Social Services T Version 2

Georgetown 2009-10 ANTONUCCI
Opening T Salvo
INDEX
INDEX ........................................................................................................................ 1
violation –title xx: no unconditional assistance or welfare:.........................................3
VIOLATION: TITLE XX: GENERAL LIMIT........................................................................6
VIOLATION: TITLE XX: NO INCOME SUPPLEMENTS....................................................11
INCOME/SOCIAL SERVICE DISTINCTION EXTENSIONS...............................................14
excludes native american income assistance...........................................................17
EXCLUDES EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT.................................................................18
Title xx :MUST MEET ONE OF 5 GOALS.....................................................................19
social services: title XX KEY TO PRECISION/PREDICTABILITY....................................21
FULL TEXT OF DEFINITION OF SERVICES – FYI..........................................................23
EFFECTS VIOLATION – CAN’T MANDATE OTHER PARTIES: REGULATION/SOCIAL
SERVICE DISTINCTION..............................................................................................26
VIOLATION: 3-STEP PROCESS - must involve social workers....................................28
VIOLATION: HIERARCHY OF NEEDS T........................................................................30
VIOLATION: “SOCIAL” excludes HEALTH AND education – SOCIAL ROLES................31
social services T: EXCLUDES HEALTH, ED, HOUSING, INCOME.................................32
SOCIAL SERVICES EXCLUDES EDUCATION................................................................33
violation: excludes [most] medical care...................................................................34
health care t: medicare def extensions....................................................................37
SOCIAL SERVICES t: EXCLUDES FOOD STAMPS........................................................40
IMPACT EXT: BROAD DEFINITION OF SOCIAL SERVICES DESTROYS LIMITS..............41
IMPACT EXT: BROAD DEFINITION OF SOCIAL SERVICES DESTROYS POLICY..............43
a/t contextual evidence is enough: REDUCTION AD ABSURDUM..............................44
a/t definitions from other countries [look for suffix – uk, eu, etc.]............................45
a/t definitions from the uk........................................................................................47
A/T UN DEFINITION................................................................................................... 48
A/T YOUR INTERP IS ARBITRARY...............................................................................49
SERVICE T: EXCLUDES GOODS AND INCOME............................................................50
social service: broad STATUTORY DEFINITION..........................................................51
SOCIAL SERVICES: BROAD........................................................................................52
social services includes education............................................................................53
social services includes medicaid.............................................................................54
SOCIAL SERVICES INCLUDES HOUSING.....................................................................55
SOCIAL SERVICES INCLUDES FAMILY PLANNING: XX/SSBG.......................................56
SOCIAL SERVICES SHOULD BE DEFINED BROADLY...................................................57
SOCIAL SERVICES: BROAD IS STILL MEANINGFUL.....................................................58
A/T TITLE XX.............................................................................................................59
“FOR PERSONS LIVING IN POVERTY” VIOLATION......................................................60
FOR is a term of exclusion........................................................................................64
“for” – preposition impacts.......................................................................................65
defintions of “poverty”: us federal governmnet.......................................................66
POVERTY GUIDELINES UNIQUELY PREDICTABLE.......................................................67
resolutional context net benefit: poverty definition uses “persons in poverty”........69
POVERTY GUIDELINES MEANS TESTING: list of EXCLUSION......................................70
excludes veteran’s and social security.....................................................................71
some veteran’s affs meet [topical version of your case]..........................................72
FOR PERSONS IN POVERTY: EXCLUDES HOUSING, INCOME TAX credit....................73
excludes indian health services................................................................................74
1
Opening T Salvo
excludes community health centers.........................................................................75
A/T NO CASE MEETS: list of inclusion........................................................................76
[fyi] poverty guidelines means testing: list of inclusion...........................................77
[fyi chart] for persons in poverty: excludes .............................................................78
POVERTY THRESHOLD GRAPH..................................................................................81
POVERTY GUIDELINES ARE PRECISE: A/T PROGRAMMATIC VARIATION.....................82
a/t poverty threshold bad.........................................................................................83
a/t “blank” evidence.................................................................................................84
POVERTY GUIDELINES IMPRECISE: PROGRAM VARIATION........................................85
POVERTY THRESHOLDS AND GUIDELINES BAD:undercounting.................................86
POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD: CONSENSUS.................................................................87
poverty threshold bad: recant..................................................................................88
POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD: COMMODITY STANDARD..............................................89
poverty threshold bad: tax counting.........................................................................90
poverty threshold bad: cash income measurement.................................................91
POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD: HISTORICAL PROOF......................................................92
POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD: change over time.........................................................93
poverty threshold bad: politicized............................................................................94
POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD IMPACT: DESTROYS DEBATE.........................................95
POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD IMPACT: POLICY FAILURE..............................................97
BRADY COUNTERDEFINITION....................................................................................98
a/t brady definition is cultural...................................................................................99
a/t BRADY MEASURE IS IMprecisE: RELATIVE BETTER.............................................100
LINKS TO ABSOLUTE MEASURE BAD DA.................................................................103
2
Opening T Salvo
VIOLATION –TITLE XX: NO UNCONDITIONAL ASSISTANCE OR WELFARE:
A. THE LAW
1. TITLE XX LEGISLATIVE HISTORY MEANS THAT SOCIAL SERVICES MUST REDUCE WELFARE
DEPENDENCY
STEWART 78
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, WRITING FOR A UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT MAJORITY
QUERN, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AID OF ILLINOIS, ET AL. v. MANDLEY ET AL.
No. 76-1159
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
436 U.S. 725; 98 S. Ct. 2068; 56 L. Ed. 2d 658; 1978 U.S. LEXIS 101
And the declared purpose of the new Title XX social services program enacted in 1975, 42 U. S. C. §
1397 et seq. (1970 ed., Supp. V), was to "[encourage] each State, as far as practicable under the
conditions in that State, to furnish services directed at the goal of . . . achieving or maintaining
economic self-support to prevent, reduce, or eliminate dependency. . . ."
2. ELIMINATING DEPENDENCY IS HISTORICALLY THE CLEAREST DEFINING FEATURE OF

SOCIAL SERVICE
BLEDSOE ET AL 72
Productivity Management in the California Social Services Program
# Ralph C. Bledsoe, Dennis R. Denny, Charles D. Hobbs and Raymond S. Long
# Public Administration Review, Vol. 32, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 1972), pp. 799-803
Dr. Bledsoe earned his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in public administration from the University of Southern
California. He received his B.A. degree from Texas A. & M. College.
Dr. Bledsoe previously served as a manager and executive with the System Development Corp., a faculty
member and program director with the University of Southern California School of Public Administration, a
professor of Federal management at the Federal Executive Institute, and a member of the Federal
Government's Senior Executive Service.
B. VIOLATION – THE AFFIRMATIVE UNCONDITIONALLY GIVES ASSISTANCE WITHOUT TYING IT

TO SELF-SUFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS
3
Opening T Salvo
C. IMPACTS – VOTE NEGATIVE
1. PRECISION: SOCIAL SERVICES IS LEGISLATIVE TERM OF ART THAT REQUIRES UNIFORMITY

UNDER TITLE XX
STATE OF MICHIGAN TITLE XX SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT PLAN, 8
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dhs/DHS-SSBG-FY08-09_250475_7.pdf
STATE OF MICHIGAN, Department of Human Services, Administration for Budget, Analysis and
Financial Management
Section 2006 of Title XX of the Social Security Act directs the Secretary to establish uniform
definitions of services for use by the states in preparing the information to be submitted in the annual
Social Services Block Grant report. These services are defined in title 45, part 96, appendix A of the
code of federal regulations and are reflected in the state of Michigan's Title XX Social Services Block
Grant Report.
2. ONLY OUR INTERP SOLVES LIMITS - THE COMMON USE OF SOCIAL SERVICES CAN COVER
ANYTHING
PARHAM 82
Practice Issues in Social Welfare Administration, Policy and Planning, ED LEBOVITZ editor, google
books
Mr. Parham retired in 1994 as professsor of social welfare at the University of Georgia.
4
Opening T Salvo
3. WE’RE BROAD ENOUGH – THE STATUTORY LIMIT OF TITLE XX FUNDING INCLUDES

