more of the tax burden to high-earners. The other would raise the property tax rate on “high value” homes and homes that the owners don’t live in for most of the year.

No revenue estimates for these, however — at least, not yet. More importantly, I’m inclined to doubt that the Bowser administration and the Council would revisit tax reform at this point, since the current budget adopts key recommendations that emerged from the Tax Revision Commission’s studies, debates and ultimate compromises.

This doesn’t mean that the District simply can’t afford the spending FBC recommends, budget gap notwithstanding. For one thing, the gap, large as it may seem, is only 2.3% of the projected FY 2016 budget.

For another, it’s far from certain that everything the District now spends money on is the best investment of our taxpayer dollars.

Take, for example, the Film Incentive Fund, beloved by Councilmember Vincent Orange. We’ve got research showing that the tax subsidies and other incentives used to entice TV and movie companies to film in the District don’t even pay for themselves, let alone generate additional revenues.

Nor, according to studies elsewhere, do they create steady, full-time work for residents. Not much work at all, in fact.

Just an example of where one might look for funds to, say, actually improve employment prospects for low-income residents. The modest investment FBC recommends to create career pathways for D.C. adults without basic literacy and math skills probably would.

Connections Have Budget Implications

The Mayor and Council don’t need to short worthwhile programs in order to shore up others because investing more in some yields high returns in savings and/or revenue increases. Here’s a pair of related examples — often cited.

FBC recommends an additional $12 million to expand permanent supportive housing for people with disabilities who’ve been homeless for a long time or recurrently. Studies in other communities have found that PSH not only prolongs and improves lives, but usually costs less than leaving chronically homeless people on the streets or sheltering them overnight.

Likewise, vouchers that enable homeless and at-risk families to afford market-rate housing and other vouchers that help cover the operating costs of affordable housing not only provide families with a safe, stable place to live — and thus a healthier environment and a secure platform for working or preparing for work.

These indefinite-term vouchers also cost less than a third of what the District spends, per family, on shelter at the notoriously awful DC General — or the hotels that it’s again constrained to use as shelter because there’s no room left at DCG.

No room left because the Department of Human Services can’t move enough families out fast enough to make room for all the newly-homeless families entitled to shelter. While DHS had reportedly achieved a so-called exit rate of 64 families per month, only 37 families exited the emergency shelter system during the last four weeks we’ve got (unpublished) reports on.

More locally-funded housing vouchers, especially the kind families can use in the private market as long as they have to would swiftly free up shelter space and/or keep families from needing it.

Cost-savings include not only shelter, but the collateral costs of harms associated with homelessness, especially for children. These include, but are not limited to health, behavioral and academic problems that can ultimately diminish earning power — and thus tax revenues. More immediate costs — some justified, some perhaps not — include interventions by the child welfare agency.

By these lights, FBC’s recommendation for an additional $10 million in locally-funded housing vouchers, split evenly between the first and second type, makes sense from a fiscal, as well as a moral — or if you prefer, humanitarian — perspective.

 


More High-Poverty Neighborhoods in DC Area, Less Affordable Housing in DC

January 8, 2015

I couldn’t say nearly everything I wanted to about high-poverty neighborhoods in a single post. So I focused only on the big picture. The report I took off from, however, includes breakdowns for each of the major metro areas the researchers analyzed.

So here’s what we learn from it and other sources about the District of Columbia.

The report itself doesn’t provide figures for the District because it carves out some census tracts, i.e., small, relatively permanent subdivisions of a county or the equivalent, as a surrogate for a neighborhood.

So what we get are figures for the central business district and tracts within 10 miles of that — basically, what we consider the Washington metro area, less perhaps some of the more distant suburban neighborhoods.

Some surprises here, at least for me, especially given all we hear about gentrification — and all we who live in the District and nearby suburbs see.

For example, the number of high-poverty neighborhoods in the metro area increased from 19 to 41 between 1970 and 2010. And the number of poor people in these neighborhoods more than doubled.

Only six neighborhoods that were high-poverty at the beginning of the period had poverty rates at or below 15% at the end. And only seven had poverty rates at or above 30% in both years. So newly high-poverty neighborhoods account for most of the increase.

This may have something to do with the fact that the metro area, like the country as a whole, had experienced large poverty increases during the Great Recession, which officially ended less than a year before the Census Bureau took its read on poverty in 2010. But that’s not the whole story.

