Search Penny Hill Press

Friday, March 1, 2013

Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female- Headed Families with Children: 1987-2011



Thomas Gabe
Specialist in Social Policy

Sixteen years have passed since repeal of what was the nation’s major cash welfare program assisting low-income families with children, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, and its replacement with a block grant of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). This report focuses on trends in the economic well-being of female-headed families with children, the principal group affected by the replacement of AFDC with TANF. Female-headed families and their children are especially at risk of poverty, and children in such families account for well over half of all poor children in the United States. For these reasons, single female-headed families continue to be of particular concern to policymakers. The report details trends in income and poverty status of these families, prior and subsequent to enactment of the 1996 welfare reform law and other policy changes. The report focuses especially on welfare dependency and work engagement among single mothers, a major dynamic that welfare reform and accompanying policy changes have attempted to affect. It also examines the role of programs other than TANF in providing support to single female-headed families with children.

CRS analysis of 25 years of U.S. Census Bureau data shows that there has been a dramatic transformation with regard to welfare, work, and poverty status of single mothers. The period has seen a marked structural change in the provision of benefits under a number of programs that contribute to the fabric of the nation’s “income safety net.” In turn, single mothers’ behavior has changed markedly over the period; more mothers are working and fewer are relying on cash welfare to support themselves and their children.

In the years immediately preceding 1996 welfare reform, and in the years since, the nation’s income safety net has been transformed into one supporting work. Cash-welfare work requirements, the end of cash welfare as an open-ended entitlement by limiting the duration that individuals may receive federally funded benefits, and expanded earnings and family income supplements administered through the federal income tax system have helped to change the dynamics between work and welfare. The transformed system has helped to both reduce single mothers’ reliance on traditional cash welfare and reduce poverty among their children.

Poverty under the official U.S. poverty measure, which is based on pre-tax cash income, shows that since 2000, which marked an historical low, the poverty rate among single mothers has increased in step with two recessions. In 2011, the official poverty rate for single mothers, at a post-2000 high, was still well below pre-1996 welfare reform levels, largely due to single mothers’ increased work. Using a more comprehensive income definition than that used by the official poverty measure indicates that the increase in poverty among single mothers and their children over the past 11 years has been substantially mitigated by Food Stamp/SNAP benefits and work-related refundable tax credits—benefits not captured by the “official” poverty measure. Among other actions taken in response to the recession, Congress increased SNAP benefits and extended the reach of refundable tax credits. Use of an expanded income poverty measure that includes these benefits highlights effects of congressional action that helped reduce child poverty amidst, and subsequent to, the most severe recession since the Great Depression.

The role of work-conditioned benefits, and the provision of traditional cash welfare, will likely come under increased attention given the slow pace of economic recovery, the federal and state budget deficits, and a dearth of jobs.



Date of Report: January 9, 2013
Number of Pages: 117
Order Number: R41917
Price: $29.95

To Order:



e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.


Small Business Mentor-Protégé Programs



Robert Jay Dilger
Senior Specialist in American National Government

Kate M. Manuel
Legislative Attorney


Mentor-protégé programs typically seek to pair new businesses with more experienced businesses in mutually beneficial relationships. Protégés may receive financial, technical, or management assistance from mentors in obtaining and performing federal contracts or subcontracts, or serving as suppliers under such contracts or subcontracts. Mentors may receive credit toward subcontracting goals, reimbursement of certain expenses, or other incentives.

The federal government currently has several mentor-protégé programs to assist small businesses in various ways. For example, the 8(a) Mentor-Protégé Program is a government-wide program designed to assist small businesses “owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals” that are participating in the Small Business Administration’s (SBA’s) Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership Development Program (commonly known as the 8(a) program) in obtaining and performing federal contracts. Toward that end, mentors may (1) form joint ventures with protégés that are eligible to perform federal contracts set aside for small businesses; (2) make certain equity investments in protégé firms; (3) lend or subcontract to protégé firms; and (4) provide technical or management assistance to their protégés. The Department of Defense (DOD) Mentor-Protégé Program, in contrast, is agency-specific. It is designed to assist various types of small businesses and other entities in obtaining and performing DOD subcontracts and serving as suppliers on DOD contracts. Mentors may (1) make advance or progress payments to their protégés that DOD reimburses; (2) award subcontracts to their protégés on a noncompetitive basis when they would not otherwise be able to do so; (3) lend money to or make investments in protégé firms; and (4) provide or arrange for other assistance.

