adult literacy

Georgia Senators Introduce Legislation to Require Food Stamp Recipients to Participate in Educational Activities

/ The Old Crank

In December, a group of state Senators in Georgia introduced legislation that would mandate participation in “personal growth activities” for those otherwise eligible for food stamps to retain eligibility. The language is vague about what constitutes a “personal growth activity,” so on the face of it, this requirement doesn’t appear to be as difficult to meet as, for example, the education requirement being considered by the House of Representatives in their UI extension proposal.

I have no idea whether this bill is likely to become law. But it’s interesting to keep track of proposals like this, i.e. proposals to link eligibility for certain government benefits programs with participation in adult education activities.

Here is the full text of the proposed amendment (the new language is underlined):

SECTION 1.

Chapter 4 of Title 49 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to public assistance, is amended in Article 1, relating to general provisions, by adding a new Code section to read as follows:

“49-4-20.

(a) In order to be eligible for food stamps, an applicant shall engage in personal growth activities, which may include, but not be limited to, working toward a general educational development (GED) diploma, if not a high school graduate; pursuing technical education; attending self-development classes; and enrolling in an adult literacy class.

(b) The department shall promulgate rules and regulations to implement the requirements of this Code section.

(c) This Code section shall not apply to an applicant who is employed at least 40 hours per week.

(d) The commissioner may, by regulation, waive or alter the requirements of this Code section for cases or situations in which the commissioner finds that compliance with the requirements would be oppressive or inconsistent with the purposes of this article.“

The bill also amends a section of Title 49 related to TANF administration, so that “personal growth activities” programs are included in the “personal responsibility obligations” required of TANF recipients, and, similar to the provision above, adds “working toward a general educational development (GED) diploma, if not a high school graduate; pursuing technical education; attending self-development classes; and enrolling in an adult literacy class” as examples of such acitvities. I’m not familiar enough with Georgia TANF administration to know whether that language would be likely to support more TANF recipients to enroll in adult education.

More Dangers in House UI Extension Proposal

/ The Old Crank

Last week, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) issued a new report on a bill that the House passed in December (H.R. 3630) to extend the Social Security payroll tax cut and extend unemployment insurance (UI). One of the provisions in that bill would have denied UI benefits to workers without a high school diploma or GED. Congress eventually passed a two-month payroll tax cut and UI extension bill without any restrictions, but it is expected that Republicans in the House are going to push to include many of the provisions in their bill to be included in any legislation to extend the payroll tax cut and UI through the end of this year.

Adult education advocates have been focused on the GED/High School Diploma requirement in SEC. 2122 of that bill, as noted above. (You can read why this is such a bad idea in an earlier CBPP paper here.) Reading CBPP’s latest paper, it appears to me that the state waiver provisions in that bill should also be of concern to adult education advocates, assuming they are proposed again.

Under SEC. 2123 of H.R. 3630, up to 10 states could apply for waivers that would exempt them from key federal requirements for state UI systems, so that they may conduct “demonstration projects” designed either to “expedite the reemployment of individuals” or “improve the effectiveness of a State in carrying out its State law with respect to reemployment.” Specifically, they could obtain waivers from these critical requirements:

  1. Section 3304(a)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, which requires that “all money withdrawn from the unemployment fund of the State shall be used solely in the payment of unemployment compensation, exclusive of expenses of administration.”
  2. Paragraph (1) of section 303(a) of the Social Security Act, which requires that state methods of administration to be” reasonably calculated to insure full payment of unemployment compensation when due.”
  3. Paragraph (5) of section 303(a) of the Social Security Act, which, again, requires the expenditure of all money withdrawn from a state unemployment fund to be used in the payment of unemployment compensation, exclusive of expenses of administration.