THOUSANDS OF PROGRAMS. IT’S THE ONLY WAY TO FIX MEANING ON THE TERM OF
ART
Salomon 94
Who Benefits from the Nonprofit Sector? By Charles T. Clotfelter
Google books, p. 135-6
Dr. Salamon is a leading expert on alternative tools of government action and on the nonprofit sector in
the U.S. and around the world. He has served as deputy associate director of the U.S. Office of
Management and Budget and has taught at Harvard, Vanderbilt, and Duke Universities and at Tougaloo
College in Mississippi. He holds a Ph.D. in government from Harvard University and a B.A. in economics
and policy studies from Princeton University. He has written or edited over 20 books; his articles have
appeared in Foreign Affairs, the New York Times, Voluntas, and numerous other publications. His most
recent books include: The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance (Oxford University
Press, 2002); The State of Nonprofit America (Brookings Institution Press, 2003); and Global Civil
Society: Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector, Volume II (Kumarian Press, 2004).
5
Opening T Salvo
VIOLATION: TITLE XX: GENERAL LIMIT

A. TITLE XX DEFINES SOCIAL SERVICES
INDIANA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 02
http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/T04700/A00130.PDF.
"Social services" means services purchased using Federal Social Services Block Grant Act funds
and state and local funds
THIS IS THE MOST UNIFORM FEDERAL DEFINITION

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WAY AND MEANS GREEN BOOK, 00
http://www.policyalmanac.org/social_welfare/archive/ssbg.shtml
In the past, limited information has been available on the use of title XX funds by the States. Under the
Title XX Social Services Block Grant Program, each State must submit a report to the Secretary of the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) on the intended use of its funds. These
preexpenditure reports are only required to include information about the types of activities to be funded
and the characteristics of the individuals to be served.
The Family Support Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-485) strengthened reporting requirements. That
legislation required States to submit annual reports containing detailed information on the
services actually funded and the individuals served through title XX funds. DHHS published a final
rule on November 15, 1993 implementing the reporting requirements and providing uniform
definitions of services.
B. VIOLATION – THE AFF PROGRAM ISN’T FUNDED BY TITLE XX AND IT DOESN’T ADDRESS
ONE OF THE FIVE GOALS. THIS IS A SPECIFIC STATUTORY LIMIT
STATE OF MICHIGAN FAMILY INDEPENDNECE AGENCY 00
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/FIA-RptBlockGrant01_13607_7.pdf.
STATE OF MICHIGAN, FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY Administration for Budget, Analysis and
Financial Management August, 2000
Social Services are directed at five goals in the Social Services Block Grant statute to: Prevent,
reduce or eliminate dependency; achieve or maintain self-sufficiency; prevent neglect, abuse or
exploitation of children and adults; prevent or reduce inappropriate care; and secure admission or
referral for institutional care when other forms of care are not appropriate. Within the specific
limitations of the law, each state has the flexibility to determine what services will be
provided, who is eligible to receive services, and how funds are distributed among the various services
within the state.
6
Opening T Salvo
C. IMPACT – VOTE NEG TO UPHOLD OUR INTERPRETATION

UNDER TITLE XX
Grant Report.
ANYTHING
PARHAM 82
books
7
Opening T Salvo

ART
Salomon 94
8
Opening T Salvo
9
Opening T Salvo
10
Opening T Salvo
VIOLATION: TITLE XX: NO INCOME SUPPLEMENTS
A. THE LAW – SOCIAL SERVICE BLOCK GRANTS EXPLICITLY PROHIBT INCOME SUPPLEMENTS
UNDER TITLE XX
GISH 2
http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-3415:1
Domestic Social Policy Division, Congressional Research Service
Specifically, SSBG funds cannot be used for capital purchases or improvements; cash payments to
individuals (except that welfare reform allows vouchers for certain families, as described above);
payment of wages as a social service; medical care; social services for residents of institutions; public
education; child care that does not meet applicable state or local standards; or services provided
by anyone excluded from participation in Medicare or other Social Security Act programs.
ADMINSITRATIVE SEPERATION KEEPS SOCIAL SERVICES AND INCOME SUPPORT IN DISTINCT

CATEGORIES
SCHLONSKY 8
Child Welfare Research, GOOGLE BOOKS
Aron Shlonsky is associate professor and Factor-Inwentash Chair in Child Welfare at the University of
Toronto
B. VIOLATION – THE AFFIRMATIVE PROVIDES INCOME SUPPORT
11
Opening T Salvo
C. IMPACTS – VOTE NEGATIVE

UNDER TITLE XX
Grant Report.
ANYTHING
PARHAM 82
books
12
Opening T Salvo

ART
Salomon 94
13
Opening T Salvo
INCOME/SOCIAL SERVICE DISTINCTION EXTENSIONS

SOCIAL SERVICES MUST BE DISTINGUISHED FROM CASH PAYMENT, EVEN IF THEY’RE
RELATED
DIXON AND KIM 85
Social welfare in Asia, P. GOOGLE BOOKS
Professor of Public Policy and Management,, UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH
14
Opening T Salvo
SOCIAL SERVICE AND INCOME SUPPORT ARE DISTINCT AND IN DIRECT COMPETITION
ALLARD 7
Assistant Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, Taubman Center for Public Policy, Brown
University
http://wcpc.washington.edu/news/seminars/docs/gettingThere2007-12-03.pdf
“Getting There or Losing Out: Place, Race, and Access to the Safety Net”
The Growing Centrality of Social Services to the Safety Net

Although scholars and policymakers frequently discuss place-based, mobility-based, and person-based
types of antipoverty assistance, even the most knowledgeable policy expert or community leader may not
realize that the manner in which society and communities help low-income populations has changed
dramatically in recent years. Even though welfare cash assistance, public housing, or Medicaid may
be among the most visible safety net programs, it is social or human service programs that
address personal well-being, basic material needs, and barriers to employment that compose a much
larger share of public and private safety net expenditures.
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH DINSTINGUISHES SOCIAL SERVICES FROM CASH ASSISTANCE

ALLARD 7
University
Congressional Research Services (CRS) has tracked federal, state, and local expenditures in a small
number of social service program areas (job training, child care programs, and the SSBG) over the past
thirty years to provide a conservative estimate of trends in social service spending and to compare those
expenditures to more salient cash assistance programs.
These CRS data are the best available data on annual social service spending, but are substantial
underestimates of the public social service sector financed through thousands of programs and
administered across thousands of governmental agencies. Nevertheless, these data provide useful
insights into the character of the contemporary safety net.
According to CRS data, federal, state, and local government spent $18.5 billion (in $2006) on social
services in 1975, roughly half that spent on welfare cash assistance ($31.5 billion in $2006). Public
expenditures for this narrow definition of social services almost doubled in real dollars between
1975 and 2002, reaching approximately $34 billion (in $2006). In contrast, federal and state welfare cash
assistance expenditures have declined by two-thirds during the same period, hovering near $11 or $12
billion (in $2006) for the last several years.
15
Opening T Salvo
SOCIAL SERVICE HISTORICALLY DISTINCT FROM ECONOMIC OR INCOME SUPPORT

WICKENDEN 76
# Elizabeth Wickenden
# The Social Service Review, Vol. 50, No. 4 (Dec., 1976), pp. 570-585
# Published by: The University of Chicago Press
a social welfare and Social Security policy consultant, analyst, and writer, and professor of public policy
and urban studies. Documented are her positions in the Transient Bureau of the Works Progress
Administration, Federal Security Agency, and Federal Emergency Relief Administration from 1933 to
1941; her membership on the Kennedy Task Force on Health and Social Security Legislation (1960-1961)
and the Advisory Council on Public Welfare (1964-1967); her work for the American Public Welfare
Association in 1941; her activities as a consultant to national social welfare organizations such as the
National Social Welfare Assembly, YWCA, National Urban League, Child Welfare League of America,
Children's Defense Fund, and Project on Social Welfare Law; and her leading role in the Study Group on
Social Security and the Save Our Security coalition. Also reflected are her activities as Professor of Urban
Studies at the City University of New York (1966-1974) and at Fordham University (1979-1983)
LEGAL CASES DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SOCIAL SERVICES UNDER TITLE XX AND CASH
ASSISTANCE
STEWART 78
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, WRITING FOR A UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT MAJORITY
QUERN, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AID OF ILLINOIS, ET AL. v. MANDLEY ET AL.
No. 76-1159
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
436 U.S. 725; 98 S. Ct. 2068; 56 L. Ed. 2d 658; 1978 U.S. LEXIS 101
The § 402 "state plan for aid and services to needy families with children" is the central, organizing
element of the Title IV-A program. A State's plan establishes both its funding relationship with the Federal
Government and the substantive terms of all Title IV-A programs in which it has elected to participate.
Thus, the plan reflects not only the basic AFDC program of cash assistance defined in § 406 (b), but
also Title XX social services, see § 402 (a)(15) and 42 U. S. C. § 1397 et seq. (1970 ed., Supp. V), and,
if the State chooses to adopt them, the optional programs of EA, defined in § 406 (e), and AFDC-
Unemployed Fathers (AFDC-UF), established by § 407.
16
Opening T Salvo
EXCLUDES NATIVE AMERICAN INCOME ASSISTANCE