Other agencies also have agency-specific mentor-protégé programs designed to assist various types of small businesses or other entities in obtaining and performing subcontracts under agency prime contracts. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for example, has a mentorprotégé program wherein mentors may provide protégés with rent-free use of facilities or equipment, temporary personnel for training, property, loans, or other assistance. Because these programs are not based in statute, unlike the SBA and DOD programs, they generally rely upon preexisting authorities (e.g., authorizing use of evaluation factors) or publicity to incentivize mentor participation. See Table A-1 for a summary comparison. Although there are some issues with the accuracy and thoroughness of some federal agency records, there are currently more than 1,100 mentor-protégé agreements in place.

Congressional interest in small business mentor-protégé programs has increased in recent years, in part because of reports that large businesses serving as mentors have improperly received federal contracting assistance intended for small businesses. During the 112
th Congress, P.L. 112- 81, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, extended the DOD Mentor- Protégé Program through FY2015 for the formation of new agreements, and FY2018 for the reimbursement of incurred costs under existing agreements. Also, P.L. 112-239, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, authorizes the SBA to establish a mentor-protégé program for all small businesses, and generally prohibits agencies from carrying out mentorprotégé programs that have not been approved by the SBA. The 111th Congress had previously enacted legislation (P.L. 111-240) authorizing the SBA to establish mentor-protégé programs for small businesses owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans, owned and controlled by women, and small businesses located in a HUBZone, which the SBA has been in the process of doing.


Date of Report: January 18, 2013
Number of Pages: 27
Order Number: R41722
Price: $29.95

To Order:


R41722.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.


The Housing Trust Fund: Background and Issues



Katie Jones
Analyst in Housing Policy

On July 30, 2008, President George W. Bush signed into law the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-289), which included the establishment of a national Housing Trust Fund. In general, affordable housing trust funds provide dedicated, permanent sources of funding for affordable housing that do not require annual appropriations. Several states and many localities across the United States already have their own affordable housing trust funds, and for years affordable housing advocates had worked to get such a fund created on a national level. Opponents of a national affordable housing trust fund argued that it would be duplicative of other affordable housing programs.

The Housing Trust Fund created by P.L. 110-289 would provide formula-based grants to states to use for affordable housing activities. By statute, most of the funding would have to be used for rental housing; states could use up to 10% of their grants for homeownership activities. Furthermore, all of the funds would have to benefit very low- or extremely low-income households, with at least 75% of the funding for rental housing being used exclusively for the benefit of extremely low-income households.

P.L. 110-289 directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to annually contribute a percentage of the dollar volume of mortgages that they purchased to the Housing Trust Fund as the fund’s dedicated funding source. However, the law also gave the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), Fannie’s and Freddie’s regulator, the authority to suspend those contributions if he determined that they were contributing to financial trouble at the agencies. On September 7, 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed in conservatorship, and in November 2008, the director of FHFA suspended their contributions to the Housing Trust Fund. The Fund had not yet received any funding at the time the contributions were suspended, and has not received any other funding to date. Without a funding source, the Housing Trust Fund is not yet operational.

It is unclear whether contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the Housing Trust Fund will ever be reinstated, and advocates have begun searching for a new source of funds for the program. Several pieces of legislation have been introduced in recent Congresses to fund the Housing Trust Fund. Legislation has also been introduced in recent Congresses to eliminate the Housing Trust Fund entirely. However, none of this legislation to either fund or eliminate the Housing Trust Fund has been enacted to date. A brief legislative history of efforts to establish a national affordable housing trust fund prior to 2008 is included as an appendix.



Date of Report: January 11, 2013
Number of Pages: 13
Order Number: R40781
Price: $29.95

To Order:


R40781.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.


The “8(a) Program” for Small Businesses Owned and Controlled by the Socially and Economically Disadvantaged: Legal Requirements and Issues



Kate M. Manuel
Legislative Attorney

John R. Luckey
Legislative Attorney


Commonly known as the “8(a) Program,” the Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership Development Program is one of several federal contracting programs for small businesses. The 8(a) Program provides participating small businesses with training, technical assistance, and contracting opportunities in the form of set-asides and sole-source awards. A “set-aside” is an acquisition in which only certain contractors may compete, while a sole-source award is a contract awarded, or proposed for award, without competition. In FY2011, the federal government spent $16.7 billion on contracts and subcontracts with 8(a) firms. Other programs provide similar assistance to other types of small businesses (e.g., women-owned, HUBZone).

Eligibility for the 8(a) Program is generally limited to small businesses “unconditionally owned and controlled by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals who are of good character and citizens of the United States” that demonstrate “potential for success.” Each of these terms is further defined by the Small Business Act, regulations promulgated by the Small Business Administration (SBA), and judicial and administrative decisions.