The CBPP paper offers a strong overall critique of these waiver requirements which I encourage you to read. Here are the two specific areas of concern I see from an adult education policy and advocacy perspective:

First, a waiver of the first requirement above would allow states to collect unemployment taxes from employers and then turn around and use those funds for purposes other than paying out UI benefits. I agree with CBPP that this “would start the UI system down a slippery slope that would alter its fundamental nature.” But I can also imagine demonstration projects funded through these waivers that provide new adult education and job training opportunities. (CBPP suggests that as a possibility in their paper.) Since these programs provide unemployed people with skills that should improve their employment prospects, this might seem like a reasonable idea, especially during good times, when states may have a surplus of UI funds (i.e. low unemployment, so more money is going into the system then is going out in the form of benefits). A new source of funding for adult education and job training is always tantalizing.

But it will be just as tempting for legislators to divert those funds elsewhere. How would they able to do this? As the authors of CBPP’s paper explain, the House proposal would “enable states to replace state or local funds now used for job training or other such purposes with diverted UI funds and then to shift the withdrawn funds to other uses.” CBPP suggests tax cuts, and I think that sounds pretty realistic. In other words, the fear is that states will cut their current expenditures on adult education or job training, replace that money with funds from their Unemployment Trust Fund, and take the money they cut and spend it on whatever they like—including tax cuts. This would result in a zero net gain in adult education or job training resources.

It also seems to me that using UI funds for other purposes might significantly destabilize a state’s UI system. If state Unemployment Trust Fund dollars are allowed to be used in part for other purposes—even good ones—what assurances are there that sufficient funds will be available for benefits when the economy goes into a downturn and UI benefit claims soar? During bad times, with less UI tax revenue coming in, and more workers applying for benefits, will we be facing a “bankrupt” UI system that can’t pay out the benefits that workers have earned? Will states then be more inclined to cut benefit levels and/or reduce the number of weeks one can collect benefits?

My second concern has to do with language in SEC. 2123 that may allow states to impose their own new eligibility requirements. The authors of the CBPP paper argue that by allowing states to waive the requirements described above, states will also, by implication, no longer be bound by the definition of “compensation” in Section 3304 of the Internal Revenue Code. This definition basically restricts states from defining eligibility for UI compensation outside of conditions related to their unemployment. According to CBPP, the waivers would allow states “to condition receipt of benefits on factors unrelated to workers’ having amassed a sufficient work record, having become unemployed due to no fault of their own, and looking for a new job.” (my emphasis) This would open the door for states to impose new eligibility requirements and restrictions of their own—such as requiring UI recipients to have a high school diploma or GED.

In other words, these “demonstration project” waivers contained in the House bill could be a backdoor way for states to impose the same educational eligibility requirements that the House would like to impose at the federal level.

So it seems equally important to argue against these state waiver provisions as well as the GED/High School Diploma requirement contained in SEC. 2122. If SEC. 2122 is stripped from whatever bill emerges, but the waiver language remains, it appears that some states would be able to go move forward with similar eligibility restrictions—or worse.

Update on UI Extension Proposal

/ The Old Crank

A few weeks ago I wrote about a House proposal that would deny UI benefits to workers without a high school diploma or GED unless they were enrolled and making progress in a course of study designed to lead to a GED or another “state-recognized equivalent.” Congress eventually passed a two-month payroll tax cut and UI extension bill without this restriction, but I can’t think of any reason why House Republicans will not try to re-introduce this idea when they begin negotiations on a full-year UI extension later this month.

Yesterday afternoon I was encouraged to see that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has issued a paper on this issue and posted an article by Robert Greenstein strongly condemning the idea. Greenstein calls it “appalling even by current Washington standards.”

Greenstein’s piece, posted on CBPP’s Off the Charts blog, explains the basic injustice of the proposal:

The proposal would deny UI benefits to hundreds of thousands of workers — many of them middle-aged — who have worked hard, played by the rules, and effectively paid UI taxes for years and who then were laid off due to no fault of their own.

This would violate the basic compact that the UI system has embodied since its creation under President Roosevelt in 1935 — that people who have amassed a sufficient record of work, and on whose behalf UI taxes have faithfully been paid, may receive UI benefits for a temporary period if they are laid off and are searching for a new job.