CODE FO FEDERAL REGULATION CONTEXTUALLY DISTINGUISHES FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
FROM SOCIAL SERVICES FOR NATIVE AMERICANS
CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 8
http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?
WAISdocID=687121277991+79+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve
25 CFR Ch. I (4–1–08 Edition)
§ 20.102 What is the Bureau’s policy in providing financial assistance and social services under
this part? (a) Bureau social services programs are a secondary, or residual resource, and must not
be used to supplement or supplant other programs. (b) The Bureau can provide assistance under this
part to eligible Indians when comparable financial assistance or social services are either not available or
not provided by state, tribal, county, local or other federal agencies. (c) Bureau financial assistance and
social services are subject to annual Congressional appropriations.
17
Opening T Salvo
EXCLUDES EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT
SOCIAL SERVICES AND INCOME SUPPORT THROUGH TAX CREDIT ARE DISTINCT – SOCIAL
SERVICES ARE A PRECONDITION TO COLLECTING EITC
ALLARD 7
University
Perhaps surprisingly, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) has expanded to become the largest
means-tested program providing cash assistance to low-income households in America. Yet, at $40
billion in credits in 2002 (in $2006), the EITC still lags far behind public investments in social
services (House Committee on Ways and Means 2004). Moreover, individuals can only receive the
EITC if they are working. Social service programs that alleviate barriers to work are critical to many
low-income households if they are to find a job and take advantage of the assistance available
through the EITC. When looking at Figure 1, it is important to keep in mind that the CRS estimates
capture only a fraction of publicly funded social services. More accurate estimates of public expenditures
for the broader array of social or human services available to low-income populations would certainly
exceed $100 billion annually.
18
Opening T Salvo
TITLE XX :MUST MEET ONE OF 5 GOALS

TITLE XX IS FULLY INCLUSIVE, SPECIFYING FIVE GOALS AND ALL OF THE NECESSARY
SERVICE CATEGORIES
GISH 2
http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-3415:1
Domestic Social Policy Division, Congressional Research Service
SSBG = SOCIAL SRVICES BLOCK GRANTS
Use of Funds There are no federal eligibility criteria for SSBG participants. Thus, states have total
discretion to set their own eligibility criteria (except, as described above, the welfare reform law
established an income limit of 200% of poverty for recipients of services funded by TANF allotments that
are transferred to SSBG.) States also have wide discretion in the use of SSBG funds. Federal law
establishes the following broad goals toward which social services must be directed: ! achieving or
maintaining economic self-support to prevent, reduce, or eliminate dependency; ! achieving or
maintaining self-sufficiency, including reduction or prevention of dependency; CRS-5 ! preventing or
remedying neglect, abuse, or exploitation of children and adults unable to protect their own interests,
or preserving, rehabilitating or reuniting families; ! preventing or reducing inappropriate institutional care
by providing for community-based care, home-based care, or other forms of less intensive care;
and ! securing referral or admission for institutional care when other forms of care are not
appropriate, or providing services to individuals in institutions. The law also provides the
following examples of social services that may relate to these broad goals: child care, protective
services for children and adults, services for children and adults in foster care, home
management, adult day care, transportation, family planning, training and related services,
employment services, information, referral and counseling, meal preparation and delivery, health
support services, and services to meet special needs of children, aged, mentally retarded, blind,
emotionally disturbed, physically handicapped, alcoholics and drug addicts.
19
Opening T Salvo
FEDERAL CODE FIXES THE FIVE PURPOSES OF SOCIAL SERVICES

UNITED CODE SERVICE 9
TITLE 42. THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 7. SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
TITLE XX. BLOCK GRANTS TO STATES FOR SOCIAL SERVICES
LN
For the purposes of consolidating Federal assistance to States for social services into a single
grant, increasing State flexibility in using social service grants, and encouraging each State, as far as
practicable under the conditions in that State, to furnish services directed at the goals of--
(1) achieving or maintaining economic self-support to prevent, reduce, or eliminate dependency;
(2) achieving or maintaining self-sufficiency, including reduction or prevention of dependency;
(3) preventing or remedying neglect, abuse, or exploitation of children and adults unable to
protect their own interests, or preserving, rehabilitating or reuniting families;
(4) preventing or reducing inappropriate institutional care by providing for community-based care,
home-based care, or other forms of less intensive care; and
(5) securing referral or admission for institutional care when other forms of care are not
appropriate, or providing services to individuals in institutions,
there are authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year such sums as may be necessary to
carry out the purposes of this title [42 USCS §§ 1397 et seq.].
20
Opening T Salvo
SOCIAL SERVICES: TITLE XX KEY TO PRECISION/PREDICTABILITY

SOCIAL SERVICES IS LEGISLATIVE TERM OF ART THAT REQUIRES UNIFORMITY UNDER TITLE
XX
Grant Report.
21
Opening T Salvo
DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL FUNDS IS THE CLEAREST STANDARD – EVEN IF IT’S IMPERFECT,

IT’S THE ONLY LIMITING FUNCTION
BLEDSOE ET AL 72
Productivity Management in the California Social Services Program
# Ralph C. Bledsoe, Dennis R. Denny, Charles D. Hobbs and Raymond S. Long
# Public Administration Review, Vol. 32, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 1972), pp. 799-803
Dr. Bledsoe earned his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in public administration from the University of Southern
California. He received his B.A. degree from Texas A. & M. College.
Dr. Bledsoe previously served as a manager and executive with the System Development Corp., a faculty
member and program director with the University of Southern California School of Public Administration, a
professor of Federal management at the Federal Executive Institute, and a member of the Federal
Government's Senior Executive Service.
22
Opening T Salvo
FULL TEXT OF DEFINITION OF SERVICES – FYI

US FEDERAL CODE, NO DATE PROVIDED
title 45, part 96, appendix A of the code of federal regulations
AVAILABLE AT http://dhhs.nv.gov/Grants/Grants_SSBG.htm.
http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?
WAISdocID=683459322247+13+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve
Uniform Definitions of Services for Title XX
These services are the categories used in reporting to the federal government on the use of Title XX, the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG).
1. Adoption Services
Adoption services are those services or activities provided to assist in bringing about the adoption of a child. Component services and activities may
include, but are not limited to, counseling the biological parent(s), recruitment of adoptive homes, and pre- and post-placement training and/or
counseling.
2. Case Management Services

Case management services are services or activities for the arrangement, coordination, and monitoring of services to meet the needs of individuals
and families. Component services and activities may include individual service plan development; counseling; monitoring, developing, securing, and
coordinating services; monitoring and evaluating client progress; and assuring that clients' rights are protected.
3. Congregate Meals
Congregate meals are those services or activities designed to prepare and serve one or more meals a day to individuals in central dining areas in order
to prevent institutionalization, malnutrition, and feelings of isolation. Component services or activities may include the cost of personnel, equipment,
and food; assessment of nutritional and dietary needs; nutritional education and counseling; socialization; and other services such as transportation
and information and referral.
4. Counseling Services
Counseling services are those services or activities that apply therapeutic processes to personal, family, situational, or occupational problems in order
to bring about a positive resolution of the problem or improved individual or family functioning or circumstances. Problem areas may include family and
marital relationships, parent-child problems, or drug abuse.
5. Day Care Services--Adults

Day care services for adults are those services or activities provided to adults who require care and supervision in a protective setting for a portion of a
24-hour day. Component services or activities may include opportunity for social interaction, companionship and self-education; health support or
assistance in obtaining health services; counseling; recreation and general leisure time activities; meals; personal care services; plan development;
and transportation.
6. Day Care Services--Children

Day care services for children (including infants, pre-schoolers, and school age children) are services or activities provided in a setting that meets
applicable standards of state and local law, in a center or in a home, for a portion of a 24-hour day. Component services or activities may include a
comprehensive and coordinated set of appropriate developmental activities for children, recreation, meals and snacks, transportation, health support
services, social service counseling for parents, plan development, and licensing and monitoring of child care homes and facilities.
7. Education and Training Services

Education and training services are those services provided to improve knowledge or daily living skills and to enhance cultural opportunities. Services
may include instruction or training in, but are not limited to, such issues as consumer education, health education, community protection and safety
education, literacy education, English as a second language, and General Educational Development (G.E.D.). Component services or activities may
include screening, assessment and testing; individual or group instruction; tutoring; provision of books, supplies and instructional material; counseling;
transportation; and referral to community resources.
8. Employment Services
Employment services are those services or activities provided to assist individuals in securing employment or acquiring or learning skills that promote
opportunities for employment. Component services or activities may include employment screening, assessment, or testing; structured job skills and
job seeking skills; specialized therapy (occupational, speech, physical); special training and tutoring, including literacy training and pre-vocational
training; provision of books, supplies and instructional material; counseling, transportation; and referral to community resources.
9. Family Planning Services

