Volume IX Winter 1997-98 Number 3
Welfare reform will create more misery
by James Shanley, President of Fort Peck Community College
(Editor's note: This is the second article in the Tribal College Journal by Fort Peck Community College President Jim Shanley about welfare reform. The first appeared in the Spring 1997 issue.)The crisp days of fall are over, and the early snow of November is drifting into northern Montana as welfare reform continues on the Fort Peck Reservation. The reform, if it can be called that, was triggered by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The new law replaced the Aid For Dependent Children Program (AFDC) with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program. Here in Montana, the state has decided to call the program Families Achieving Independence in Montana or FAIM. Regardless which acronym is used, the new welfare programs will eventually hurt American Indian families and particularly children.
This past spring, my article on welfare reform said that tribal colleges would be left holding the bag. Since that time, we have been watching developments both around the country and here on the Fort Peck Reservation. The changing perceptions of welfare reform resemble the blind, wise men examining the proverbial elephant: Their perception of reality is based upon which part of the beast each blind man is touching. The governments--federal, state, and tribal--seem to be adding to the confusion.
Under the old and the new welfare programs, state governments match federal welfare support for both Indian and non-Indian residents of their states, with the state match varying from 30-50 percent. Under the new program, a tribe can decide to administer the welfare program on its reservation. If a tribe chooses that option, the federal government will provide federal matching funds to the tribal government instead of to the state government for clients on that reservation.
In the article last spring, I pointed out that tribal governments could not choose to administer the new welfare program on their reservations without losing the matching funds and administrative costs now being contributed by the state governments. Despite smoke and mirrors from both the federal government and the states, this is still true. A tribe that chooses to administer welfare will lose between 30-50 percent of welfare benefits currently being received by eligible families--unless the federal or state government agrees to provide the missing state matching and administrative costs.
James Shanley, President of Fort Peck Community College.
Photo by Kyle Brehm
States' share of welfare payments
Only nine tribes of more than 500 federally recognized tribes across the United States have agreed so far to administer the TANF welfare program. These tribes are small--the total number of clients being served by them (435 families) does not equal the number of clients at Fort Peck alone. The nine tribes are located in Oregon (Klamath Tribes and Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians), Wisconsin (Forest County Potawatomi Community, Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Mole Lake Sokaogon Chippewa Community, and Stockbridge-Munsee Band of Mohican Indians), and South Dakota (Sisseton Wahpeton Sioux).
Two of the 50 states, Arizona and Oregon, have agreed to provide funds to match the federal contribution for the tribes. Although more states may agree to provide matching funds, it seems unlikely that a state would agree to do so if a large tribe such as the Navajo decided to contract to administer the TANF welfare program.
In Wisconsin, the state will not provide matching funds, but the four tribes chose to administer welfare anyway. The state's version of TANF (called W-2) is so onerous that the tribes feel most reservation clients would be eliminated almost immediately or forced to leave home to find employment in the cities. Evidently, these tribes feel that 65 percent of something is better than nothing. The Sisseton Wahpeton Sioux Tribe in South Dakota has similar fears about entrusting their members to the state's care. It is the only tribe in the Northern Plains that has decided to administer welfare.
South Dakota deserves special mention because of the unique position taken by the state government. Unlike any other state, more than half (57 percent) of the TANF welfare clients are American Indians. Therefore, more than half of the state's contributions toward welfare have gone to Indian clients in past years. Last summer the state informed the tribes and the South Dakota congressional delegation that South Dakota could no longer afford to help support Indian welfare clients.
Instead, U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle asked Congress for $5 million (from the Tribal Priority Allocation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget) to pay South Dakota's share of the cost of supporting Indian welfare clients there for one year. This would allow South Dakota Indian tribes to administer the welfare program on their reservations. The idea was billed as a one year pilot program for fiscal year 1998 and would have affected only the nine tribes in South Dakota. However, Congress appropriated only $1 million, which would not cover the state's match on even one of the large tribes there.
So what does this mean for the Indian welfare clients in South Dakota? The state doesn't want to support them, and without the matching funds, most of the tribes cannot support them. Perhaps, these people, the poorest people in the United States, will be the first to experience the massive negative impacts of welfare reform. Obviously, there is a feeling at the highest level of state government that Indians are not state citizens.
