Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Jan Rossier, director of the Parent Child Center at Northeast Kingdom Community Action.
I am a director of a Parent Child Center that offers an array of services designed to support families receiving Reach Up and that works with them on a daily basis providing support around job skills, job coaching, strengthening soft skills and resume building, as well as providing educational support to obtain a high school diploma or GED. Our center also works closely with employers and the housing world, as well as provides some transportation. It takes these supports to keep families moving forward. The administration’s proposal of cutting off services when the economic status of the state is bleak, at best, doesn’t seem like a well thought out plan.
Term limits may sound like good “tough love” politics, however it is not good social policy and the true casualties of these politics will be Vermont’s children which comprise two-thirds of the Reach Up caseload. The Reach Up program has always had safeguards in place as a commitment to protect the most vulnerable of the vulnerable and that is the children of the parents in the program. The administration’s term limits proposal abandons that commitment.
Should Vermont’s children be put on the streets due to their parents’ battle with struggles of poverty in our poor economic climate?
Reach Up has had a successful track record in Vermont. About a third of the families receiving assistance actually receive their resources from a combination of employment and their Reach Up grant. Others pursue job skill enhancement or education in an effort to increase their skills with a goal of obtaining employment. When Vermont’s economy is good, the Reach Up caseload goes down; when the economy is bad, the caseload increases. Clearly the number of families seeking the support of the program is in direct correlation with the struggling economy.
Families generally are off the program within two years. The majority of those who stay on longer struggle with the following barriers:
· Employment competition (much higher during poor economic times)
· Lack of sufficient evening and weekend child care
· Multiple transportation issues
Some who find employment, lose it due to the lack of the above-mentioned supports and go back to the safety net until they can stabilize and regroup.
Should Vermont’s children be put on the streets due to their parents’ battle with struggles of poverty in our poor economic climate?
Regarding the concept of term limits saving money, I believe the administration is shortsighted here — the reality is that this will simply result in a cost shifting exercise and potentially end up costing far more. The number of homeless people will increase, the numbers of children in state custody will increase, the number of people incarcerated will increase … because the barriers have not been addressed.
Please remember Vermont has always believed in providing its residents a lifeline, especially its children. Let’s not lose them along the way due to a proposal that needs more thought.
I would hope the Legislature would kick back the current proposal for revision, request a committee to work on a reasonable and thought-out proposal developed in partnership with workers from the field, actual program recipients and resubmit a plan that is a win/win in the next legislative session.