Family planning services are those educational, comprehensive medical or social services or activities which enable individuals, including minors, to
determine freely the number and spacing of their children and to select the means by which this may be achieved. These services and activities include
a broad range of acceptable and effective methods and services to limit or enhance fertility, including contraceptive methods (including natural family
planning and abstinence), and the management of infertility (including referral to adoption). Specific component services and activities may include
preconceptional counseling, education, and general reproductive health care, including diagnosis and treatment of infections which threaten
reproductive capability. Family planning services do not include pregnancy care (including obstetric or prenatal care).
10. Foster Care Services for Adults

Foster care services for adults are those services or activities that assess the need and arrange for the substitute care and alternate living situation of
adults in a setting suitable to the individual's needs. Individuals may need such services because of social, physical or mental disabilities, or as a
consequence of abuse or neglect. Care may be provided in a community-based setting, or such services may arrange for institutionalization when
necessary. Component services or activities include assessment of the individual's needs; case planning and case management to assure that the
individual receives proper care in the placement; counseling to help with personal problems and adjusting to new situations; assistance in obtaining
other necessary supportive services; determining, through periodic reviews, the continued appropriateness of and need for placement; and recruitment
and licensing of foster care homes and facilities.
23
Opening T Salvo
11. Foster Care Services for Children
Foster care services for children are those services or activities associated with the provision of an alternative family life experience for abused,
neglected or dependent children, between birth and the age of majority, on the basis of a court commitment or a voluntary placement agreement
signed by the parent or guardian. Services may be provided to children in foster family homes, foster homes of relatives, group homes, emergency
shelters, residential facilities, child care institutions, pre-adoptive homes or supervised independent living situation. Component services or activities
may include assessment of the child's needs; case planning and case management to assure that the child receives proper care in the placement;
medical care as an integral but subordinate part of the service; counseling of the child, the child's parents, and the foster parents; referral and
assistance in obtaining other necessary supportive services; periodical reviews to determine the continued appropriateness and need for placement;
and recruitment and licensing of foster homes and child care institutions.
12. Health Related and Home Health Services

Health related and home health services are those in-home or out-of-home services or activities designed to assist individuals and families to attain
and maintain a favorable condition of health. Component services and activities may include providing an analysis or assessment of an individual's
health problems and the development of a treatment plan; assisting individuals to identify and understand their health needs; assisting individuals to
locate, provide or secure, and utilize appropriate medical treatment, preventive medical care, and health maintenance services, including in-home
health services and emergency medical services; and providing follow-up services as needed.
13. Home Based Services

Home based services are those in-home services or activities provided to individuals or families to assist with household or personal care activities that
improve or maintain adequate family well-being. These services may be provided for reasons of illness, incapacity, frailty, absence of a caretaker
relative, or to prevent abuse and neglect of a child or adult. Major service components include homemaker services, chore services, home
maintenance services, and household management services. Component services or activities may include protective supervision of adults and/or
children to help prevent abuse, temporary non-medical personal care, house-cleaning, essential shopping, simple household repairs, yard
maintenance, teaching of homemaking skills, training in self-help and self-care skills, assistance with meal planning and preparation, sanitation,
budgeting, and general household management.
14. Home Delivered Meals

Home-delivered meals are those services or activities designed to prepare and deliver one or more meals a day to an individual's residence in order to
prevent institutionalization, malnutrition, and feelings of isolation. Component services or activities may include the cost of personnel, equipment, and
food; assessment of nutritional and dietary needs; nutritional education and counseling; socialization services; and information and referral.
15. Housing Services

Housing services are those services or activities designed to assist individuals or families in locating, obtaining, or retaining suitable housing.
Component services or activities may include tenant counseling; helping individuals and families to identify and correct substandard housing conditions
on behalf of individuals and families who are unable to protect their own interests; and assisting individuals and families to understand leases, secure
utilities, make moving arrangements and minor renovations.
16. Independent and Transitional Living Services

Independent and transitional living services are those services and activities designed to help older youth in foster care or homeless youth make the
transition to independent living, or to help adults make the transition from an institution, or from homelessness, to independent living. Component
services or activities may include educational and employment assistance, training in daily living skills, and housing assistance. Specific component
services and activities may include supervised practice living and post-foster care services.
17. Information and Referral Services

Information and referral services are those services or activities designed to provide information about services provided by public and private service
providers and a brief assessment of client needs (but not diagnosis and evaluation) to facilitate appropriate referral to these community resources.
18. Legal Services

Legal services are those services or activities provided by a lawyer or other person(s) under the supervision of a lawyer to assist individuals in seeking
or obtaining legal help in civil matters such as housing, divorce, child support, guardianship, paternity, and legal separation. Component services or
activities may include receiving and preparing cases for trial, provision of legal advice, representation at hearings, and counseling.
19. Pregnancy and Parenting Services for Young Parents

Pregnancy and parenting services are those services or activities for married or unmarried adolescent parents and their families designed to assist
young parents in coping with the social, emotional, and economic problems related to pregnancy and in planning for the future. Component services or
activities may include securing necessary health care and living arrangements; obtaining legal services; and providing counseling, child care education,
and training in and development of parenting skills.
20. Prevention and Intervention Services

Prevention and intervention services are those services or activities designed to provide early identification and/or timely intervention to support
families and prevent or ameliorate the consequences of, abuse, neglect, or family violence, or to assist in making arrangement for alternate placements
or living arrangements where necessary. Such services may also be provided to prevent the removal of a child or adult from the home. Component
services and activities may include investigation; assessment and/or evaluation of the extent of the problem; counseling, including mental health
counseling or therapy as needed; developmental and parenting skills training; respite care; and other services including supervision, case
management, and transportation.
21. Protective Services for Adults

Protective services for adults are those services or activities designed to prevent or remedy abuse, neglect or exploitation of adults who are unable to
protect their own interests. Examples of situations that may require protective services are injury due to maltreatment or family violence; lack of
adequate food, clothing or shelter; lack of essential medical treatment or rehabilitation services; and lack of necessary financial or other resources.
Component services or activities may include investigation; immediate intervention; emergency medical services; emergency shelter; developing case
plans; initiation of legal action (if needed); counseling for the individual and the family; assessment/evaluation of family circumstances; arranging
alternative or improved living arrangements; preparing for foster placement, if needed; and case management and referral to service providers.
22. Protective Services for Children

Protective services for children are those services or activities designed to prevent or remedy abuse, neglect, or exploitation of children who may be
harmed through physical or mental injury, sexual abuse or exploitation, and negligent treatment or maltreatment, including failure to be provided with
adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical care. Component services or activities may include immediate investigation and intervention; emergency
medical services; emergency shelter; developing case plans; initiation of legal action (if needed); counseling for the child and the family;
24
Opening T Salvo
assessment/evaluation of family circumstances; arranging alternative living arrangement; preparing for foster placement, if needed; and case
management and referral to service providers.
23. Recreational Services

Recreational services are those services or activities designed to provide, or assist individuals to take advantage of, individual or group activities
directed towards promoting physical, cultural, and/or social development.
24. Residential Treatment Services

Residential treatment services provide short-term residential care and comprehensive treatment and services for children or adults whose problems are
so severe or are such that they cannot be cared for at home or in foster care and need the specialized services provided by specialized facilities.
Component services and activities may include diagnosis and psychological evaluation; alcohol and drug detoxification services; individual, family, and
group therapy and counseling; remedial education and GED preparation; vocational or pre-vocational training; training in activities of daily living;
supervised recreational and social activities; case management; transportation; and referral to and utilization of other services.
25. Special Services for Persons With Developmental or Physical Disabilities, or Persons With Visual or Auditory Impairments
Special services for persons with developmental or physical disabilities, or persons with visual or auditory impairments, are services or activities to
maximize the potential of persons with disabilities, help alleviate the effects of physical, mental or emotional disabilities, and to enable these persons to
live in the least restrictive environment possible. Component services or activities may include personal and family counseling; respite care; family
support; recreation; transportation; aid to assist with independent functioning in the community; and training in mobility, communication skills, the use of
special aids and appliances, and self-sufficiency skills. Residential and medical services may be included only as an integral, but subordinate, part of
the services.
26. Special Services for Youth Involved in or at Risk of Involvement With Criminal Activity
Special services for youth involved in or at risk of involvement with criminal activity are those services or activities for youth who are, or who may
become, involved with the juvenile justice system and their families. Components services or activities are designed to enhance family functioning
and/or modify the youth's behavior with the goal of developing socially appropriate behavior and may include counseling, intervention therapy, and
residential and medical services if included as an integral but subordinate part of the service.
27. Substance Abuse Services

