CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH N N SERVICE THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS uumii Iirhiersitr O1 “T TH l1)Irif)IWifui S 03860369 N nmm AID TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN: STRUCTURAL CHANGE ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB740l3 AUTHOR: Burke, Vee Education and Public Welfare Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM DATE ORIGINATED 11/11/74 DATE UPDATED l2/O8/82 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 1209 CRS- 1 IB740l3 UPDATE-l2/O8/82 LDSUE DEFINITION Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) provides funds for State aid to fatherless families and those with unemployed or incapacitated fathers. States decide benefits, but Federal dollars pay at least half their cost except in Arizona. Since 1969, presidents, commissions, and others (have urged confliciting reforms of AFDC. One set of proposals, advanced by Presidents (Nixon and Carter, has aimed to expand eligibility to all poor children and make aid less uneven; the other, advanced by President Reagan, has aimed to narrow eligibility and, within each State, to concentrate funds on the poorest. In l98l, Congress chose the second) path, reducing or ending benefits for families with earnings, families with a stepparent, and students beyond, high school. It was estimated that the new law would end benefits for l0.5% of V AFDC families —- more than _400,0D0 -- reduce aid for) another ‘ 7.5%; (Administration estimates), and cut FY82 Federal AFDC outlays by 8%,. or almost $550,000 million (Congressional Budget Office estimates). President Reagan's FY83 budget recommended ‘more AFDC budget-cutting provisions, and he has proposed that the Federal Governments withdraw‘ from AFDC and food stamps in l984 (see CRS MB82202). However, in) taking final action on the budget proposals, by passage of the l982 tax bill, Congress voted only small AFDC changes, estimated to save $85 million in FY83. For d‘tails, see CRSDIB82047. BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS Recent history. Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), established under the Social Security Act, consists of 50 State programs of federally aided welfare for families without able=bodied fathers. AFDC programs also operate for needy families of unemployed or partially employed parents (AFDC—UP) in 20 States, D.C., and Guam (June l982). The Family Assistancee Plan (FAP), which was twice passed by the House but killed in the 92nd Senate, would have replaced AFDC with a uniform Federal income floor for .all needy children, p regardless of family structure or the employment status of their parents. Since the Plan also would have significantly enlarged the number of persons eligible for aid, some persons committed to smaller welfare rolls disputed that it qualified as welfare "reform." ' After the death of the FAP and until House passage on Nov. 7, l979 of H.R. 4904 (the ways and Means Committee version of President Carter's 1979 AFDC cash plan) neither house of Congress had approved any changes in AFDC to expand basic eligibility or to increase payment levels, which are determined by States. However, the Social Services Amendments_ of 1974 (P.L. 93-647) established new conditions of eligibility for AFDC. Since Aug. 1, l975, each 5 licant or recipient has been required to assign her right to child support payments to her State and to "cooperate" with the State in identifying and locating the father unless an exemption is determined to be in the "best interests" of the child. The law also authorizes use of Federal machinery to collect court-ordered payments for support of AFDC children. CRS- 2 iIB740l3 UPDATE~l2/O8/82 In addition to the child support provisions, several substantive changr have been enacted in AFDC since the unveiling of FAP: (1) work rules. Congress in 1971 (Talmadge amendment) required that an AFDC mother register for work or training when her youngest child reached the age of 6 (formerly a matter of State option). In passing the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (P.L. 97-35), Congress in 1981 authorized States to operate AFDC work relief programs (widely called "workfare"), in which recipients are required to work off their grants. (2) Unemployed parents. Congress in 1976 (P.L. 94-566) repealed the 1967 ban on AFDC cash supplements for unemployed fathers who also receive unemployment insurance.) Congress in 1981 (P.L. 97-35) restricted unemployed parent aid (AFDC-unemployment Parents) to families whose principal earner is unemployed. I 5 (3) Vendor payments.) Congress in 1977 (P.L. 95-171) increased the proportion of AFDC checks that, upon a finding that the AFDC, parent had mismanaged funds, could be issued to protective payees and vendors rather than directly to the recipient. This law (also explicitly authorized the issuance of joint payee checks id such cases. Congress in 1981 (P.L. [97-35) xrepealed the ceiling on the proportion of vendor and protective checks and authorized their use at the request of an AFDC recipient. (4) Adoption assistance,, Congress in 1980 (P.L. 96-272) established an adoption assistance program for children with "special needs" who are eligible for AFDC, AFDC foster care, or Supplemental Security Income (SSI This law also revised the AFDC foster care program and placed it and the adoption assistance program inva new Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. (5) Treatment of earnings. Congress in 1981 (P.L. 97-35) placed a time limit on the program's work incentive bonus and a dollar ceiling on the expense allowance, thus reducing or ending AFDC benefits for those with earnings. It imposed an overriding gross income eligibility limit, set at 150% of a State's standard of need. As a result, dollar limits for a family of four range (March 1982) from $301.50 per month in Texas to $lp23l.50 in Vermont. (See H.R. 6369 (Legislation) for change approved by House ways and Means Committee.) » (6) Categorical eligibility limits. Congress in 1981 (P.L. 97-35) ended a child's eligibility at age 18, with a State option to extend AFDC through age 18 for a high school student (previous law offered Federal matching funds for AFDC students through age 20). The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act also prohibited eligibility for the entire family of a striker and for a pregnant woman with no other children. (7) Use of other potential income and resources. Congress in 1981 (P.L. 97-35) required States to adopt retrospective accounting and periodic reporting; to count a portion of a stepparent's income; to recoup overpayments and correct underpayments; to deem part of the income and resources of an immigrant's sponsor as available to an alien who applies—for,. or receives, AFDC; and to treat lump-sum payments as income rather t 1 resources. ‘The same law imposed a Federal resource limit ($1,000 per family in counted resources) that is lower than the limit imposed by prior regulation. ’ (For details of new AFDC rules adopted in the Omnibus Budget CRS- 3 IB740l3 UPDATE-l2/O8/82 Reconciliation Act of l98l, see CRS IB8l05l.) (Program data. For three fiscal years (l977-l979) individual AFDC enrollment declined, but from l979 to l98l numbers climbed 7% to a monthly average of ll million, and FY81 benefits totaled $12.5 billion. _ In October, l98l, month of initial effect of some AFDC budget-cutting provisions of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of l98l, AFDC enrollment dipped