legislation

House Unemployment Benefits Proposal Does Not Provide Any Resources, Just Restrictions

/ The Old Crank

In media coverage of the debate over the UI extension, some reports have highlighted statements made by House Republicans suggesting that their proposal somehow contains “resources” or “tools” of some kind to help those without diplomas or GEDs attain those credentials and get back to work.

This was a point made by Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY) during an exchange with Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) during a meeting of the House and Senate conferees who are meeting to negotiate a final bill to extend UI benefits for rest of the year. (You can read the entire exchange here, by the way.)

Here is the quote the Press & Sun-Bulletin of Binghamton, New York, pulled from that exchange:

New York Republican Rep. Tom Reed, of Corning, a member of the conference committee working on a final deal on the tax cut and jobless benefits legislation, said he supports requiring that people have a high school diploma or at least begin working on a GED while receiving unemployment benefits.

“We really need to talk about not just giving a check,” Reed said. “We need to give the tools to American folks so they can get back to work.” (my emphasis)

This is similar to the claim made by Rep. Camp when he originally introduced this proposal. The GED/high school diploma requirement, he said, was “a commonsense reform” designed to “get [the unemployed] the training and resources they need to move from an unemployment check to a paycheck.” (my emphasis)

This is nonsense. There is nothing in the House proposal that provides any resources whatsoever for addition training or adult education. All the House proposal does is cut off benefits to those who have been steadily working without GEDs or High School diplomas, until they earn one. There is no additional funding or any other resources being provided to help those workers obtain such a credential. Or ny other training or education opportunity. And, as has been documented elsewhere, there are around 160,000 people people already on waiting lists for adult education services in federally-funded programs alone.

In other words, this is a proposal to yank benefits away from workers who are otherwise qualified to receive them—not an investment in their skills. As I wrote earlier, all this proposal would do, at best, is increase the demand for adult education while providing no new resources for adult education classes, leaving many laid off workers with no way to meet the requirements imposed by the restriction.

Tim Noah: GED/High School Diploma Requirement for UI “Still A Bad Idea”

/ The Old Crank

A colleague pointed out to me this morning that Timothy Noah at the New Republic has been writing about the proposal to ban unemployed workers without a high school diploma or GED from collecting unemployment benefits since the House proposed this idea back in December. Here is an excerpt from his original post on the subject, from December 19th:

The GED requirement, on the other hand, is a new way to communicate that if you lack a job you must be deficient. Now don’t get me wrong. I’m as concerned as the next guy about the fact that the high school graduation rate hasn’t increased in decades. If you don’t have a high school diploma, or a GED, you’re going to have a very difficult time getting a job. But if someone is collecting unemployment who lacks either of these things we know that person managed to get a job in spite of this educational deficit–otherwise he or she wouldn’t be on unemployment. To require this person to enroll in a GED program as a condition of collecting benefits is in essence to say that you had no business being in the labor force to begin with. I can imagine that it might pose all sorts of practical problems simultaneously to start a GED program, look for a job, and jump through all the other hoops you need to to shake your unemployment check free from the state bureaucracy. Wouldn’t it make more sense to focus on getting yourself a job, and then enroll, if circumstances allow, in a GED program?

If you’re employed, have no high school diploma or GED, and aren’t enrolled in a GED program, you don’t get to opt out of the unemployment insurance program. You can’t tell your boss, “Hey, give that money to me, not to the state, because I don’t have a GED and I don’t intend to get one even if I lose my job.” You just pay into the insurance pool just like everyone else… I’m not suggesting that high school dropouts… be given such an opt-out; obviously that would undermine the solvency of the state unemployment insurance fund (which is probably pretty shaky to begin with). What I’m saying is that it’s unfair to impose conditions on drawing from an unemployment insurance fund that don’t exist when you’re paying into it. And it opens the gates wide to imposing all sorts of other petty conditions whose real purpose would be to further stigmatize and humiliate people whose sole offense to society is that they once had a job and then lost it. (my emphasis)

I agreee with the point I highlighted in first paragraph—but I think it’s worse than he describes. The other hoop you’d have to jump through is proving that you are in the right kind of class and that you are making “satisfactory progress” since the House proposal doesn’t define either. (See my post here.)

Here is Noah’s latest on this subject, from February 1st.

Update on Pell “Ability to Benefit” Students

/ The Old Crank

(Updated Below)

On December 15th, I wrote about a provision that was included in the House version of the FY 2012 omnibus appropriation package that proposed to eliminate Pell grant eligibility for students without high school diplomas (known as “ability to benefit,” or ATB students).

Unfortunately, this provision was included in the final package that was passed at the end of the year. In my earlier post I mentioned that I did not have a current estimate of the number of people without high school credentials who attend postsecondary education—and I still don’t—but in a letter sent on December 6th by the Campaign to Invest in America’s Workforce to the Senate Appropriations Committee, they included an estimate of the number of ATB students who until recently were eligible for Pell Grants: approximately 100,000.

If you are interested in this subject I recommend reading the enitre letter; here is the section regarding ATB:

Unfortunately, the House FY 2012 Labor‐H draft bill contains a number of permanent programmatic changes that will wash out the path to postsecondary credentials, making it harder for these individuals to achieve the American dream, including:

  • Eliminates access to Pell Grants for “ability‐to‐benefit” students. Current law permits individuals without a high school diploma or equivalent to qualify for Pell Grants by completing an “ability to benefit” test or by successfully completing six credits towards a certificate or degree. This option is particularly important for low‐skilled individuals participating in “career pathways” programs, which have proven effective and efficient in combining basic adult education with occupational training to allow participants to more quickly earn industry‐recognized credentials necessary to find good jobs and progress in their careers. The House bill would completely eliminate access to Pell Grants for approximately 100,000 individuals who rely on this provision each year, while generating minimal savings.

UPDATE 3/20/12: For those of you who have stumbled upon this article looking for more detailed information about the changes, this article, published by Inside Higher Ed today, is a good primer on both the changes and the issues they present for students and institutions.

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.