NUMBER OF CHILDREN RECEIVING AFDC 1. PERCENTAGE OF POOR RECEIVING ANY PUBLIC INCOME MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS* 2.THERE ARE OVER ONE MILLION FAMILIES HEADED BY FATHERS WHO ARE WORKING FULL TIME AND EARNING LESS THAN THE AVERAGE AFDC-UF PAYMENT FOR FAMILIES WITHOUT OTHER INCOME *1965 ESTIMATE GOALS OF THE FAMILY ASSISTANCE PLAN 1. NATIONAL STANDARDS PAYMENT FLOOR ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS MOVE TOWARD NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION 2. EQUITY FOR THE WORKING POOR 3. WORK INCENTIVES 4. FAMILY STABILITY INCENTIVES 5. EXPANDED JOB TRAINING AND CHILD CARE PERCENTAGE OF POOR CHILDREN COVERED BY AFDC AND BY FAMILY ASSISTANCE PROFILE OF POVERTY CURRENT AFDC RECIPIENTS-17% WORK INCENTIVES FOR THE WORKING POOR 1. UNDER AFDC EXAMPLE: ASSUME FAMILY OF FIVE IN STATE WHICH PAYS SUCH A FAMILY $3000 AND HAS AN UF PROGRAM, AND FATHER EARNING $2000 IN FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT FAMILY INCOME IF FATHER CONTINUES TO WORK = $3260 ($2000 WAGES+$1260 FAP) $3000 ($1900 FAP +$1100 SUPPLEMENT) INCENTIVE TO WORK = $260 3. INCENTIVE TO WORK: FAMILY ASSISTANCE OVER AFDC = $1260 INCENTIVES UNDER AFDC BREAK UP THE FAMILY 1. FAMILIES HEADED BY UNEMPLOYED FATHERS NOT COVERED IN 29 JURISDICTIONS EXAMPLE: ASSUME FAMILY OF FIVE IN STATE WHICH PAYS $2,500 UNDER AFDC TO A FAMILY OF FOUR AND WHICH HAS NO UF PROGRAM FAMILY INCOME IF FATHER LEAVES = $2,500 (AFDC) FAMILY INCOME IF FATHER STAYS = 0 2. FAMILIES HEADED BY FATHERS EMPLOYED FULL-TIME-NOT COVERED BY AFDC IN ANY STATE EXAMPLE: ASSUME FATHER EARNING $2,000, SAME FAMILY AND SAME STATE INCENTIVES UNDER FAMILY ASSISTANCE KEEP THE FAMILY TOGETHER 1. FAMILIES HEADED BY UNEMPLOYED FATHERS EXAMPLE: ASSUME FAMILY OF FIVE IN STATE WHICH PAYS $3000 TO A FAMILY OF FAMILY INCOME IF FATHER STAYS $3000 ($1900 FAP+$1100 SUPPLEMENT) 2.FAMILIES HEADED BY FATHERS EMPLOYED FULL TIME FAMILY INCOME IF FATHER STAYS =$3260 ($2000 WAGES +$1260 FAP Mr. PATRICELLI. The purpose of this brief chart talk is to explain the fundamental principles that we think underlie the family assistance plan and to provide you with some concrete examples of how we think the plan achieves the goals that are listed on this first chart. Very quickly, the five major goals of the family assistance program are as follows: First, to reach national standards in a national system. There are three types of standards that we are talking about: A national floor under benefits; a set of uniform eligibility requirements; and buttressing those by a move toward national administration at the Federal level. Second, we believe the system does and has to achieve some greater measure of equity for the working poor. These are principally families headed by men who are working full time. Third, there is a very heavy emphasis on new work incentives and work requirements in the system. Fourth, there is a determined effort to build incentives for family stability, keeping the father in the home in the system. And, fifth, expanded job training and child care to buttress the work incentives and work requirements. Now, there are certain of these goals that could be achieved by building on the present AFDC program and we don't wish to mislead you about that. You could certainly expand job training and child care by building on AFDC. There are certain things that could be done with regard to work incentives by building on AFDC. For example, the committee could choose to accept the $60 initial disregard of earnings in lieu of the $30 disregard that the committee inserted in 1967 and that could be built into the present program. But the rest of this presentation will deal with the two fundamental goals that require throwing away AFDC and starting with a new system. Certain of these goals, especially the move toward national standards, and, secondly, equity for the working poor, require fundamental structural reform in the public welfare system. They cannot be achieved by building on the present defective AFDC program. So the two goals and the two structural reforms that we would like to emphasize are national standards and the importance of including the working poor. First, why is it that we feel so strongly about moving towards national standards? I think that requires some examination of where we are now under AFDC. This first point illustrates the fact that the Federal Government is involved in a system which the Federal Government does not control with regard to the allocation of its own resources to poor children. Because of the nature of the matching formula and the fact that the States control how much benefits shall be paid, the Federal share of that benefit or the Federal payment per AFDC child varies widely from State to State. A few examples, Illinois, $22 per month per child; Mississippi, $8.50 per month per child; New York, about $33. So we are in a system where the Federal Government treats children in similar circumstances differently. That is not logical; it is not equitable; and in those States where the benefit levels are very low and the Federal payment levels are low, these kinds of inequitable treatment simply lead to added cost for the Federal Government later on in terms of remedial programs. |