An earlier Urban Institute study traced the growing diversity of the area’s poor population — and more to the point, where poor blacks, whites and Latinos lived in 1990 and during what was then the most recent five-year period the American Community Survey covered.

The Institute’s maps show how poor blacks had remained heavily concentrated east of the Anacostia River. Poor Latinos, who were once clustered in the now-gentrified Mount Pleasant and Columbia Heights neighborhoods, had been displaced. Both they and poor whites were widely scattered throughout the region.

As a result, only one high-poverty census tract was outside the city limits during 2005-9, even though far more poor people lived in the suburbs than in the District. What we see here, the researchers say, is “how stubborn” the legacy of official segregation, persistent race discrimination and public housing policies are.

Still another evolving Institute study focuses solely on changes in the District itself. We see how the population has rebounded, mainly because whites are moving in faster than blacks are moving out.

We see, as if we didn’t already know, how housing costs are soaring, sending the number of units affordable for the lowest-income residents plummeting.

Somewhere around 46,500 households lived in subsidized housing in 2013, according to Institute estimates. As many as 28,000 were in “assisted” housing that’s privately owned. Local funds presumably supplied the assistance, since the Institute accounts for public housing and federally-funded vouchers separately.

It warns that affordable housing owners and developers in fast-growing, gentrifying neighborhoods “may decide it is more lucrative to switch to … providing luxury apartments or condominiums.”

Some already have. Between 2000 and mid-2007, the city lost nearly 2,000 affordable units because owners decided not to renew the time-limited contracts they’d agree to in exchange for federal vouchers that subsidized below-market rents.

Aaron Wiener at Washington City Paper warns of more affordable unit losses when obligations based on another financing source expire. But some owners may keep their apartments affordable, he says, especially those in the poor neighborhoods east of the river.

Not a good sign for achieving less concentrated poverty there, though one wouldn’t wish for even less affordable housing, of course.

“DC has a challenge ahead,” the Urban Institute observes. “Once-neglected neighborhoods … are now recovering and even thriving — but revitalization can drive out long-time residents. How can we make sure they have the opportunity to stay and benefit from the city’s new prosperity?”

And how can we ensure they’re not packed into high-poverty neighborhoods, with all the disadvantages those entail?

We have a new mayor now. She’s said that affordable housing is a high priority for her. And the people she’s chosen to head both the Department of Housing and Community Development and Human Services seem to back that up.

Over in the DC Council, Chairman Mendelson has restructured committee responsibilities, in part to sharpen the Council’s focus on housing and homelessness.

The new chair of the Housing and Community Development sponsored a bill that would have accelerated the loss of affordable housing. But we’ll have to wait and see how she addresses her part of the challenge.

To say it’s a big challenge for all concerned would be an understatement, even if everyone were on the same page. Doubtful, if past is prologue. But again, we’ll have to wait and see.


Less Poverty, Greater Income Inequality in DC

January 5, 2015

The new year seems a fitting time to check on how the District of Columbia is progressing toward two related goals — reducing poverty and achieving shared prosperity. A true good-news, bad-news story, according to indicators the Half in Ten campaign published last month.

As I’ve written before, Half in Ten created the indicators in 2011, when it restarted the clock on cutting poverty in half in ten years.

They’re organized under four main headings — poverty reduction (of course), good jobs, strong families and communities and economic security.

But they yield a fragmentary picture — in part, because Half in Ten has to use numbers already available for both the U.S. as a whole and states, plus the District. And for other reasons beyond its control, they’re not all current.

I’ve tried in the past to follow Half in Ten’s framework. A different approach this year, based on what I found most striking, especially when I looked back to the original indicator set.

Long story short: The District has a lower poverty rate than in 2010. But shared prosperity still seems a will o’ the wisp.

Poverty Reduction

The District’s poverty rate last year was 0.3% lower than in 2010 — 18.9%, as compared to 19.2%. The new rate is still higher than rates for all but five Deep South and Southwestern states.

The race/ethnicity breakout is one way we see income inequality in the District. For example, as I reported when the figures were released, the 2012 poverty rate for black residents is more than three times the rate for non-Hispanic whites.