Substance abuse services are those services or activities that are primarily designed to deter, reduce, or eliminate substance abuse or chemical
dependence. Except for initial detoxification services, medical and residential services may be included but only as an integral but subordinate part of
the service. Component substance abuse services or activities may include a comprehensive range of personal and family counseling methods,
methadone treatment for opiate abusers, or detoxification treatment for alcohol abusers. Services may be provided in alternative living arrangements
such as institutional settings and community-based halfway houses.
28. Transportation Services

Transportation services are those services or activities that provide or arrange for the travel, including travel costs, of individuals in order to access
services, or obtain medical care or employment. Component services or activities may include special travel arrangements such as special modes of
transportation and personnel to accompany or assist individuals or families to utilize transportation.
29. Other Services

Other Services are services that do not fall within the definitions of the preceding 28 services. The definition used by the State for each of these
services should appear elsewhere in the annual report.
25
Opening T Salvo
EFFECTS VIOLATION – CAN’T MANDATE OTHER PARTIES:

REGULATION/SOCIAL SERVICE DISTINCTION
A. SOCIAL SERVICES ARE CLEARLY DISTINCT FROM MANDATES ON THIRD PARTIES.

STATUTORY REGULATION IS ITS OWN HUGE TOPIC.
MIDGLEY AND LIVERMORE 8
The Handbook of Social Policy, p. 10, google books
MIDGELEY, Harry and Riva Specht Professor Dean Emeritus, 1997-2006, BERKELEY SCHOOL OF
SOCIAL WELFARE, Livermore, Assistant Professor, School of Social Work, Louisiana State University
B. VIOLATION – THE AFF DOESN’T DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTE TO A SOCIAL SERVICE. THEY JUST
CHANGE REGULATIONS TO MAKE OTHER PARTIES INCREASE SOCIAL SERVICES.
26
Opening T Salvo
C. IMPACT – VOTE NEG
1. LIMITS – ANY REGULATION COULD SOMEHOW SERVE SOCIETY. LETTING IN THIRD PARTY
MANDATES ALLOWS ANY REGULATION OF BUSINESS, ADJUSTMENT TO THE TAX CODE,
OR RELAXATION OF RESTRICTION ON THE STATES, WHICH ENCOMPASSES ALL
DOMESTIC LEGISLATION. THAT’S UNFAIR AND MAKES DEBATE BAD BY FORCING US TO
COMPENSATE WITH SHALLOW GENERICS
2. GROUND – STATUTORY REGULATION OF OTHER ENTITITES AVOIDS CORE DISADS AND

COUNTERPLANS. REGULATIONS DON’T SPEND NEW MONEY OR REQUIRE LEGISLATIVE
ACTION. IT MAKES THE TOPIC BIDIRECTIONAL BECAUSE THE AFF CAN JUST REPEAL
EXISTING RESTRICTIONS
3. EFFECTS INDEPENDENTLY BAD – EVEN IF THE AFF INCREASES SOME SOCIAL SERVICE,
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ISN’T DIRECTLY INCREASING BUT ONLY ACTING
INDIRECTLY THROUGH SOME PUPPET AGENT. THAT DESTROYS LIMITS AND NEG
GROUND BECAUSE THE AFFS CAN PRESERVE CONDITIONS FOR SOCIAL SERVICES BY
STOPPING A NUCLEAR WAR OR IMPROVING THE ECONOMY.
27
Opening T Salvo
VIOLATION: 3-STEP PROCESS - MUST INVOLVE SOCIAL WORKERS
A. DEFINITION AND COMPARATIVE LIMITS IMPACT –
SOCIAL SERVICES MUST INCLUDE ASSESSMENT, COUNSELLING, THEN REFERRAL TO

ANOTHER ORGANIZATION.
IT’S THE BEST AND MOST PRECISE DEFINTION OF FEDERAL POLICY – BROADER ONES
CREATE UNPREDICTABLE VAGUENESS
REIN 72
# Decentralization and Citizen Participation in Social Services
# Author(s): Martin Rein
# Source: Public Administration Review, Vol. 32, Special Issue: Curriculum Essays on Citizens, Politics,
and Administration in Urban Neighborhoods (Oct., 1972), pp. 687-700
# Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration
# Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/975233
Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Urban Studies and Planning,
1970 to Present
B. VIOLATION – THE AFFIRMATIVE DOESN’T INCLUDE ASSESSMENT, COUNSELLIG AND

REFERRAL BY A SOCIAL WORKER. THEY CUT OUT THE “ESSENCE” OF SOCIAL
SERVICES.
C. VOTE NEG FOR THE LIMITS ARGUMENT IN REIN. WITHOUT A CLEAR IDENTIFYING ASPECT
OF A PROGRAM, ALTERNATIVE DEFINTIONS CAN INCLUDE ANY MEDICAL PROGRAM OR
EMPLOYMENT BOOSTER. THAT’S UNFAIR BECAUSE IT COVERS LITERALLY ALL OF
DMOESTIC POLICY, AND BAD FOR DEBATE BECAUSE NEGS NECESSARILY RESORT TO
SHALLOW GENERICS.
28
Opening T Salvo
AND MORE EXPANSIVE DEFINTIONS EMPIRICALLY SNOWBALL TO INCLUDE NEARLY

EVERTYHING – LEGISLATIVE HISTORY PROVES.
WICKENDEN 76
29
Opening T Salvo
VIOLATION: HIERARCHY OF NEEDS T
A. SOCIAL SERVICES ARE NOT HOUSING, WATER, HEALTH CARE, FOOD OR SANITATION.
THEY’RE THE STEP UP THE LADDER FROM BASIC NEEDS

CARRIBEAN SUB REGIONAL CIVIL SOCIETY FORUM 10/31/8
CARIBBEAN SUB REGIONAL CIVIL SOCIETY FORUM
IN PREPARATION FOR THE FIFTH SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS: “SECURING OUR CITIZENS’
FUTURE BY PROMOTING HUMAN PROSPERITY, ENERGY SECURITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
SUSTAINABILITY
www.sasod.org.gy/files/FinalCaribCSForumPreliminaryreportofrecommendations.doc
Replace the phrase “social services” as used throughout this section with either “amenities” or
“basic needs” given that water, housing, healthcare, food and sanitation are key to human survival
and if one can achieve that then they move to the next level which is that of social services.
B. VIOLATION – THE AFFIRMATIVE ADDRESSES BASIC NEEDS INSTEAD OF NEXT LEVEL
SOCIAL NEEDS.
C. VOTE NEG
1. RESOLUTIONAL MEANING – THEIR INTERPRETATION STRIPS SOCIAL OF ANY MEANING –

THEY’RE JUST A SERVICE. DISCOUNTING WORDS IN THE RESOLUTION LEADS TO
ARBITRARY AND SELF-SERVING INTERPRETATIONS, WHICH IS THE KEY INTERNAL LINK
TO THE LIMITS DA
2. LIMITS – BASIC SURVIVAL NEEDS CAN COVER ALL OF HOUSING POLICY AND FOOD
STAMPS AND DISEASE PREVENTION. ANYTHING THAT SAVES LIVES IN AN
ENORMOUSLY EXPANSIVE TOPIC.
30
Opening T Salvo
VIOLATION: “SOCIAL” EXCLUDES HEALTH AND EDUCATION – SOCIAL ROLES

A. SOCIAL SERVICES ARE DEFINED BY THEIR EMPHASIS ON SOCIAL ROLES INSTEAD OF
INDIVIDUAL NEEDS
THIS EXCLUDES HEALTH, EDUCATION AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

BAHLE 8
http://cadmus.iue.it/dspace/bitstream/1814/328/1/sps20028.pdf
Thomas Bahle is sociologist and assistant at the University of Mannheim. He is member of the
international family policy project and researcher at the MZES.
“Changing Social Service Systems in England, France and Germany: Towards De-institutionalisation or
Institutionalisation?”
European University Institute WORKING PAPER
B. VIOLATION – THE AFF SERVICE IS INDIVIDUAL NOT SOCIAL BECAUSE THEY ADDRESS
______ [HEALTH OR EDUCATION]
C. IMPACT – VOTE NEG –
1. EACH WORD MUST HAVE MEANING – STRIPPING SOCIAL OF MEANING DESTROYS LIMITS,
SINCE ANYTHING CAN BE CHARACTERIZED AS SOME SORT OF SERVICE. ONLY THE
ADJECTIVE STOPS THE AFF FROM INCLUDING ANY PIECE OF DOMESTIC LEGISLATION.
2. LIMITS – HEALTH AND EDUCATION ARE LARGE ENOUGH TO BE TOPIC IN THEMSELVES.

