In 2011, Maine passed legislation proposed by Republican Gov. Paul LePage that put a 60-month time limit on welfare benefits.
The Shumlin administration proposed an identical cap for Vermont’s family welfare program in January.
But a study by a Maine university and a nonprofit group released this month questions the benefits of enforcing such a cap. It surveyed and interviewed 54 of the families that lost their Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits. The report concludes that Maine families are facing “severe hardships” as a result, and it questions the efficacy of the law’s safeguards for disabled people.
The study was sponsored by Maine Equal Justice Partners and carried out by Sandra Butler, a professor of Social Work at the University of Maine.
Dave Yacavone, the commissioner of the Department for Children and Families, said the study hasn’t led him to second-guess the administration’s proposal. But Yacavone did point to one finding that, he said, is a lesson for the department as it irons out its plan to limit Reach Up benefits.
Maine’s law includes a “hardship extension” to exempt people with disabilities that prevent them from working. But the study suggests that a large percentage of families that were eligible for the “hardship extension” did not, in fact, receive it.
Thirty-nine percent of the people surveyed — all of whom had lost assistance — reported having a disability that made it difficult for them to work. The study concludes, “it is surprising that such a high percentage of people with disabilities appeared in this survey,” given the safeguard against that potentiality embedded in law.
The report notes that a “surprisingly small minority of families” — 26 percent — received the exemption in the first place. “One in four (25.9%) respondents reported that they did not understand they could apply for an extension; many of those who did know reported that they were discouraged by a DHHS worker from applying for one,” according to the study.
The Vermont Department for Children and Families also has plans to exempt families who can’t work due to a disability. The department has identified 867 families that have been on Reach Up for more than 36 months but could qualify for an exemption.
“The lesson to be learned is to study what they [Maine] did and make sure our capacity to grant exemptions is flexible,” Yacavone said.
After reviewing the range of exemptions Maine allows, Yacavone said he considered them “fairly comprehensive.”
But, he added, “The question is how they manage it.” Yacavone said DCF plans to dispatch case managers to help eligible families apply for the exemption.
Maine offers permanent exemptions for child-only cases and children with single parents who receive SSI benefits and several other categories. Families can also receive temporary exemptions due to disability, pregnancy, job loss, domestic violence, among other reasons.
The study showed that employment levels increased by 7 percent among families that lost TANF benefits. But the increase, the study said, was not “statistically significant.”
Christopher Curtis, an attorney with Vermont Legal Aid who has been an outspoken critic of the Shumlin administration’s proposed Reach Up program cuts, said the finding “really ends the fantasy that people who lose their temporary assistance are just going to go out and get jobs.”
Yacavone countered, that finding isn’t relevant for Vermont. “For folks to point to this report and say our policy will also fail, assumes we will replicate what Maine did,” he said.
Shumlin’s proposal includes a number of safeguards that weren’t included in Maine’s law, according to Yacavone. “We are recommending significant child-care assistance. Maine did not. We are recommending ongoing case management and substance and drug abuse treatment. Maine did not,” Yacavone said.
These two programs, Curtis said, are “cold comfort for people who are going to lose their assistance.” He said not everyone in the Reach Up program will benefit from the administration’s proposed expansion of childcare subsidies. Many beneficiaries face other barriers to employment such as a lack of transportation.
Maine is an especially pertinent case study for DCF to consider, according to Curtis. “What’s telling is that we are dealing with similar populations, similar issues, and the fallout in the state of Maine is just tragic,” he said.
In Maine, about 1,500 families, including 2,700 children, were kicked off the program in the four and a half months following the implementation of the time limit in June 2012. In Vermont 1,188 families would lose their benefits when the cap kicks in, including 2,400 children.