below ll million for the first time in more than*a year and for the first ll months of FY82 averaged 10.4 million. - August payments were down $47 million, or 4% from those made a year earlier. August benefits totaled $1.072 billion, an .annual rate of $l2.9 billion.) ” n August overall enrollment was down 7%, or 750,000 pQrsons, from that of August'l98l. .However, the number of persons receiving AFDC on grounds of the unemployment of a parent (AFDC+UP segment) was up 128,000, or 15% from l98l, and it totaled 1,010,000, a near-record .high. The) rest of) the program, consisting mainly of children in one-parent families and their caretakers, totaled 9,271,000 persons, down 9% from l98l but up 65,000 persons from June 1982, when the count was the smallest in more than a decade, since April 1971. I Benefits averaged $304 per family in August, $29.4 for one—parent families ‘and $448 for AFDC-UP families (two-parent families). The Federal Government funds almost 55% of AFDC benefit payments; States and localities, 45% (States decide -the share of localities, which is estimated to have dropped below 5% in 1980). The Federal funding rate‘ per State ranges from 50% (provided the State has a Medicaid program, a condition met by all States except Arizona) to 77.36%, depending in part on the State's relative per capita income. California, Hawaii, and Massachusetts have enacted automatic cost-of-living increases for AFDC benefits but none is now in effect. California was the last to suspend adjustments, as of July 1982. In the year ending July 1982, 26 jurisdictions increased benefit levels (State guarantees), 25 made no change, and 3 jurisdictions cut benefits (Arkansas, Guam, and Puerto Rico). As of July l982, maximum benefits per family of three ranged from $96 in Mississippi and $90 (plus actual shelter costs) in Puerto Rico to $507 in New —York (Suffolk County): $506 in California and Vermont, and $614 in Alaska. AFDC countable income limits (payment standards) are set by States. For a family of three, these limits range (July l982) from $118 in Texas (and $90 plus shelter in Puerto Rico), to $614 in Alaska. Prior to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of l98l (P.L. 97-35), the 7-,DC law required States to disregard a portion of earnings as a work incentive in determining available income (countable income) and to reimburse all reasonable work expenses. The new law limits the duration of the work incentive bonus to the first 4 months of a job, standardizes -and limits) allowable work expenses, and imposes a Federal gross income limit, which is CRS- 4 IB740l3 UPDATE-l2/08/82 set at 150% ofpa State's standard of need and which in many States prevents full benefit of the work incentive bonus for a recipient who takes a jc See Issue Brief 81051 for details of new budget—cutting AFDC rules. See alco H.R. 5791 (Legislation). The number of U.S. children on AFDC climbed from 5.2% of the number of U.S. children under 18 in 1967 to 10.7% in 1971, and reached an estimated 12.0% in July 1975 -- more than one in nine -— but dropped to ll.5% in 1980. In many large cities, the incidence of AFDC soared far above the national average, 33% or above in St. Louis, Mo.; Baltimore, Md.,; Suffolk County, Mass. (which includes Boston); and the District of Columbia (February 1974). In February 1977, almost 25% of all AFDC recipients lived in the Nation's six largest cities: New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Houston, and Detroit. In its 6th annual report to Congress, the Office of Child Support Enforcement said that during FY81 it collected more than $1.6 billion in child support payments from absent parents, of which more than $670 million was on behalf of AFDC children and the rest for non-welfare children. HHS later reported that the Internal Revenue Service in spring 1982 (collected more than $140 million in delinquent child’ support payments) from ’2l6,000 taxpayers, an average of $640. Collection was made by witnholdings from 1981 income tax refunds due to absent parents of AFDC children under a procedure established by P.L. 97-35. AFDC issues. The 1969-72 FAP debate and the 1977-78 debate over the Carter Better Jobs and Income Plan (BJIP) publicized many issues in AFDC, among them: (l) wide variations in AFDC benefit levels. Maximum benefits paid to a family of four with no countable income (State AFDC guarantees) range (March 1982) from $114 (plus actual shelter cost) monthly in Puerto Rico and $120 in Mississippi to $634 in Alaska and $601 in California. Despite a matching formula that favors ‘States with lower per capita income, the Federal Government pays more than twice as much per AFDC child in New York City as in Texas or Mississippi. (2) Discrimination against mothers who are already employed. A lower income cutoff applies to working mothers who seek initial AFDC eligibility than (for the first 4 months of a job) to mothers who go to work to supplement AFDC benefit checks. (Prior to P.L. 97-35 this difference was permanent.) (3) Discrimination against fully employed fathers. They are ineligible for a cash supplement, regardless of income. Their omission from aid available to fatherless families provides a potential financial incentive for families to break up. (4) Work disincentives that can result from simultaneous participation in AFDC and other benefit programs. Not only do aggregate benefits sometir exceed median wages of women workers, but an extra dollar of earnings can sharply reduce or end benefits. According to a congressional study, most mothers of three who are enrolled in AFDC and the food stamp program can increase their discretionary income by no more than one-fourth of wages. (Findings reported in Paper No. 15 of the Public Welfare Series prepared by CRS- 5 IB740l3 UPDATE—l2/08/82 the Joint Economic Subcommittee on Fiscal Policy.) (5) Lack of coordination among the numerous benefit programs that provide cash, food, housing, health care, and/or education. This can compound the inequities and undesirable incentives of the "system." (6) Tension between Federal and State governments over welfare policy and rules. Administration. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, which traditionally left AFDC administration in State and local hands, took initiatives in the last decade to assert more control. It began supervising State budget estimates more carefully; it encouraged States to adopt some form of flat grant so as _to simplify administration and reduce chances of error; and in spring 1973 it adopted a plan to penalize States for erroneous welfare payments that exceeded tolerance levels. Ultimate national tolerances were set at 3% for ineligible cases and 5% for overpaid cases, and they were to be reached in stages, by means of interim State targets. However, sanctions were prohibited by the U.S. District Court for the District of qcolumbia, which upheld the principle of quality control but found HEW's tolerances arbitrary and capricious. On Mar. 7, 1979, HEW reestablished potential fiscal sanctions for excessive payment errors, this time establishing the target at the national weighted payment error rate, then 8.7%. However, on Sept. 25, 1979, HEW sharply reduced the target error rate to meet a congressional directive, the Michel amendment to the 1979 supplemental appropriation bill. T‘? new rules require States to reduce their AFDC payment error rates to 4% L_ Sept.q30, 1982 "in equal steps" beginning in FY80. Federal matching is to be denied for erroneous payments above the new limits. On May 8, 1981, HEW said that payment error rates had decreased from 9.5% in Apr.