Income Inequality

Half in Ten’s indicator is the ratio between the shares of income that went to households in the top and bottom fifths of the income scale last year, according to the American Community Survey. By this measure, income inequality in the District is extraordinarily high — 30.3. It’s far larger than any state’s — and more importantly, larger than in 2010.

But the ratio is, to me, a tad abstract. So let me translate it into actual shares. Of all the household income in the District, the top fifth enjoyed nearly 55.4%. The bottom fifth had to make do with slightly more than 1.8%.

Some Contributing Factors

On the one hand, 70.2% of young adults in the District have at least a two-year college degree — a slight uptick since 2010. As you’d expect, this is far higher than the percent in any state.

On the other hand, only 59% of teens who started high school graduated four years later, as of the 2011-12 school year. This is a slightly lower percent than the rate for the prior school year — and the lowest reported for 2011-12.

Not surprisingly, the District has a relatively high percent of “disconnected” youth, i.e., 16-24 year olds who were neither working nor in school in 2012. This latest “disconnected” rate — 17% — is exactly the same as in 2010, which again puts the District roughly mid-way in the state rankings.

No such flat-lining for the unemployment rate, which declined from 9.9% in 2010 to 8.3% last year. Pretty obvious who’s getting the jobs — and not — in our burgeoning local economy.

On the upside, the teen birthrate declined quite a lot. In 2012, there were 38.6 births for every 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 19. This is 6.8 fewer than in 2010. And though still high, it’s nowhere near rates in the bottom-ranked states.

Teen birthrates are often correlated to poverty — as cause, effect or some combination of both. Recent research suggests that income inequality is an additional factor because poor young women see little chance of improving their economic situation if they postpone motherhood.

The percent of children in foster care also has bearing on the poverty rate — again, as cause, effect or both. It’s still high in the District — 11 children per 1,000, as of 2012. But it was 20 per 1,000 in 2010.

Further Progress Possible

Some state and local governments are adopting policies that can reduce poverty and enable low-income people to gain a greater share of prosperity, as the report that includes and provides context for the indicators selectively shows.

Here in the District, for example, the minimum wage will step up to $11.50 in July 2016 — $4.25 more than the federal minimum. Ten states also raised their minimum wage last year, making 29 that now have minimums above the federal.

Proposals to raise the federal minimum have gone nowhere in Congress — and most surely won’t during the next two years. The same seems likely for other legislation that would boost low incomes and strengthen both work supports and safety net programs for people who can’t earn enough to meet basic needs.

So, as the report concludes, “the momentum for national change” of a progressive sort has to build at state and local levels. A call to action for advocates and grassroots organizers.

And, I suppose, a hopeful note to end on, since it implies that we’ll have a renewed federal commitment to reducing poverty and income inequality sooner or later. But in the meantime, we’ll have inequities at least as large as those we have now based on where people live.


DC Gets a Barely Passing Grade for Homeless Family Services

December 10, 2014

Last spring, a coalition of advocates and service providers developed a “roadmap” for preventing another wintertime homeless family crisis in the District of Columbia. Now, as a new winter season opens, it’s issued a report card, indicating how much progress the District has made toward the 10 goals the roadmap set.

Not the sort of report card you’d like to take home to your parents. Virtually all Cs, meaning the District has taken steps toward the goals, but too recently for the coalition to decide whether they’ll result in significant progress.

Two Ds, meaning no significant progress — or, one infers, much by way of promising steps. And a single B, for homelessness prevention. That seems pretty generous to me, since the progress described has thus far not resulted in an “up and running program.”

Like the original roadmap, the report card reflects a lot of effort to gather, assess and communicate information about the District’s homeless family services. Highly recommended reading for all concerned. I’ll confine myself here to the big picture, as I see it.

Not Enough Shelter Units (Again)

As you may recall, the Department of Human Services was overwhelmed last winter by homeless families it couldn’t legally turn away because they’d sought shelter during freezing-cold weather.

One, though not the only problem was that DC General, the main shelter for homeless families, was nearly full when the winter season began. The roadmap recommended both a plan and additional staff to move at least 100 families a month from shelter into housing so as to open up space for more.

DHS has managed to increase the rate to 63 families a month — not enough to have significantly more vacant units at DC General when this year’s winter season began. To its credit, it has contracted for hotel rooms. But there was no money in the budget for them.