MEDICARE AND REFORMING STUDENT LOANS ARE DISTINCT CORE POLICY DEBATES,
WITH THOUSANDS OF POSSIBLE VARIATIONS. INCLUDING MEDICARE, MEDICAID,
STUDENT LOANS, MENTAL HEALTH IS UNFAIR AND DESTROYS EDUCATION THROUGH
SHALLOW GENERIC DEBATES
31
Opening T Salvo
SOCIAL SERVICES T: EXCLUDES HEALTH, ED, HOUSING, INCOME

SOCIAL SERVICES EXCLUDE HEALTH, EDUCATION, HOUSING AND INCOME MAINTENANCE
SALOMON, 3
GOOGLE BOOKS, THE STATE OF NONPROFIT AMERICA, P. 152
32
Opening T Salvo
SOCIAL SERVICES EXCLUDES EDUCATION

BEST STATUTORY DEFINITION EXCLUDES EDUCATION
BURKE 4
Domestic Social Policy Division, Specialist in Income Maintenance, Congressional Research Service,
Library of Congress, CRS REPORT FOR CONGRESS, “Social Service Provisions in the CARE Act
and the Charitable Giving Act”
http://www.wikileaks.de/leak/crs/RS21713.pdf
REFERENCES, S. 476 (The CARE Act of 2003) as passed by the Senate
Definition of social service
Defines social services as helping people in need, reducing poverty, improving outcomes of low-
income children, revitalizing low-income communities, and services empowering low-income
people to become self-sufficient.
The term “social services” does not include programs delivering educational assistance under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act or the Higher Education Act
33
Opening T Salvo
VIOLATION: EXCLUDES [MOST] MEDICAL CARE

A. DEFINITIONS – MEDICAL SOCIAL SERVICES
SOCIAL SERVICES DOESN’T INCLUDE MEDICAL TASKS – IT’S DISTINCT FROM THE HEALTH
SECTOR
Pollack et al 94
Professor for Public Policy, Departments of Psychiatry, Public Health & Preeventive Medicine, and
Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology, OHSU
Prioritization of Mental Health Services in Oregon
# David A. Pollack, Bentson H. McFarland, Robert A. George and Richard H. Angell
# The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 72, No. 3 (1994), pp. 515-550
THE ONLY EXCEPTION - MEDICAL SOCIAL SERVICES - REQUIRE A SOCIAL WORKER

CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS, NO DATE
http://www.dora.state.co.us/INSURANCE/mcexam/2000/chic98.pdf
“Medical Social Services” are those services provided by an individual who possesses a
baccalaureate degree in social work, psychology or counseling or the documented equivalent in a
combination of education, training and experience, which services are provided at the
recommendation of a physician for the purpose of assisting the insured or the family in dealing
with [emphasis added] a specific medical condition.
34
Opening T Salvo
MEDICARE DEFINES MEDICAL SOCIAL SERVICES ONLY THOSE THAT ASSIST IN DIAGNOSIS
AND TREATMENT – THAT’S A KEY LIMIT
Department of health and human services 4
http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1994-12-20/html/94-31065.htm
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-31065]
Comment: One commenter objected to this section's requirement that covered medical social services
must be necessary to resolve social or emotional problems that are expected to be an impediment
to the treatment of the beneficiary's medical condition or to his or her rate of recovery. The
commenter stated that the services of a social worker may address a wide range of difficulties in addition
to those that present an impediment to the treatment of the beneficiary's medical condition.
Response: The Act at section 1861(m) specifically defines medical social
services as a covered home health service. In addition, section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act excludes
from Medicare coverage any service that is not reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or
treatment of the patient's illness or injury. Therefore, Medicare is limited to covering those social
services that are provided to treat the patient's medical condition; that is, they are directed at
resolving impediments to the treatment of the patient's illness or injury.
B. VIOLATION – THE AFFIRMATIVE COVERS HEALTH CARE THAT ISN’T A SOCAIL SERVICE –
THEIR SERVICES DON’T INVOLVE A SOCIAL WORKER AND AREN’T JUST A SUPPLEMENT
TO ALLOW TREATMENT OF THE ILLNESS.
C. VOTE NEG
1. PRECISION – THIS IS THE MOST RIGOROUS DEFINITION

FRANK AND DAWSON 00
Barbara W. Frank and Steven L. Dawson of the Paraprofessional Health- care Institute, with assistance from Andy
Van Kleunen and Mary Ann Wilner of the Paraprofessional Health- care Institute, and Dorie Seavey, a labor
economist in the Boston area
http://www.forumsinstitute.org/publs/mass/gt-mhpf_workforce_issue_brief.pdf.
“Health Care Workforce Issues
in Massachusetts”
Federal and state public payers are influenced by the broader political process of apportioning tax dollars
to an array of public services—health care being only one among many. Similarly, private insurers, 13
account- able to purchasers and shareholders who drive prices down, have created capitation
arrangements, utilization reviews, and a rigorous definition of what constitutes health care (as
distinct from social services) in order to control costs.
35
Opening T Salvo
2. LIMITS – LETTING IN THE ENTIRE FIELD OF MEDICAL INSURANCE OR UNIVERSAL HEALTH

CARE IS A HUGE DEBATE – IT’S THE BIGGEST SECTOR OF OUR ECONOMY
BROWNLEE 8
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/5_myths_our_sick_health_care_system_8451
Shannon Brownlee is a writer whose stories, essays, and opinion pieces about medicine and health care
have appeared in such publications as The Atlantic Monthly, The New York Times Magazine, The New
Republic, Slate, Time, Discover, BusinessWeek, Washington Monthly, The Washington Post, the Los
Angeles Times, and The Wilson Quarterly. Her most recent awards include the 2004 AHCJ Award for
Excellence in Health Care Journalism, the Victor Cohn Prize for Excellence in Medical Science Reporting,
the National Association of Science Writers Science-in-Society Award, and the Sigma Delta Chi Award
from the Society of Professional Journalists. Her work has been featured in The Real State of the Union,
a collection of the best stories from The Atlantic Monthly’s “Real State of the Union” series, and in The
New Science Journalists, a collection of the best science writing edited by Ted Anton and Rick McCourt.
She holds a master’s degree in biology from the University of California.
As a former Schwartz Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation, Ms. Brownlee’s work focused on the
U.S. health care system, and the cultural, economic, and political forces that result in poor quality and
high cost. She has written extensively about the lack of scientific evidence for many medical practices,
and the problem of unnecessary care, which accounts for as much as a third of the nation’s health care
bill. She is currently writing Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine is Making Americans Sicker and
Poorer, which will be published by Bloomsbury Press in 2007.
At 17 percent of gross domestic product, health care is the biggest single sector of the economy, and
it's consuming a larger and larger proportion every year.
AS A DEBATE TOPIC, IT’S TOO BIG TO HANDLE

STANLEY 9
PETOSKEY NEWS-REVIEW MANAGING EDITOR
http://www.petoskeynews.com/articles/2009/06/12/columns/doc4a32b83a87c3a105904620.txt  Editor
Petoskey News-Review (Newspapers industry) Currently holds this position  Editor Petoskey News-
Review (Newspapers industry) 1978 — Present (31 years)
The health care “debate” is so multi-faceted, so complex, so stunningly different across

the country that it’s enough to make you want to throw up your hands in frustration.
3. TOPICAL VERSION OF YOUR AFF – WE CAN LET IN HEALTH CARE AS LONG AS IT MEETS
THE STRICT DEFINTION SET OUT IN FEDERAL LAW FOR MEDICAL SOCIAL SERVICES
4. VOTE NEG ON EXTRATOPICALITY – IT PROVES THE RESOLUTION ISN’T SUFFICIENT. ALSO,

IT’S ABUSIVE IN WAYS COUNTERPLANS CAN’T SOLVE – WE CAN’T COUNTERPLAN BACK
DISAD LINKS AND FORCED COUNTERPLANNING CRUSHES OUR POLITICS AND
SPENDING GROUND.
36
Opening T Salvo
HEALTH CARE T: MEDICARE DEF EXTENSIONS