-Sept. 1979 to 8.3% in Oct. 1979-Mar. 1980. Only Kansas, Oklahoma, Nevada, and South Dakota .achieved the 4% target. The Presddent's FY83 budget proposed to lower the target error rate in AFDC (and Medicaid and food stamps) to 3% in FY83 and to drop it by annual steps to zero in 1986. However, in passing the 1982 tax bill, Congress voted instead to retain the 4% AFDC tolerance limit for FY83, dropping it to 3% in FY84. On Oct. 4, 1978,.HEW issued a proposed regulation, revised and finalized on May 4, 1979, to require that States select and identify in their AFDC plans one of two budgeting methods, basing AFDC payments either on (a) estimated future income or (b) actual past income. P.L. 97-35 required all States to adopt retrospective accounting and periodic reporting. ' Past AFDC Reform Proposals The House three times has voted for a cash income floor for needy families with children, most recently on Nov. 7, 1979, when it approved an amended version of President Carter's 1979 plan, H.R. 4904. Earlier it approved a Federal cash guarantee for children by passing FAP in 1970 and again in 1971, 1 . that measure died in the Senate in October 1972. Because it would have raised benefit levels in the poorest States and sharply expanded the pool of eligibles, those committed to smaller welfare rolls and costs maintained that FAP was the wrong kind of "reform." On the other hand, some protested that FAP's benefit levels would "institutionalize poverty." H.R. 1, the 1971 CRS- 6 IB740l3 UPDATE-l2/O8/82 bill, provided a maximum of $2,400 in Federal cash for a four-person family, below AFDC guarantees in most States and equal to 58% of the pover threshold. Also, many opponents feared that an income guarantee for childrcn of able-bodied fathers would tempt low-paid fathers to stop or reduce work. After the defeat of FAP, the first major welfare reform plan to win a congressional hearing was the 1977 proposal of President Carter, although several other measures were introduced in'the intervening 5 years. President Carter in l977 proposed abolition of AFDC, along with Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and food stamps. In their place he recommended a "Better Jobs and Income" program that would have provided a cash income floor, at least 90% federally funded in each State, for all Americans deemed unable to work; 1.4 million jobs and training slots for those parents who "can and should work;" cash supplements for workers; and an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for low— and moderate-income working parents. "A1 special House Subcommittee received the bill, held hearings, and eventually approved an amended version; but the .bill never ireached ithe House; floor. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill's net Federali cost in its first year at $20.2 billion, of which $2.2 billion was fiscal relief for States and local governments. A In 1979 President Carter submitted a scaled—down welfare plan that would have built upon AFDC and food stamps, establishing an income floor for families with children at 65% of the poverty threshold, payable in AFDC cash and food stamps. The 1979 cash measure, called "Social welfare Reform Amendments of 1979," abandoned the effort to establish a cash—guarantee for non—aged childless persons. A companion measure, the "work and Training Opportunities Act of 1979," proposed to provide about 600,000 jobs ard training positions for principal earners for families eligible for AFDC. The House passed an amended version of the cash bill, H.R. 4904, on Nov. 7, I979, but the Senate failed to act on the proposal; and neither House acted on the jobs bill. CBO estimated the net Federal cost of H.R. 4904 at $3.5 billion, of which $1 billion was fiscal relief to States and localities. In addition.to the House-passed H.R. 4904, several proposals before the 96th Congress would have increased Federal funding for AFDC, including one bill to ‘convert AFDC into a block grant program, the Family welfare Improvement Act, H.R. 4460/S. 1382 (Rousselot et al/Long et al). Another bill, which made no provision for extra Federal funding; would heve permitted each State to join a block grant program, the Family welfare Demonstration Program Act, 8. 1579 (Boren and Long). 1981 Changes in AFDC and l982 Proposals On Feb. 18, 1981 and Mar. 10, 1981, President Reagan proposed several changes in AFDC and food stamps that would reduce outlays, including a lower ‘gross income limit for food stamps, imposition of a gross income limit for AFDC, and a change in the treatment of earnings by AFDC families. All his AFDC budget—cutting concepts were embodied in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, although some were modified. For details of the AFDC FY82 proposals and congressional action on them, see Issue -Brief IB8l05l. President Reagan's FY83 budget contained additional AFDC budget—cutting proposals: more stringent work rules, use of other potential income, new categorical eligibility limits, and others. For details see IB82047. cRs- 7 IB740l3 UPDATE-l2/O8/82 The Senate, in adopting a budget resolution on May 2l, 1982, voted to cut AFDC spending by $390 million from its Budget Committee's FY83 current policy L eline. Estimated savings assumed enactment of several AFDC proposals in the President's budget. The House Budget Committee, in approving a budget resolution for FY83, rejected proposals to reduce AFDC spending and voted instead to restore a permanent work incontive bonus to the program (see H.R. 6369). However, in final action on the AFDC proposals, the House and Senate adopted as part of the 1982 tax bill (P.L. 97-248) five provisions to cutut FY83 AFDC spending by $85 million: permitting States to prorate the shelter and utilities portion of benefits* for shared households, $43 million; eliminating parental absence for uniformed service as grounds for AFDC, $l5 million; prorating initial benefits to date of application, $13 million; rounding benefits down, $9 million; and permitting States to require job .search oflapplicants, .$5 million. A sixth provision, reducing Federal funding for excessive error rates, was not expected to have budget impact upon FY85. Tax bill conferees, after a dispute, rejected a tentative recommendation of the Ways and Means Committee to restore a permanent but’ revised work incentive bonus to AFDC. They also rejected Senate. provisions to include all siblings in the AFDC unit, to end a parent's eligibility ,upon the youn'est child's 18th birthday (l9th, at State option); to counti income of unrel ted persons in the_household, to permit AFDC for a minor parent only if she lived with her own parent or legal guardian. In his 1982 State of the Union message, the President also proposed that the Federal Government withdraw completely from AFDC and food stamps in I984, r simultaneously take over full responsibility for Medicaid. See MB82202‘ (AFDC) and MB8220l (food stamps) for information about the proposed Medicaid-public assistance swap. LEGISLATION P.L. 97-35, H.R. 3982 _ Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981. Reduces AFDC benefits for those with earnings or with stepparents. Ends eligibility for children beyond high school. Authorizes States to require work as a condition of eligibility. Makes numerous other changes. Introduced June 19, l98l as a «clean bill replacing H.R. 3964 on behalf of the Budget Committee. After amendment (Latta amendments), passed House June 26. Conference report passed both Houses on July 3l. Signed into law Aug. 13, 1981. For more details see TCRS IB8lO5l. P.L. 97-248, H.R. 4961 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of l982. Includes five AFDC budget-cutting provisions, estimated to save $85 million in FY83: permitting reduction of benefits by prorating shelter and utility costs of shared households, eliminating parental absence for military service as grounds for AFDC eligibility, prorating initial month's benefits to application date, rounding benefits down, and permitting States to require job search upon application. The law also lowers the tolerance levels for erroneous ~AFDC p'"ments eligible for Federal funding, effective in FY84. (For details of n . AFDC rules, see CR8 IB82047.) Conferees on the bill, after a long dispute, rejected a House Ways and Means Committee tentative recommendation to repeal the AFDC gross income ceiling imposed in 1982 and to restore a permanent but modified work incentive bonus to the program. Introduced Nov. _l3, l98l and passed by the House as a minor tax bill. Amended by the Senate’ CRS- 8 1374013 UPDATE-12/O8/82 to include major tax revisions and several welfare proposals. Passed by both Houses of Congress Aug. 19, 1982. Enacted on Sept. 3, 1982. H.R. 135 (Biaggi) AFDC and Medicaid. Provides that United States will gradually assume all financing of AFDC and Medicaid. Introduced Jan. 5, 1981; referred jointly to Committees on ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce. See also S. 853 and SO H.R. 268 (Albosta) AFDC, Food Stamps, Public Housing. Requires each State to establish a "jobfare" program and to require participation therein by recipients of AFDC, food stamps, and public housing benefits as a condition of State eligibility for Federal funding. Introduced Jan. 5, 1981; ireferred to Committees on Agriculture; Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs; Education and, Labor; and Ways and Means. Similar bills: H.R. 269 (Findley et al) introduced on ,Jan. 5, 1981; and H.R. 971 (Guyer), introduced Jan. 20, 1981. 5 H.R. 498 (Roe) A11 Welfare. Provides for 100% Federal funding of Federal,; State, a d local welfare costs. Introduced Jan. 5, 1981; referred to Committee on Ways and Means. ~ H.R. 593 (Roybal) AFDC, SSI, Social Services. Disregards increases in social security benefits received by recipients of these programs. Also, for SSI recipients only, disregards cost-of-living increases in other public retirement benefits. Introduced Jan. 5, 1981; referred to Committee on Ways and Means. H.RT 1061 (Goldwater) Privacy. Provides for privacy of certain public assistance and social services records maintained under federally subsidized programs. Introduced Jan. 22, 1981; referred to Committees on Agriculture; Energy and Commerce; and ways and Means. H.R. 1322 (Gradison) AFDC. Establishes a block grant program to encourage States to create alternative programs to AFDC. Introduced Jan. 27, ;l981; referred to Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 1368 (Corrada) AFDC and Social Services. Treats Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam as States under AFDC, Title XX and child welfare programs. Introduced Jan. 28, 1981; referred to Committee on ways and Means. H.R. l432 (Petri) AFDC. Expands the work requirement by requiring mothers with no child younger than 3 to register with WIN. Introduced Jan. 28, 1981; referred to Committee on ways and Means. 9(First introduced in the 96th Congress.) CRS- 9 IB740l3 UPDATE-l2/O8/82 H.R. l754 (Mitchell of New York) AFCD. Establishes a minimum AFDC benefit and increases Federal funding f ‘ States with low benefits. The AFDC floor would be the sum that, combined with food stamps, would equal 65% of the OMB poverty threshold. Introduced Feb. 5, l98l; referred to Committee on ways and Means. H.R. 2l5l (Marlenee) AFDC, SSI, Medicaid, Food Stamps. Provides for minimum fines for fraud in these programs. Introduced Feb. 25, 1981; referred jointly to Committees on Agriculture, Energy and Commerce, and ways and Means. H.R. 2429 (Solomon) AFDC. Substitutes block grants for open~ended Federal matcming in AFDC and (authorizes a 5-year demonstration project in WhiCh eight Stateqs» CO1lld require work as a condition of eligibility. Introduced Mar. lo, 198%; (referred) to Committee on ways and Means. See also S. 660 and H.R. 3004. ? H.R. 3004 (Rousselot et al.) A 0 AFDC. Family welfare Improvement Act. Converts AFDC into a block grant program, providing States their base period (FY79) Federal AFDC dollars plus a share (based on population) of $1 billion, plus, for “the l5 States with lowest benefits, a share of $400 million, the latter conditioned upon raising benefits. Permits spending of block grant funds for "social welfare purposes" other than AFDC benefits. Establishes, in lo States, a 5-year p'Iot test of'States' ability to develop alternate welfare programs free of e i AFDC rules. Introduced Apr. 2, l98l; referred to Committee on ways and Means. (First introduced, in somewhat different form, in the 96th Congress.) H.R. 4771 (Traxler) AFDC. Permits AFDC payments in the form of housing voucherq for shelter and related expenses. Introduced Oct. l5,Il98l; referred to‘ Committee on ways and Means. H.R. 4985 (Siljander) 1 Comprehensive AFDC Improvements Act of 1981 -- Part I. Reduces AFDC benefits payable to working recipients by lowering the work expense deduction and repealing the disregard of a child's earnings; requires States to count as income a family's food stamp benefits and any housing or rent subsidy; .makes ineligible persons who dispose of assets that would put them over the eligibility limit for less than fair market value, in preceding 12 months; prohibits AFDC for an unborn child; makes an absent parent liable for administrative costs of child support collection from him; requires States to impose liens on homes of AFDC families. Various other provisions. Introduced Nov. 16, 1981; referred to Committee on ways and Means. See also H.R. 4986. H.R. 4986 (Siljander) Comprehensive AFDC Improvements Act of l98l -— Part II. Reduces the child care expense deduction for working recipients; prohibits eligibility 1 those whose gross earnings exceed .l00% of the State need standard; prohibits AFDC for non—citizens, for mothers’ AFDC for a non-citizen, for a parent separated from his spouse but living "in a sexual relationship" with another person, for a mother who fails a test in English (unless enrolled in an approved English class); prohibits payments smaller than $25 monthly; CRS-lO 1374013 UPDATE-l2/O8/82 requires high school students to work at least half time once they reach age l6 in order to continue receiving AFDC; requires unemployed fathers to subm‘ at least l5 letters of job rejections from potential employers each week in order to receive benefits. Introduced Nov. 16, l98l; referred to Committee on ways and Means. H.R. 5l99 (waxman et al.) . AFDC and Medicaid. Medicaid Work Incentive Amendments of l98l. Permits States to provide Medicaid to families made ineligible for AFDC cash by the new rules of P.L. 97-35 concerning treatment of earnings and by its gross income limit.) Introduced Dec. ll, l98l; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce. ’ H.R. 5226 (Gradison) A AFDC and Medicaid. Authorizes States to use AFDC matching funds to make private health insura'ce "reasonably available" to AFDC families whose income disqualifies them‘ flry cash aid and, as .a consequence, for