Fort Peck's Experience
FAIM, Families Achieving Independence in Montana, went into effect on Feb. 1, 1997. When the welfare reform law was passed, we here at Fort Peck Community College were alarmed about being overwhelmed with requests for training services. Under the Montana FAIM program, the welfare recipient has an initial interview. If the client is a tribal member, he or she is referred to the tribal jobs program. The client then has 18-24 months to receive training and become employed. If the client cannot find employment in the initial 24 month period, then they are required to work 20 hours per week in a Community Services Work Program. For non-tribal members (even Indians from other tribes), the county is supposed to provide the training.
FAIM is critical to the Fort Peck Reservation here in northeastern Montana where there are 648 tribal FAIM welfare clients. Only the cities of Billings and Great Falls have more clients in the state than Fort Peck. The Blackfeet Reservation is a close fourth with 645 clients. Fort Peck has an unemployment rate of 54 percent.
Last spring and summer, Fort Peck Community College served 155 FAIM welfare clients. Their average age was 30, and the vast majority were women. When we tested these clients, we found their average skill levels were 5.81 in mathematics and 6.52 on language with an overall General Equivalency of 6.64 years or sixth grade. Of those tested, 16 clients scored below the fourth grade level. Some may suffer from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and/or Effect and severe learning disabilities. It is highly questionable whether these individuals are employable, especially with an 18 month limit on training.
Most clients at Fort Peck are in a sort of limbo without access to training, jobs, or community service opportunities. While the clock ticks toward the 24 month limit on training, the tribal jobs program can only provide about $300 worth of training per year for 60 clients. The county has enough funds to provide about the same level for another 40 clients. This leaves approximately 548 clients. Fort Peck Community College does not have any additional resources outside of our regular programs to provide training services. (The college was able to provide minimal services to the 155 clients discussed above because we had federal funding for the family literacy program, Even Start. When the grant expires, we will not be able to provide even these services next year.)
If training and/or employment is not available, then a FAIM welfare client is supposed to move to Community Service Work for a minimum of 20 hours a week. The counties have about $48 per client available for the next two years to provide Community Services Work Sites.
Under the welfare reform law, people have to be trained and employed or do community service in order to continue receiving welfare. If they refuse, they are to be eliminated from the welfare program. However, it is evident that there is not enough money for training nor is there enough money to provide community service opportunities. What happens now? There don't seem to be any clear answers. Which clients will be chosen to receive the limited training or community service opportunities and which will not? If a client is chosen to be trained and misses deadlines or appointments, the client will be sanctioned and removed from welfare. Therefore, most clients will not have the opportunity for training or community service even if they want it. The money simply does not exist.
Conclusion
Beyond the lack of resources discussed above, the wise blind men must grapple with several national welfare reform questions that still have not been clearly defined. A major issue for tribal colleges is whether school can be counted as work. The law requires that 30 percent of all welfare recipients across the board be engaged in "work activities" by the end of September 1998. It is not clear whether training or school is going to be an allowable activity in many instances. To partially address this question, the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Health and Human Services Department wrote to colleges last September saying that TANF clients can satisfy the work requirement IF they are involved in the Federal Work Study Program while enrolled in college. Tribal colleges, however, never have had enough funds for many work study positions.
It is also not clear where the Bureau of Indian Affairs General Assistance (BIA) program is going to fit into the picture. Theoretically, as newly eligible General Assistance clients are transferred to the state TANF program, the need for General Assistance from the BIA will be reduced. Consequently the budget will be reduced. However, TANF serves as the gateway program, and people sanctioned (removed) from TANF are not eligible for General Assistance.
There has been publicity lately about waivers of the time requirements for the TANF welfare program. These generally have been misrepresented. They only apply to areas with over 50 percent unemployment and will not apply until the end of the first 60 month period, over four years from now. In the meantime, some of the more unworkable aspects of TANF will become evident.
In summary, the following points can still be made about welfare reform:
- The worst is yet to come.
- There will be little effective training or community service.
- No one can say definitively what is going to happen to the children of Indian welfare clients if their parents are removed from welfare because they do not or cannot comply with the law's requirements.
James Shanley has been with the tribal college movement for 25 years, including 15 years as president of Fort Peck Community College. He earned his doctorate in education administration from the University of North Dakota.