MEDICAL SOCIAL SERVICES CAN ONLY INVOLVE A LIMITED SET OF INTERVENTIONS BY A
SOCIAL WORKER
OXFORD HEALTH PLANS 8
https://www.oxhp.com/secure/policy/home_health_oma_1208.html
UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated NYSE: UNH is a managed health care company. According to its
company literature, UnitedHealth Group is a diversified health and well-being company dedicated to
making health care work better. Headquartered in Minnetonka, Minnesota, UnitedHealth Group offers a
broad spectrum of products and services through seven operating businesses: UnitedHealthcare,
Ovations, AmeriChoice, Uniprise, OptumHealth, Ingenix, and Prescription Solutions.. Through its family of
businesses, UnitedHealth Group serves approximately 70 million individuals nationwide. In 2004, the
company posted a gross profit of $10.2 billion.[1]
UnitedHealth Group is the parent of UnitedHealthcare, one of the largest health insurers in the U.S. It was
created in 1977, as UnitedHealthCare Corporation (it renamed itself in 1998), but traces its origin to a firm
it acquired in 1977, Charter Med Incorporated, which was founded in 1974. In 1979, it introduced the first
network-based health plan for seniors. In 1984, it became a publicly traded company.
Medical Social Services (MSS)

MSS are used to assess the social and emotional factors related to the patient’s illness,
counseling based on this assessment, and searching for available community resources. Medical
social services are provided by a qualified medical social worker when the patient meets the criteria
above for home health care agency services and:
1. The services of these professionals are necessary to resolve social and emotional problems that are
or are expected to be an impediment to the effective treatment of the patient’s medical condition or his or
her rate of recovery; and
2. The plan of care indicates how the services that are required necessitate the skills of a qualified
social worker or a social work assistant under the supervision of a qualified medical social worker to be
performed safely and effectively.
When the two requirements above are satisfied, services of these professionals that may be
covered include, but are limited to:
* Assessment of the social and emotional factors related to the patient’s illness, need for care,
response to treatment and adjustment to care;
* Assessment of the relationship of the patient’s medical and nursing requirements to the
patient’s home situation, financial resources and availability of community resources;
* Appropriate action to obtain available community resources to assist in resolving the patient’s
problem.
* Counseling service which are required by the patient; and
* MSS furnished to the patient’s family member or caregiver on a short-term basis when the home
health agency can demonstrate that a brief intervention (that is, two or three visits) by a medical social
worker is necessary to remove a clear and direct impediment to the effective treatment of the patient’s
medical condition or to his/her rate of recovery. To be considered clear and direct, the behavior or actions
of the family member or caregiver must plainly obstruct, contravene, or prevent the patient’s medical
treatment rate of recovery.
37
Opening T Salvo
MEDICAL SOCIAL SERVICES MUST TREAT A DIRECT IMPEDIMENT TO CURING AN ILLNESS –

BEST FEDERAL DEFINTIONS PROVE
COMMERCE CLEARING HOUSE 2
2004 Medicare Explained, GOOGLE BOOKS
Provider of information services, software and workflow tools for tax, accounting, legal and business
professionals.
MEDICAL SOCIAL SERVICES REFERS EXCLUSIVELY TO SOCIAL SERVICES PERFORMED BY A

SOCIAL WORKER
CONNECTICUT LEGISLATURE 96
http://www.cslib.org/pa/pa019.htm
PUBLIC ACT NO. 96-19
AN ACT REVISING THE GENERAL STATUTES TO REFLECT THE AUTHORITY OF ADVANCED
PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSES AND PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS.
Medical social services are defined to mean services rendered, under the direction of a physician
by a qualified social worker holding a master's degree from an accredited school of social work,
including but not limited to (A) assessment of the social, psychological and family problems related to or
arising out of such covered person's illness and treatment; (B) appropriate action and utilization of
community resources to assist in resolving such problems; (C) participation in the development of the
overall plan of treatment for such covered person.
38
Opening T Salvo
MEDICAL SOCIAL SERVICES IS A LIMITED TERM OF ART UNDER MEDICAID: ASSESSMENT,

COUNSELLING, AND REFERRAL
LEVINE AND BARRY 3
Dr.Sharon A. Levine, Geriatric Medicine, Internal Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts,(MA), Dr. Patricia
Barry is an Adjunct Professor of Clinical Internal Medicine at the Eastern Virginia Medical School in
Norfolk
Geriatric medicine, GOOGLE BOOKS
By Christine K. Cassel, Rosanne M. Leipzig, Harvey Jay Cohen, Eric B. Larson, Diane E. Meier
39
Opening T Salvo
SOCIAL SERVICES T: EXCLUDES FOOD STAMPS

FOOD STAMPS AND SOCIAL SERVICES ARE DISTINCT
ALLARD 7
University
Even though social services are categorized as person-based assistance, they have a distinct spatial or
place component. Promoting economic self-sufficiency and greater well-being through a service-based
safety net hinges on how accessible services are to those in need. Place matters more in a service-based
safety net reliant upon local governmental and nonprofit agencies than a system that primarily provides
assistance through cash assistance of income maintenance programs. Unlike welfare cash assistance,
the EITC, or food stamps, social services cannot be mailed or electronically transferred to an individual.
40
Opening T Salvo
IMPACT EXT: BROAD DEFINITION OF SOCIAL SERVICES DESTROYS LIMITS

BROAD DEFINTIONS OF SOCIAL SERVICES COVER A QUARTER OF A THE POPULATION AND
TOO MANY PROGRAMS TO DEBATE OR COUNT
MORRIS AND ANDERSON 75
Personal Care Services: An Identity for Social Work
* Robert Morris and Delwin Anderson
* The Social Service Review, Vol. 49, No. 2 (Jun., 1975), pp. 157-174
* Published by: The University of Chicago Press
He was a professor of social planning at Brandeis University, Florence Heller Graduate School University
for Advanced Studies in Social Welfare. Morris was a professor emeritus from 1959-1979.
In 1970 he became director of the Levinson Policy Institute at Brandeis thus he was a very instrumental
figure in the development of the university's role in social policy studies and research.
41
Opening T Salvo
THE COMMON USE OF SOCIAL SERVICES CAN COVER ANYTHING – YOUR COUNTERINTERP
CAN’T SOLVE LIMITS.
PARHAM 82
Practice Issues in Social Welfare Administration, Policy and Planning, ED LEBOVITZ
42
Opening T Salvo
IMPACT EXT: BROAD DEFINITION OF SOCIAL SERVICES DESTROYS POLICY
BROAD DEFINTIONS OF SOCIAL SERVICE CAUSE POLICY FAILURE

WICKENDEN 76
43
Opening T Salvo
A/T CONTEXTUAL EVIDENCE IS ENOUGH: REDUCTION AD ABSURDUM

CONTEXTUAL EVIDENCE IS TERRIBLE AT DEFINING SOCIAL SERVICE – IT LETS IN ABSURDITY
A. TWITTER
RUBEL 3/18/9
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202429165569&slreturn=1
Gina F. Rubel Esq. is president and CEO of Furia Rubel Communications Inc.
Twitter is a social service for people to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of
140-character answers to one simple question: What are you doing?
B. CHAT ROOMS
Kaynar and Hamburger 7
a
Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel
b
Bezeq International Research Center for Internet Psychology, Sammy Ofer School of Communications,
Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya 46150, Israel
Computers in Human Behavior
Volume 24, Issue 2, March 2008, Pages 361-371
Part Special Issue: Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age
A possible reason for these findings may lie in our definition of social services as information services.
Our social services factor includes mainly items that enable the user to maintain his social connections
on-line, such as Chat rooms, real-time messaging systems, and on-line Forums enabling the
exchange of opinions between Internet users
C. HAPPINESS
DUBOS 82
http://www.tfwallace.com/pages_blocks_v3/images/links/CelebrationofLife.pdf
Rene Dubos, a Pulitzer Prize winning biologist, died
February 20, 1982.
Happiness is contagious. For this reason its expression is a social service and almost a duty. The
Buddhists have a saying about this commendable virtue: "Only happy people can make a happy world."
44
Opening T Salvo
A/T DEFINITIONS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES [LOOK FOR SUFFIX – UK, EU, ETC.]
INTERNATIONAL DEFINITIONS ARE UNIQUELY UNPREDICTABLE - SOCIAL SERVICE
DEFINITIONS VARY BROADLY BY COUNTRY.
HALL AND MIDGELEY 4
Social Policy for Development, GOOGLE BOOKS, 207-8
ANTHONY HALL is a Reader in Social Planning in Developing Countries at the London School of
Economics and Political Science, MIDGELEY, Harry and Riva Specht Professor Dean Emeritus, 1997-
2006, BERKELEY SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WELFARE
45
Opening T Salvo
CAN’T MIX AND MATCH INTERNATIONAL CARDS – IT RESULTS IN HOPELESS TERM

CONFUSION
SHLONSKY 71
Paul Baerwald School of Social Work, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
# Hagith R. Shlonsky
Welfare Programs and the Social System: A Conceptual Examination of "Social Services" and "Income
Maintenance Services"
46
Opening T Salvo
A/T DEFINITIONS FROM THE UK