Medicaid. Introduced Dec. l5, l98l; referred to Committee on ways and Means. Hearings held Mar. 25; Apr. 21-22, l982. “A, I ' 1 _HtR. 5297 (Long of Md.) Child support. Extends to non-AFDC families the procedure available to AFDCifamilies for collection of past-due child and spousal support from Federal tax refunds. Introduced Dec. l6, l98l; referred to Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 5791 (Ford of Tennessee) AFDC, Energy Assistance, and Social Services. Public Assistance" Amendments of l982. Restores permanent work incentive bonus to AFDC (disregard of one~third of earnings left after subtraction of dependent care . \ . CO'St allowance and an increased allowance fOI‘ WOT}? BXPGIISGS) . AISO increases annual allotments for Title XX social services and authorizations for appropriations for low~income energy assistance. The increased AFDC allowance for work expenses consists of the first $50 earned monthly plus 20% of gross earnings, up to a maximum of $175. The bill repeals the gross. income ceiling of 150% of a State's need standard. Instead, its disregard formula results in a gross earnings-limit for most States equal to l87.5% of the State payment standard plus 125% of child care costs (up to ceiling of $160 per child) plus $43. However, in relatively high benefit States a lower limit applies: l5Q% of the payment standard plus child care costs (up to ceiling) plus $210. Introduced Mar. 10, 1982; referred jointly to the Committees on ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce. Hearing concluded Apr. 2l, 1982. AFDC provisions approved by Public Assistance subcommittee of ways and Means on May l2, l982 and put into.a clean bill, H.R. 6369, which the ways and Means Committee approved May 20, 1982. See H.R. 6369. H.R.-5871 (Matsui) AFDC, Medicaid and Title XX Social Services. Authorizes States to determine timing of Federal payments to States under these programs. Introduced Mar. l7, 1982; referred jointly to Committees on ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce. H.R. 6369 (Ford of Tennessee)" AFDC. Title II of this bill contains'the AFDC provisions of H.R. 5791 (see above). Introduced May l3, 1982; referred to Committee on ways and CRS-ll IB740l3 UPDATE-l2/O8/82 Means, which approved “it May 25, I982; House Budget Committee's First Concurrent Resolution on FY83 Budget (H.Con.Res. 345) assumes enactment of 1 ;se provisions. AFDC provisions later incorporated into H.R. 6878, used by conferees on l982 tax bill, H.R. 4961. However, final tax bill omitted AFDC earnings provisions. H.R. 7l48 (Heckler) All federally aided welfare programs.= Requires States administering such programs to verify applicants‘ income, assets and eligibility by crossmatching them against other public records; permits any State to crossmatch for another. Introduced Sept. 21, 1982; referred to Committee on Government Operations. A similiar bill is H.R. 7161 (Frank). 8 H.R. 7174 (Frank) 'AFDC. Exempts stepparents who lived with AFDC child on or before Oct. l, l98l from requirement, effective that day, that part of his income pbe vconsidered available to the child. Introduced Sept. 23, l982; referred to Committee on ways and Means. S. 64l‘(Inouye) ‘ . AFDC. Authorizes each State to establish standard work expense deductions, lqwhich may vary by locality; provides also for disregard of a standard $70 monthly from remaining income, and for 20.5% of the remainder. Prohibits these disregards for persons in community worklexperience programs or public fvice employment under WIN. Introduced Mar.’6, l98l; referred to Committee on Finance. s. 660 (Boren) ; AFDC. Family welfare Demonstration Program Act. Establishes a period of )5 years during which States could either continue under AFDC or elect to conduct a block-grant demonstration project subject to only one Federal rule, namely, that they provide help which they feel will most effectively benefit and promote the social welfare of children and families with children. Introduced Mar. lo, l98l; referred to Committee on Finance. First introduced in the 96th Congress. S. 718 (Proxmire) AFDC. Requires States to require AFDC recipients to participate in «community work programs "if they are able to do so." Introduced Mar. l7, l98l; referred to the Committee on Finance. S. 853 (Moynihan) AFDC. welfare and Medicaid Fiscal Assistance Program Act of l98l. Provides that Federal Government will gradually increase its funding share of State AFDC (and Medicaid costs) from its current range of 54-55% to a uniform rate of 90% in FY85, provided the States pay AFDC benefits that in combination with food stamp benefits equal at least 75% of the OMB nonfarm r verty threshold. Introduced Apr. 1, l98l; referred to Committee on i nance. S. 855 (Moynihan) AFDC and Medicaid. Medicaid Formula Modernization Act of 1981. Changes cns-12 “ IB740l3 UPDATE-l2/O8/82 the average Federal Medicaid matching rate (also used for AFDC) from 55% to 65%, provides for adjusting State per capita income in the formula f differences in BLS budgets, and excludes need—based cash benefits from per capita income. Conditions the higher Federal funding share upon States‘ providing AFDC benefits that in combination with food stamp benefits equal 75% of OMB poverty thresholds. Introduced Apr. l, l98l; referred to Committee on Finance. 6 S. l762 (Moynihan) AFDC. Reinstates a permanent but revised AFDC work incentive bonus, providing that after the first 4 months on a job, the bonus would. drop from» W$3O plus one-third of remaining earnings to $30 plus one~fifth of earnings (instead of, being eliminated). Introduced Oct. 22, 1981; referred to Committee on Finance. S. 2437 (Wallop) ' Child Support. Amends AFDC law and the income tax) code to establish a child support tax on absent parents. Introduced Apr. 21, 1982; referred to Committee on Finance. ~ " S. 2485 (Riegle et al.) AFDC. Changes the formula used to decide the Federal share of each State's AFDC benefit costs. Uses the Representative Tax System, rather than per capita income, as an-index of State fiscal capacity and takes into Y account the number of AFDC recipients. Introduced May 26, l982; referred " Committee on Finance. S. 2823 (Stafford) AFDC. Work Incentive Act of l982. Resotres a permanent but revised work incentive bonus to AFDC; disregards of $50 monthly, 20% of gross earnings; child care cost up to $160 monthly, and one—third of remaining earnings. Retains cap on gross earnings. Introduced Aug. 10, l982; referred to Committee on Finance. HEARINGS U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations. Subcommittee on Administration of the AFDC Program. Hearings, 95th Congress, lst session. July 19, 21, 26; Sept. 27; Oct. 4 and 5, I977. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., I977. 676 p. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Ways and Means. Subcommittee on Oversight. AFDC quality control program. Hearings, 94th Congress, lst session. Oct. BI, and Nov. 2, l975. Washington. U.S. Govt. Print. Off., l975. ll8 p. ----— HEW efforts to reduce errors in welfare programs (AFDC and SSI). Hearings, April 29 and May 3, I976 (Part l); June 30 and Aug. 26, I976 (Part 2). Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976. l2l p. and 158 p., respectively. ’ U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Ways and Means. Subcommittee on Public Assistance and Unemployment Compensation. Amendments the 1980's. CRS-13 IB74013 UPDATE-12/08/82 t0 social services, fOSt€I' care, and Child welfare programs. Hearings, 96th Congress, lst session. Mar. 22 and 27, 1979. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 347 p. "Serial no. 96-15" Special HEW report on welfare reform. Hearings, 95th Congress, lst session.. May 4, 1977. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1977. 61 p. Welfare reform legislation. Hearings on H.R. 4122, H.R. 4321, and H.R. 4460, 96th Congress, 1st session. June 15, 18, 20, 22, 26, and 27, 1979. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 654 p. Congress. House. Welfare Reform Subcommittee of the Committees on Agriculture, Education and Labor, and Ways and Means. Joint hearings on H.R. 9030, a bill to replace the existing Federal welfare programs. 95th Congress, lst session. In 9 parts (regional hearings). Washington, Govt. Print. Off., 1977. 5565 pp. Committee on Finance. laubcommittee on Public Assistance. How to think about welfare reform for Hearings, 96th Congress, 2d session. Feb. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. Congress.r(Senate. 6 7, 1980. 449 p. ‘Proposals related to social and child welfare services, adoption assistance, and foster care. Hearings, 96th Congress, lst session. Sept. 24, 1979. Washington, U;S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. .326 p. Welfare block 95th Congress, U.S. Govt. Print. grant fiscal relief proposal. 2d session. Sept. 12, 1978- Off., 1978. 102 p. Hearings, Washington, Welfare reform proposals. 2d session. Parts 1 and 2 Hearings, 95th Congress, (565 pages total) of 5 parts. Feb. 7 and 9; Apr. 17-18, 25-26; May 1-2, and 4, 1978; Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. Welfare research and experimentation. Hearings, 95th Congress, 2d session, Nov. 15-17, 1978. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 426 p. Congress. Senate. Committee on Human Resources. Better Jobs and Income Act, 1978. Hearings, 95th Congress, 2d session. Mar. 22-23, 1978. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.~ Off., 1978. 286,p. REPORTS AND CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS U.S. Congress. House. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981; Conference report to accompany H.R. 3982. Book 2. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981 (97th Congress, 1st session. House Report no. 97-208) ‘ U.S. Congress. House. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act CRS-14 1374013 UPDATE-12/O8/82 of 1982; conference report to accompany H.R. 4961. Washington, .U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. (97th Congress, 2d session. House Report no. 97-769). Also available as S.Rept. 97-530. Congress. House. Committee on the Budget. Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981; report to accompany H.R. 3982. Vol. III. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. (97th Congress, lst session. House Report no. 97-158) Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations. Administration of the AFDC Program. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 46 p. (96th Congress, lst session. House Report no. 96-285) 1 Administration of the AFDC program. A report to the Committee on Government Operations prepared by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress. Washington, U.S.IGovt. Print. Off.,-197j. 283 p. At head of title: 95th Congress, lst session. Committee print. Congress. House. Committee on Ways and Means. Background material and data on major programs within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Feb. 18, 1982. 447 p. At head of tit1e:g Committee print. WCMP: Washington,. 97-29. Description of the Administration's legislative recommendations under the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., March 1982. 163 p. At head of title: 97th Congress, Committee print. WMCP: 97-31. 2d session. Public Assistance Amendments Of 1,977: report together With supplemental views to accompany H.R. 7200. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1977. 106 p. (95th Congress, lst session. House. Report no. 95-394). Social Services and Child Welfare Amendments of 1979; report to accompany H.R. 3434. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 94 p. (96th Congress, lst session. House. Report no. 96-136) Social Welfare Reform Amendments of 1979; report to accompany H.R. 4904. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 281 p. (96th Congress, lst session. House. Report no. 96-451) Congress. House. Welfare Reform Subcommittee of the Committees on Agriculture, and Means. Education and Labor, Explanatory material to accompany H.R. 10950, Better Jobs and Income Act. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 61 p. At head of title: 95th Congress, and Ways 2d session. Committee print. Joint Economic Committee. Subcommittee on Fiscal Concepts in welfare program design. Washington, Congress. Policy._ CRS-l5 IB740l3 UPDATE-l2/O8/82 u.s. Govt. Print. Off., 1973. 128 p. -—-—- The family, poverty, and welfare programs: factors influencing family instability: household patterns and government policies. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973. 350 p. At head of title: 93d Congress, lst session. Joint committee print. Paper no. 12 (Parts 1 and 2) of series entitled "Studies in public welfare." -—-—- Income security for Americans: recommendations of the public welfare study. Final report. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1974. 262 p. ‘ ‘ At head of title: 93d Congress, 2d session. Joint committee print. U.S. congress. Senate. Committee on the Budget. Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981; report to accompany S. 1377. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., l98l. 1,034 p. +(97th Congress, lst session. Senate. Report no. 97-139V U.S. Congress. psenate. Committee on Finance. Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1979; report on: H.R. 3434. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 156 p. (96th Congress, lst session. House. Report no. 96‘336) 7 -—-—- Materials related to welfare research and experimentation assembled by the staff of the Finance Committee for use of the Subcommittee on Public Assistance. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 141 p. At head of title: 95th Congress, 2d session. ‘Committee print. -—-—- Public Assistance Amendments of 1977; report on H.R. 7200. Washington, U.S. Govt- Print. Off., 1977: 245 p. (95th Congress, lst session. Senate. Report no. 95-573) ----- Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982; report on H.R. 4961. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., July 12, 1982. (97th Congress, 2d session. ‘Senate. Report‘ no. 97-494,.vol. l) U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Finance. Subcommittee on Public Assistance. Welfare research and experimentation. Hearings, 95th Congress, 2d session. Nov. 15-17, 1978. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 426 p. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS 10/20/82 —- President Reagan signed the job training partnership act (P.L. 97-300), which authorizes job training for some welfare and food stamp recipients. l0/18/82 -- The Defense Department proposed guidelines for processing involuntary allotments from military pay for payment of overdue child support. lo/O8/82 ‘O9/29/82 09/03/82 08/19/82 07/15/82 07/12/82 06/23/82 06/23/82 06/18/82 06/08/82 06/10/82 ‘05/21/82 05/20/82 The House ways and Means Committee voted to CRS-l6 IB740l3 UPDATE-l2/O8/82 The Office of Child Support Enforcement issued regulations requiring State AFDC programs to reduce benefits of persons who fail to turn over assigned child support payments to the State, or else to cover those payments directly. The House passed H.Res. 421, establishing a select committee on children, youth, and familes, to operate during the 98th and 99th Congresses. .President Reagan signed the tax bill into law (p.L. 97-248), Congress passed the 1982 tax bill, H.R. 4961, containing small AFDC changes estimated to cut Federal outlays by= $85 million in FY83. Conferees rejected the work incentive provision of H.R. 6369. ‘ The House ways and Means Committee reaffirmed’ 1 support for H.R. 6369, which would restore a permanent, work incentive bonus to AFDC. It said the estimated $71 million cost would be offset by a revenue—raising feature of the bill. It voted some cuts in child support enforcement, SSI, and other programs to meet the target of the budget resolution. '- To comply with the Budget Resolution, the Senate Finance Committee voted 11 changes in AFDC that CBO said would cut Federal outlays by $390 million in FY83. with Senate passage, Congress adopted the conference report on the first concurrent FY83 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 92), which assumes AFDC cuts of§$390 million. I The ways and Means public assistance subcommittee held a hearing on legislative changes assumed in Senate and House budget measures. The Reagan Administration submitted to Congress a draft of Social welfare Amendments of 1982, incorporating FY83 budget proposals. The Reagan Administration submitted to Congress a proposed, block grant measure (child welfare, foster care and adoption assistance). The House, in adopting a budget resolution, voted to assume AFDC apending cuts_in FY83 of $683 million. . The Senate, in adopting a budget resolution, voted to assume AFDC spending cuts of $390 million, compared with its Budget Committee's FY83 current policy baseline. The estimated savings assume enactment of several AFDC proposals in the President's budget. \ 05/03/82 04/14/82 04/21/82 03/02/82 02/O8/823 02/05/82 01/26/82 01/19/82 08/13/81 07/31/81 CRS—l7 IB740l3 UPDATE-l2/O8/82 restore a permanent work incentive bonus to AFDC, by approving H.R. 6369. The Social Security Administration issued an interim rule permitting disclosure of information about AFDC applicants and recipients to any government entity authorized to conduct public audits or similar activity. The Office of Child Support issued a regulation authorizing State child support agencies to use the full IRS collection process for families not receiving AFDC. Implements provision of 1980 law. The Ways and Means Subcommittee on Public Assistance concluded hearings on the Administration's FY83 budget proposals and on measures to modify earlier cuts, including bills to provide Federal funding for Medicaid to families who lost AFDC eligibility becuase of new income rules and to restore the work incentive bonus to AFDC. The Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Subcommittee, in votes regarding the Mar. 15 budget resolution, failed to act on Reagan's FY83 welfare proposals. The Senate committee committed itself to_not increasing the deficit; the House subcommittee said it was assuming continuation of current law spending levels pending study.- The President submitted his FY83 budget, recommending additional AFDC cuts in FY82 as well as FY83, new cuts in food stamps and *housing aid, plus deliberalization Of SSI. DHHS published final regulations implementing AFDC changes enacted in 1981 (P.L. 97-35). Interim regulations had been issued Sept. 21, I981. In his State of the Union message, President Reagan proposed, in 1984, a Federal takeover of Medicaid in exchange for State assumption of AFDC and food stamps. ’ The full Ways and Means Committee ended a series of field hearings, that had begun Nov. 14, on the impact of budget cuts on cash welfare and other programs in its jurisdiction. Hearings were held in Memphis, Baltimore, Indianapolis, Detroit, Sacramento and Seattle. ‘ President Reagan signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act Of 1981 (P.L. 97-35). House and Senate passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 06/26/81 06/25/81 05/08/81 01/1i/81'—- 09/18/80 06/26/80 04/14/80 n 03/28/80 03/27/80 01/25/80 11/07/79 07/02/79 06/25/79 05/23/79 CRS—l8 IB740l3 UPDATE-l2/O8/82 Act of 1981, cutting FY82 AFDC outlays by an estimated $1 billion. The House passed its FY82 Omnibus Reconciliation bill (H.R. 3982) after amending it to include AFDC provisions recommended by the Senate Finance Committee and Reagan Administration. The Senate passed its FY82 Omnibus Reconciliation bill '(S. 1.377), including versions Of all the budget-cutting provisions sought by the Administration. The Department of Health and Human Services announced that the AFDC national payment error rate declined by 1.2 percentage points from April-September l979 to October l979-March 1980. ; 5. President Carter's FY82 budget proposed changes in the AFDC program that the Administration said would save an estimated $406 million in FY82. . ‘Y ‘ HHS reported that the payment error rates in AFDC and Medicaid declined in the period April-September 1979. HHS proposed a regulation to permit inclusion in an AFDC family of a child with social security benefits that exceed his financial needs. The U.S. Supreme Court held that some welfare a plicants have a right to a hearing when their welfare applications are rejected. HEW issued regulations governing issuance of joint payee AFDC checks, issued to an AFDC child's caretaker and the vendor of a service. The Social Security Administration gave notice that it planned to issue proposed regulations requiring States to make AFDC payments to an otherwise eligible parent or other caretaker of an SSI child. - DHEW issued a final regulation to implement the Michel amendment requiring a 4% AFDC payment error rate by Sept. 30, 1982. The House approved H.R. 4904, Social welfare Reform Amendments of 1979. HEW issued a proposed regulation permitting AFDC payments to needy children on grounds of "continued absence" of parent performing compulsory unpaid work as a prisoner during the day and returning home at night. U.S. Supreme Court ruled that States offering AFDC to unemployed fathers also must offer it to unemployed mothers (Califano V. Wescott). 0 President Carter sent a welfare reform program to 05/04/79 02/22/79 ll/l7/78 10/03/78 07/31/78 06/06/78 02/08/78 09/12/77 08/06/77 06/20/77 03/25/77 03/16/77 CRS-19 IB740l3 UPDATE-l2/O8/82 Congress in two bills: the Social Welfare Reform Amendments of l979 and the Work and Training Opportunities Act Of 1979. HEW issued final regulations effective immediately, requiring States to select one of two budgeting methods, prospective or retrospective, and setting conditions for retrospective systems. Proposed regulations had been issued Oct. 4, l978. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled (Miller v. Youakim) that a State could not deny AFDC foster care to needy children because they live with relatives. HEW issued final regulations, effective immediately, governing State demonstration projects for public service employment and training of AFDC recipients. HEW issued final regulations, effective Dec. 4, l978, regarding conditions under which AFDC mothers can be excused from mandatory cooperation with the child support program.