A “business” is generally a for-profit entity that has a place of business located in the United States and operates primarily within the United States or makes a significant contribution to the U.S. economy by paying taxes or using American products, materials, or labor. A business is “small” if it is independently owned and operated; is not dominant in its field of operations; and meets any definitions or standards established by the Administrator of Small Business. Ownership is “unconditional” when it is not subject to any conditions precedent or subsequent, executory agreements, or similar limitations. “Control” is not the same as ownership and includes both strategic policy setting and day-to-day administration of business operations.

Members of certain racial and ethnic groups are presumed to be socially disadvantaged, although individuals who do not belong to these groups may prove they are also socially disadvantaged. To be economically disadvantaged, an individual must have a net worth of less than $250,000 (excluding ownership in the 8(a) firm and equity in one’s primary residence) at the time of entry into the 8(a) Program. This amount increases to $750,000 for continuing eligibility. In determining whether an applicant has good character, SBA looks for criminal conduct, violations of SBA regulations, or current debarment or suspension from federal contracting. For a firm to have demonstrated “potential for success,” it generally must have been in business in the field of its primary industry classification for at least two years immediately prior to applying to the 8(a) Program. However, small businesses owned by Indian tribes, Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs), Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs), and Community Development Corporations (CDCs) are eligible for the 8(a) Program under somewhat different terms.

The 8(a) Program has periodically been challenged on the grounds that the presumption that members of certain racial and ethnic groups are disadvantaged violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. The outcomes in early challenges to the program varied, with some courts finding that plaintiffs lacked standing because they were not economically disadvantaged. Most recently, a federal district court found that the program is not unconstitutional on its face because “breaking down barriers to minority business development created by discrimination” constituted a compelling government interest, and the government had a strong basis in evidence for concluding that race-based action was necessary to further this interest. However, the court found that the program was unconstitutional as applied in the military simulation and training industry because there was no evidence of public- or private-sector discrimination in this industry.



Date of Report: January 4, 2013
Number of Pages: 33
Order Number: R40744
Price: $29.95

To Order:


R40744.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.


Preserving Homeownership: Foreclosure Prevention Initiatives



Katie Jones
Analyst in Housing Policy

The foreclosure rate in the United States began to rise rapidly beginning around the middle of 2006 and has remained elevated ever since. Losing a home to foreclosure can hurt homeowners in many ways; for example, homeowners who have been through a foreclosure may have difficulty finding a new place to live or obtaining a loan in the future. Furthermore, concentrated foreclosures can drag down nearby home prices, and large numbers of abandoned properties can negatively affect communities. Finally, the increase in foreclosures may destabilize the housing market, which could in turn negatively impact the economy as a whole.

There is a broad consensus that there are many negative consequences associated with rising foreclosure rates. Since the foreclosure rate began to rise, Congress and both the Bush and Obama Administrations have initiated efforts aimed at preventing further increases in foreclosures and helping more families preserve homeownership. These efforts currently include the Making Home Affordable program, which includes both the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP) and the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP); the Hardest Hit Fund; the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Short Refinance Program; and the National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program (NFMCP), which provides funding for counseling for homeowners facing foreclosure and is administered by NeighborWorks America. Two other initiatives, Hope for Homeowners and the Emergency Homeowners Loan Program (EHLP), expired at the end of FY2011.

While there is a broad consensus that there are many negative consequences related to foreclosures, there is less consensus over whether the federal government should have a role in preventing foreclosures and, if so, what that role should be. Furthermore, many existing federal foreclosure prevention initiatives have been criticized as being ineffective. This has led some policymakers to suggest that changes should be made to these initiatives to try to make them more effective, while other policymakers have argued that some of these initiatives should be eliminated entirely. In the 112
th Congress, the House of Representatives passed a series of bills that, if enacted, would have terminated several foreclosure prevention initiatives. However, these bills were not considered by the Senate.

While many observers agree that slowing the pace of foreclosures is an important policy goal, there are several challenges associated with designing foreclosure prevention initiatives. These challenges include implementation issues, such as deciding who has the authority to make mortgage modifications, developing the capacity to complete widespread modifications, and assessing the possibility that homeowners with modified loans will default again in the future. Other challenges are related to the perception of unfairness in providing help to one set of homeowners over others, the problem of inadvertently providing incentives for borrowers to default, and the possibility of setting an unwanted precedent for future mortgage lending.

This report describes the consequences of foreclosure on homeowners, outlines foreclosure prevention initiatives implemented by the federal government in recent years, and discusses some of the challenges associated with foreclosure prevention.



Date of Report: January 11, 2013
Number of Pages: 56
Order Number: R40210
Price: $29.95

To Order:


R40210.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.