The agency plans to use funds from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program — an estimated $8.5 million, I’m told. Hard to see how this won’t mean cutbacks in programs and/or services those TANF funds would otherwise support.

At the same time, as I’ve written before, the Gray administration has proposed a plan (of sorts) to replace DC General with smaller shelters. The total number of units would remain the same.

So there’d probably still be fewer units than homeless families entitled to shelter during the winter season — and surely too few for the District to once again keep the shelter doors open year round for families who’d otherwise have no safe place to stay.

More Affordable Housing, But Mostly Temporary

On the upside, the District has invested funds to support the development and preservation of affordable housing, including apartments big enough for larger families. And the DC Council has approved more funds for vouchers that enable homeless families to rent at market rates.

But the District’s strategy relies heavily on rapid re-housing, i.e., short-term housing subsidies, renewable for up to a year, provided that families measure up to expectations.

DHS has still not issued final rules for the program. And the theoretically temporary rules it issued in late June raise serious concerns — among them, the share of rent families have to pay, both initially and during renewal periods.

The rules are also highly ambiguous about whether families can get an extension of their subsidy if they can’t afford to pay full rent at the end of the year — a likely possibility for many, I’ve suggested.

DHS could, at the very least, enable nonprofit partners to provide some services and/or rental assistance to families that seem likely to become homeless again. But it hasn’t even explored the possibilities, the report card says.

One Small Step for Young Families

More than 40% of the families sheltered last winter were headed by parents who were, at most, 24 years old. Needless to say (I hope), they had very little, if any work experience. Many, the report card says, had neither a high school diploma or the equivalent — a high predictor of unemployment, even for older District residents.

Like as not, the young parents had never rented an apartment. Some probably had just aged out of foster care, since that’s a high risk for homelessness.

They often don’t have ongoing family support or other concerned adults to help with the challenges of housing, credit and the like. The same, of course, can be true for young mothers who were kicked out — or harassed out — of their homes when their parent(s) found out they were pregnant.

These are not the sort of families that rapid re-housing was designed for. Nor the sort of families that the needs assessment tool DHS relies on was designed for. The roadmap, therefore, called for reviews of the tool, the case management system and rapid re-housing itself to ensure they’re suitable for young families.

DHS has launched a small pilot program, which offers the fortunate participants more intensive services and potentially rental assistance for more than a year.

It’s not clear whether the agency can expand the program, the report card says. Nor is it clear whether DHS has reviewed — let alone modified — the tool or case management services.

Much Else Unclear

Families first encounter the District’s homeless system at the Virginia Williams intake center. Caseworkers there still have no written protocol to tell them how to decide whether to grant a family shelter. Nor, therefore, do we know how decisions are made — only that some indicate ignorance (or casual disregard) of the law.

That’s far from all we don’t know. For example, the District doesn’t release information on services families receive while they’re at DC General. More generally, it either doesn’t have or won’t release data that would enable us to determine how key elements of its homeless system are working — apparently more the former than the latter.

Part of the problem, the report card says, is that DHS contracts out much of homeless services to the Community Partnership for the Prevention of Homelessness. And the Partnership doesn’t deign — and isn’t required — to publicly report how it spends the funds it gets or what they achieve.

Thus, as the report card says, “it is impossible to determine if the District has allocated sufficient funding to meet the need and if programs are performing as well as they should be.”

Impossible for the roadmap coalition, which so clearly wants to help create a humane, effective system that prevents homelessness, when possible, affords shelter when that isn’t and then helps families move quickly to a safe, stable home.

Impossible for our policymakers as well. But they can make the egregiously opaque system more transparent. This ought to be a first order of business for the new administration and the new chair of the Council’s Human Services Committee.


DC TANF Families Face Benefits Cut-Offs With Dim Prospects for Steady Work

December 8, 2014

In early 2012, the D.C. Department of Human Services launched a redesigned Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. As with TANF programs nationwide, it aimed to move very poor parents with children toward self-sufficiency, i.e., work that pays enough to support the family — or at the very least, too much to make them still eligible for TANF.

Now we have an in-depth, though partial view of the results. A recently-completed review of the TANF employment component found, among other things, that fewer than half the target group of parents who, with help, had found jobs were still employed.