‘ 7 ' ‘-4 ” HEW issued regulations, effective immediately, to permit States to request help from the Federal Parent Locator Service before exhausting State location sources and to provide Federal matching funds, for the first time, for non-salary costs of IV-D child support enforcement activities. The U.S. Supreme Court held that States could limit eligibility for Emergency Assistance (Quern v. Mandley). The ad hoc welfare reform subcommittee of the Committees on Agriculture, Ways and Means, and Education and Labor approved an amended version of the Carter Better Jobs and Income Act. The bill (H.R. 10950) would abolish AFDC, SSI, and food stamps. President Carter's welfare reform bill was introduced in Congress (H.R. 7200/S. 2084). President Carter sent a welfare reform,message to Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5-4) that States may deny AFDC-UF to needy children of workers who are on strike. HEW issued regulations to implement P.L. 94-566, which provides that AFDC-UF may supplement U.I. benefits. HEW revoked regulations providing for fiscal sanctions against States with excessive AFDC error rates, pursuant to the May l976 court ruling against the Department's quality control tolerance levels. At the same time, 02/03/77 09/08/76 07/02/75 05/18/76 05/14/75 10/29/75 08/19/75 08/08/75 07/24/75 06/09/75 01/04/75 CRS-20 IB740l3 UPDATE-l2/O8/82 HEW announced that it had prepared a draft proposal to establish HEW tolerance rates for AFDC quality control. HEW issued final regulations, effective immediately, to forbid reductions in AFDC on the assumption that non—legally responsible members of the household help support an AFDC family. The regulations implement a l975 Supreme Court decision (Van Lare v. Hurley, 421 U.S. 337). HEW published final regulations revoking the requirement for separation of income maintenance functions from service functions. HEW issued final regulations, effective immediately, to permit disclosure to the Parent Locator Service of the Social Security number, most recent address, and place of employment of any absent parent for enforcing child support obligations against the parent. The House passed H.R. l3272, to permit joint receipt of AFDC—UF and unemployment compensation.y U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia invalidated HEW's AFDC quality control regulations as "arbitrary and capricious." The regulations had been challengefi by 14 States and the county of Los Angeles, Calif. U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia invalidated HEW regulations originally scheduled for effect on June l7, l975, which would have reduced the outer resource limits that States may use for AFDC eligibility. HEW issued a final regulation, effective Jan. 27, 1976, or earlier at State option, giving unemployed fathers of dependent children the option to receive either unemployment compensation or AFDC payments. HEW issued proposed regulations requiring States to adopt "prior month budgeting," basing AFDC payments on income actually received by the applicant or recipient in a previous month. (Deferred by HEW Office of Policy Control, Feb. 23, l976). HEW issued proposed regulations to deny AFDC-UF to strikers unless State law permits unemployment compensation for them. ‘(Deferred by HEW Secretary Mathews on Jan. 6, 1976). I HEW issued final regulations to reduce maximum resources permissible for AFDC families. Implementation was stayed by pending court suit. - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an unemployed father was entitled to choose between unemployment insurance benefits and AFDC-UF. 7 ‘ President Ford signed the Social Services Amendments of CRS-21 IB740l3 UPDATE-l2/O8/82 1974 (P.L. 93-647), which establish new requirements concerning child support for AFDC eligibility. 10/17/72 -- Conference agreement on H.R. l (the Social Security Amendments of 1972) was adopted by both Houses; the _ final bill excluded provisions for replacement of AFDC by Family Assistance Plan. ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES Anderson, Martin. Welfare. Stanford, California, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. [1978] 251 p. (HV95. A 755) Barth, Michael, George J. Carcagno, and John L. Palmer. Toward an effective[support system: problems, prospects, and choices. Madison, Wisc., Institute for Res'arch on Poverty (1974). 189[p.I (HC1l0.15B37) 7 7 Bowler, H. Kenneth- The Nixon guaranteed income proposal: substance and process in policy change.. Cambridge:l Ballinger (1974). 224 p. (HV95.B66) M Burke, Vincent J., and Vee Burke.‘ Nixon's good deed: welfare reform. New York: Columbia University (1974). 244 p. (HV95.B77 1974) 7 Garfinkel, Irwin. Welfare reform: a new and old view; Journal of the institute for socioeconomic studies, v. IV, Winter 1979: 58-72. 4 7 ‘ Levy, Frank. “What Reagan can teach the U.S. about welfare reform. The urban institute pouicy and research report, v. 10, Summer 1980: 11-14. Moynihan, Daniel P. The politics of a guaranteed income. New York: Vintage (1973). 579 p. (paperback ed.) (HCl10.15M65 1973b) U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. ~==—= Aid to Families with Dependent Children: bFY82'budget cuts [by] Vee Burke. [Washington] 1981. (Issue brief 81051) Archived 08/24/82 ““-‘ Aid t0 Families With Dependent Children (AFDC)! FY83 budget proposals [by] Carmen D. Solomon. Washington 1982. (Issue Brief 82047) Regularly updated ----- Budget cuts and financial work incentives for wlefare recipients [by] Vee Burke. Washington, Mar. 26, 1982. 14 p. ’ CRS white paper. --—-— Cash and non-cash benefits for persons with limited income: eligibility rules, recipient and expenditure data. FY 1978-80 [by] Vee Burke. Washington, 1982. 167 p. iReform Amendments of 1979 Wiseman, CRS-22 IB740l3 UPDATE-12/O8/82 cRs Report 82-113 EPW Changes in the Program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children proposed by the Family Protection Act of 1979 (H.R.,4122/s. 965), the Family Welfare Improvement Act (B.R. 4460/S. 1382), and the Family Welfare Demonstration program Act (s. 1579) [by] vee Burke, Washington 1979. CRS Report 79-179 EPW ' Need and payment levels in the program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC): legislative history and current State practices [by] Carmen D. Solomon. Washington, 1981. CRS Report 81-149 EPW. FY83 budget proposals [by] (Issue Brief 82048). Supplemental Security Income: Carmen D. Solomon. Washington 1982. Regularly’updated 7 The President's 1979 Welfare Reform Program compared with current law: changes proposed by the Social Welfare A (H.R. 4321/s. 1290) and the Work and Training Opportunities Act of 1979 (H.R. 4425/S. 1312) [by] Vee Burke and Richard Hobbie. A. Washington 1979. CRS Report 79-180 EPW Two versions of the President's 1979 welfare reform program compared with current law: The original and House-passed Social Welfare Reform Amendments of 1979 (H.R. 4321/S. 1290 and H.R. 4904), and the Work and Training Opportunities Act of 1979 (H.R. 4425/S. 1312) [by] Vee Burke and Richard Hobbie. Washington, 1980. cRs Report 80-24 EPW. description of selected major Public Welfare Welfare background paper: programs [by] six members of the Education and Division. Washington, 1981. 120 pJ ‘ CRS Report 81-124 ED Work disincentives in income-tested programs [by] Vee Burke. Washington, 1980. 92 p. CRS Report 80-158 EPW Congressional Budget Office. The Administration's welfare reform proposal: an analysis of the Program for Better Jobs and Income. Budget issue paper for fiscal year 1979. Washington, 1978. 171 p. Michael. A welfare surprise. Is Carter in the Reagan camp? Taxing and spending, v. 2, 1979: 65-77. »