Frank O'Bannon on Families & Children Former Democratic IN Governor

Encourage fathers' participation in child-raising.

The Issue

NGA’s Position

Federal funds & state involvement in fatherhood initiatives.

The nation’s Governors recognize that governments at all levels can and should take immediate action including:
• providing additional education and information about the importance of fathers participating in raising their children;
• establishing a nongovernmental national clearinghouse to collect and disseminate information regarding responsible fatherhood;
• expanding efforts to prevent unintended and out-of-wedlock teen pregnancies;
• providing children with appropriate adult male role models, such as mentors, in the absence of a caring father;
• ensuring that young men are given opportunities to feel successful and valued, which will lead to the development of self-confidence and preparation for fatherhood;
• encouraging the involvement of the community, including the religious community, civic community, business community, and mentors in addressing the importance of father involvement;
• developing strategies that include both parents in activities focused on their children, such as training service providers and educators to include both parents in their service delivery;
• working with private employers and the education community to provide education and job training opportunities to unemployed, underemployed, and low-skilled fathers; and
• paternity establishment and child support enforcement efforts.

Any new federal funding stream designated for fatherhood initiatives should:
• support programs in states, at the discretion of each Governor, that encourage appropriate involvement of both parents in the life of a child, with priority given to programs that specifically address the issue of fatherhood;
• be coordinated with existing fatherhood programs, as well as with other federal funds that can be used for fatherhood initiatives, such as TANF; and
• not be funded at the expense of another vital human service program.

Maintain federal welfare funding for child support.

On behalf of the nation’s Governors, we are writing to express our opposition to cuts in the child support program as included in the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999. Notwithstanding the merit of the Independent Living program, we cannot support paying for the expansion of one human services program at the expense of the child support system.

However, we are greatly concerned that H.R. 1802 will have a detrimental impact on the stability of states’ child support financing structures. Child support provides a crucial income support for many families, a large number of whom are low-income and transitioning off of welfare. With the dramatic drop in welfare caseloads, a greater share of families now served by the child support system are those not connected to the welfare system. While the drop in caseloads translates to success in welfare, it creates financial instability for many states’ child support financing structures.

H.R. 1802 will repeal the “hold harmless” provision that was enacted as part of the 1996 welfare reform law to ensure that states did not experience a significant loss in child support funds as a result of a change in child support distribution rules. Governors view the proposed repeal of the “hold harmless” provision as another example of the gradual unraveling of the historic 1996 welfare reform agreement reached among Governors, Congress, and the administration. The repeal of the “hold harmless” provision in H.R. 1802 will only add to the instability of state child support enforcement systems.

The repeal of the “hold harmless” provision will cut federal funding to states’ child support programs by at least $320 million over five years and will result in some states facing great difficulties in achieving the ultimate goal of the child support system - to get more money in the hands of families.

Keep TANF program focused on family welfare, not other tasks.

The nation’s Governors have serious concerns with recent proposals to expand the use of TANF funds beyond the original intent of the statute. The TANF block grant was at the heart of the 1996 welfare reform agreement and we strongly oppose attempts to use welfare-related funds to pay for other federal programs.

Specifically, the House budget resolution anticipates that states will be given additional flexibility to use unspent TANF funds for educational purposes, such as school construction and hiring teachers. Notwithstanding the merit of these initiatives, designating welfare funds for such programs is clearly beyond the original purposes of TANF. We caution you that an expansion of flexibility outside the scope of TANF sets a dangerous precedent of violating the original purposes established as part of welfare reform agreement, [which states] that the purpose of TANF is to:
1. provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives;
2. end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage;
3. prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and
4. encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.