But even this finding overstates the self-sufficiency prospects for the more than 6,000 families who may soon have no cash income whatever because the DC Council set a retroactive 60-month lifetime limit on benefits in late 2010 and a phase-out schedule ending in total cut-offs next October.

About the Review

The Office of the District of Columbia Auditor analyzed data and other information that DHS provided, with a view toward providing the basis for some conclusions about the outcome of what it refers to as the TANF Employment Program.

The program consists of two related types of services — work readiness and job placement. Both are provided by contractors. Work readiness contractors, as the term suggests, are supposed to help parents strengthen their qualifications for paying work.

But they are responsible for helping the parents find jobs as well. This is the only thing the job placement contracts are supposed to do because the parents assigned to them have been deemed ready to work.

The auditors focused only on parents who had received TANF benefits for more than 60 months because these were the parents whom DC Council Human Services Committee Chairman Jim Graham asked about.

They looked at data collected over about 32 months — from the time the new employment program began, in February 2012, to October 24, 2014. Graham wanted results by early November.

So the auditors were up against a tight timeframe. As a result, they’re careful to say, they didn’t verify what they got from DHS, as they ordinarily would.

Jobs of Any Sort for Fewer Than Half

Though the two types of employment services differ in scope, they’re both intended to get TANF  parents into — or back into — the workforce and earning enough to no longer qualify for TANF. For a family of three, that would have been anything over $588 a month in 2012-13, assuming no other income.

The auditors report that about 49% of parents referred to an employment services contractor got a job — 6,145 out of 12,463. Only about 38% got jobs that could have provided steady, full-time work.

The rest got placed in jobs that were either part-time or “temporary/seasonal” — the latter presumably referring to temporary or on-and-off jobs during periods of high-volume business like the holiday shopping season.

Wide Pay Range, Including Less Than Minimum Wage

While working, the parents got paid an average of $10.58 an hour — more than the District’s minimum wage, but less than its living wage, which is now $13.60 an hour and was less during the two prior years the audit covered.

The average masks a wide disparity in pay rates. A relative few jobs paid in the $21-$50 an hour range. A far greater number — nearly 1,590 — reportedly paid less than the District’s minimum wage.

The auditors suggested (not in the report) that contractors may have reported the minimum cash wage parents got when placed in jobs that employers chose to pay at the tip-credit wage rate.

But the District’s tip credit wage is lower than most of the subminimum wages indicated. DHS perhaps could explain, but hasn’t, though I asked.

Steady Work for Very Few

As of mid-October, 2,976 TANF parents were employed — about 48% of those who’d been placed. Only 770 remained in the jobs were they’d been placed for more than six months.

We see a drop-off beginning at the end of the first month. (The auditors don’t report a figure for parents who lost their jobs or quit sooner.) Their figures do, however, show that 835 parents didn’t have their jobs any more by the time the fourth month rolled round.

Whether they’d been placed in other jobs is an open question. Indeed, the job tenure figures may not tell the whole story.

DHS informed the auditors that an estimated 3,076 “customers” in the 60-month-and-over group had left the program — a majority, it said, because they began earning too much to remain eligible. No supporting data provided.

And the agency doesn’t know whether “customers” who did earn more than the minimal maximum for eligibility remained employed — let alone how gainfully — because it doesn’t track families once they leave the program.

More Knowns and Unknowns

First off, we should recall that the auditors focused solely on parents who’d been in the District’s TANF program for quite a long time — or had cycled in and out for even longer. Results for parents who had recourse to TANF because of some singular, temporary setback might be different.

On the other hand, the parents in the sample didn’t include those whom DHS had identified as having significant, ongoing health and/or personal barriers to work, e.g., alcoholism or drug addiction, PTSD due to domestic violence.

About 60% of the rest weren’t immediately work-ready, according to the agency’s assessments. It assigned them to contractors for further education and/or development of marketable skills. Fewer than 10% completed their programs.

Does this mean they were hustled into jobs they couldn’t keep because contractors get a bonus for placements? Or did they themselves get desperate because their very low benefits had shrunk — and were soon to disappear?

Did the fact they had to scramble every day to find a place for their family to spend the night — or some used clothing for their kids — make it just too hard to satisfy the work readiness requirements and, more importantly, their employers’ expectations?

Do we need a thoroughgoing, independent assessment of the TANF employment program? Sure does seem that way.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 194 other followers