Greenstein and the other authors of the CBPP report also make a good point that I did not consider in my original analysis: the new restriction would impact large numbers of older laid-off workers (according to CBPP, in 2010, half a million workers age 50 or over who received unemployment insurance lacked a high school diploma), and that for most of these workers, returning to high school or studying for a GED makes little sense.

They go on to note, as I did, that there are not nearly enough classes available in the U.S. right now to meet the current demand for adult education classes.

But as I wrote earlier, my view is that the bill that was introduced in December (H.R. 3630) would also deny UI benefits to some workers even if they are enrolled in adult education, because the bill required that those without a diploma or GED would have to be enrolled specifically in classes “leading to satisfaction” towards a diploma or a GED. This would appear to exclude those at very low literacy levels, who, even if enrolled in adult education, typically do not have the skills to enroll in GED or high-school level courses.

The bill also required more than just enrollment—it required workers to demonstrate “satisfactory progress” towards a diploma or GED without articulating how “satisfactory progress” was to be demonstrated. Again, I think the ambiguity and confusion that would result on how to do this would likely place even those fortunate enough to be enrolled in adult education at risk of being denied benefits.

CBPP also agrees with my assessment that the waiver language in H.R. 3630 was vague and inadequate. I think this point is going to be crucially important as the debate goes forward—I can easily envision lawmakers pointing to the availability of the waiver as justification for approving the restriction.

It’s encouraging to see CBPP attack this ill-conceived idea so vigorously. I am concerned, as I have written previously, that this proposal is just one example of an increasing effort to deny benefits and resources to undereducated, low-income adults.

California Continues Disinvestment in Adult Literacy

/ The Old Crank

As expected, California’s latest revenue expectations were short of what was needed to prevent automatic state spending cuts to to libraries, universities and schools for 2012, including $15 million in library funding.

Last Saturday, the Napa Valley Register reported that The Literacy Center of Napa City-County Library would be losing all of its state funding (about about $48,000). While this will not result in the closing of the center, it does represent a total withdrawal of state support for library-based community adult education in the county.

The Literacy Center coordinator Lisa Smartt, who has worked in literacy for 30 years, said she and her colleagues have watched in disbelief as funding for their special literacy programs has continued to shrink.

“We’ve been shaking our heads,” Smartt said. “We never thought we would see this.”

The State Library has been the main source of funding for the library’s Literacy Center since 1985. The bulk of the funding paid for the workbooks and other materials used by the center.

The Literacy Center, located inside the Napa City-County Library, offers free one-on-one tutoring for adult learners who need help with their basic reading, English as a second language, GED preparation or math skills. These learners include native speakers, students learning English as a second language, the learning-disabled and others who “just fell through the cracks,” Smartt said.

“In these difficult economic times, more people have been using the Literacy Center to improve their job skills,” Kreimeier said, adding that the center receives numerous referrals from Workforce Napa.

For the Literacy Center to remain open, Smartt will have to find more creative ways to secure funding.

Fundraising is a challenge for the Literacy Center because, as a government agency, it can’t compete with Napa’s nonprofits for local grants. This limits the center to seeking support from private donors as well as state and federal grant programs — which often have a wide pool of applicants.

To maintain a robust program, the Literacy Center requires about $60,000 per year. This does not include the salaries of its three staff members, which are supported by the county, Smartt said. Currently, the center is operating on less than $30,000 per year.

Smartt is trying to look at the positive side of the budget cuts. The “blessing” in all of this, she said, is “we get to reinvent ourselves.”

The Literacy Center will be shifting its focus to one-on-one literacy services at the library — specifically GED preparation and employability tutoring. Almost all of the general outreach programs will be eliminated, including Families for Literacy, Homework Assistance, and the jails program where literacy tutors worked one-on-one with inmates.

I appreciate the positive thinking that one must maintain when faced with the elimination of a major funding source. But it’s also clear from the last paragraph that cutting services—including family literacy services and services to inmates—is part of that reinvention.

According to the paper, Smartt believes that “any country that wants to remain competitive should make literacy a top priority.” The question is whether policymakers in California and elsewhere actually believe this—and if not, why not?