US DEFINITIONS ARE DISTINCT AND MORE NARROW THAN THE BRITISH DEFINTION
Salomon 94
47
Opening T Salvo
A/T UN DEFINITION
THE UNESCO DEFINTION IS WEAK – IT’S A PRESCRIPTION, NOT A DESCRIPTION
SPICKER 84
Rev. ed. of the author's thesis (Ph. D.)--University of London.
Stigma and social welfare, GOOGLE BOOKS
48
Opening T Salvo
A/T YOUR INTERP IS ARBITRARY

NON-UNIQUE - SOCIAL SERVICE DEFINTIONS ARE INHERENTLY ARBITRARY
WICKENDEN 76
49
Opening T Salvo
SERVICE T: EXCLUDES GOODS AND INCOME
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN SERVICES, GOODS AND INCOME

BURKE 11/25/3
http://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/RL32233.pdf
Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited Income: Eligibility Rules, Recipient and Expenditure
Data, FY2000-FY2002
Vee Burke, Specialist in Income Maintenance, Domestic Social Policy Division, CONGRESSIONAL
RESEARCH SERVICE
Most of these programs base eligibility on individual, household, or family income, but some use group or
area income tests (see Table 7 — page 16); and a few offer help on the basis of presumed “need.” Most
provide income “transfers.” That is, they transfer income, in the form of cash, goods, or services, to
persons who make no payment and render no service in return.
50
Opening T Salvo
SOCIAL SERVICE: BROAD STATUTORY DEFINITION

[NOTE: REHIGHLIGHT TO INCLUDE SPECIFIC AFF IF POSSIBLE]
SOCIAL SERVICE MEANS FEDERAL POVERTY PROGRAMS

GEORGE BUSH – IN AN EXECUTIVE ORDER 2
EO 13279 “Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-Based and Community Organizations”
http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/docs/legal/wh-20021212.pdf.
"Social service program" means a program that is administered by the Federal Government, or by
a State or local government using Federal financial assistance, and that provides services directed at
reducing poverty, improving opportunities for low-income children, revitalizing low-income
communities, empowering low-income families and low-income individuals to become self-
sufficient, or otherwise helping people in need.
Such programs include, but are not limited to, the following: (i) child care services, protective services for
children and adults, services for children and adults in foster care, adoption services, services related to
the management and maintenance of the home, day care services for adults, and services to meet the
special needs of children, older individuals, and individuals with disabilities (including physical, mental, or
emotional disabilities); (ii) transportation services; (iii) job training and related services, and employment
services; (iv) information, referral, and counseling services; (v) the preparation and delivery of meals and
services related to soup kitchens or food banks; (vi) health support services; (vii) literacy and mentoring
programs; (viii) services for the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency and substance abuse,
services for the prevention of crime and the provision of assistance to the victims and the families of
criminal offenders, and services related to intervention in, and prevention of, domestic violence; and (ix)
services related to the provision of assistance for housing under Federal law.
51
Opening T Salvo
SOCIAL SERVICES: BROAD
SOCIAL SERVICES MEANS ANY SERVICE TO PEOPLE IN POVERTY

BURKE 4
Domestic Social Policy Division, Specialist in Income Maintenance, Congressional Research Service,
Library of Congress, CRS REPORT FOR CONGRESS, “Social Service Provisions in the CARE Act
and the Charitable Giving Act”
http://www.wikileaks.de/leak/crs/RS21713.pdf
REFERENCES H.R. 7 (The Charitable Giving Act of 2003) as passed by the HousE
Defines social services programs as programs providing benefits or services of any kind to
persons and families in need. [Section 301]
SOCIAL SERVICES CAN INCLUDE ANYTHING THAT IMPROVES PEOPLE’S STANDARD OF LIVING
DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION PROGRAM OF THE WORLD BANK 00
http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/TLSF/theme_c/mod13/www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/modules/
glossary.htm
Social services.
Services generally provided by the government that help improve people's standard of living;
examples are public hospitals and clinics, good roads, clean water supply, garbage collection,
electricity, and telecommunications.
SOCIAL SERVICES MEANS ANY PROVISION OF BASIC HUMAN NEEDS TO THE

UNDERPRIVILEGED
SOCIAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD OF MANHATTAN, KANSAS, NO DATE
http://www.ci.manhattan.ks.us/DocumentView.asp?DID=1954.
The SSAB uses the following definition of social services:

Those not-for-profit activities, programs, or agencies that are primarily engaged in providing basic
human needs services such as temporary shelter, protection, nutrition, care, emergency support,
and guidance to those members of our community who are in need because of their dependence,
income status, health or other immediate circumstances, when those needs cannot be adequately met by
other private or public services or agencies.
52
Opening T Salvo
SOCIAL SERVICES INCLUDES EDUCATION
EDUCATION IS A SOCIAL SERVICE

DIMMOCK AND WALKER 00
Clive Dimmock, Allan Walker. Compare. Oxford: Oct 2000. Vol. 30, Iss. 3; pg. 303, 10 pgs
CLIVE DIMMOCK, Graduate School of Education, University of Western Australia ALLAN WALKER,
Chinese University of Hong Kong
That schools provide education and that education is a social service is undeniable.
53
Opening T Salvo
SOCIAL SERVICES INCLUDES MEDICAID
SOCIAL SERVIDES INCLUDES MEDICAID AND EXCLUDES MEDICARE

COUNCIL FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATION NO DATE
http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.php?lesson=190&page=teacher
The Council for Economic Education offers many programs promoting economic literacy in the United
States and across the globe.
Medicare provides health care coverage for 40 million elderly. Medicaid provides health care for 34 million
poor people, people with disabilities, and seniors in nursing homes. Medicare is an entitlement.
Medicaid is a social service.
54
Opening T Salvo
SOCIAL SERVICES INCLUDES HOUSING
HOUSING IS CLEARLY A SOCIAL SERVICE

Chan Chun Wai 3
http://sunzi.lib.hku.hk/hkuto/view/B31969069/ft.pdf.
Master of Housing Management dissertation, University of Hong Kong,
AN ASSESSMENT ON THE CHANGING ROLE OF THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT IN PUBLIC
HOUSING PROVISION DURING THE 1990s
It is generally recognized that housing is a form of social services. As Richard M. Titmuss pointed
out. social services can be defined as all collectively provided services which are deliberately
designed to meet certain socially recognized needs. Therefore, government regarded housing as a
form of social services which is provided jointly with education, medical and health and other
services to the most needed in the society
55
Opening T Salvo
SOCIAL SERVICES INCLUDES FAMILY PLANNING: XX/SSBG
SOCIAL SERVICES INCLUDES FEDERAL FAMILY PLANNING

SOLLOM GOLD AND SAUL 84
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2816696.pdf
Terry Sollom is policy analyst, Rachel Benson Gold is senior public policy associate and Rebekah Saul is
senior public policy assistant at The Alan Guttmacher Institute, Washington, D. C. The study on which this
article is based was supported by the office of Population Affairs, U. S. Department of Health and Human
Services, grant no. FPR000057.
Public funds to provide subsidized family planning come from diverse federal and state programs. The
federal government makes funds available for family planning services through four major sources: Title X
of the Public Health Service Act, and Titles V, XIX and XX of the Social Security Act. The latter three
sources are better known as the maternal and child health (MCH) block grant, Medicaid and the social
services block grant, respectively. The importance of each of these individual funding sources for family
planning services varies across states, since each state can structure its family planning effort
individually.
56
Opening T Salvo
SOCIAL SERVICES SHOULD BE DEFINED BROADLY
SOCIAL SERVICES IS THE BROADER TERM – IT’S CONTEXTUALLY DISTINCT FROM ITS
NARROWER COUNTERPART
WILTSE 58
Social Casework and Public Assistance
Kermit T. Wiltse
The Social Service Review, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Mar., 1958), pp. 41-50
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Dean of School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
57
Opening T Salvo
SOCIAL SERVICES: BROAD IS STILL MEANINGFUL

INCLUSIVE DEFINTION STILL HAS MEANING – IT DISTINGUISHES SOCIAL SERVICES FROM
PUBLIC WELFARE LIKE HIGHWAYS
SPICKER 84
Rev. ed. of the author's thesis (Ph. D.)--University of London.
Stigma and social welfare, GOOGLE BOOKS
58
Opening T Salvo
A/T TITLE XX
TITLE XX FAILS – IT DOESN’T PROVIDE ANY LIMIT BECAUSE LITERALLY ANYTHING CAN BE
INTERPRETED WITHIN ITS FIVE GOALS. ALOS – IT TECHNICALLY PROHIBITS
EXCLUSIONS.
WICKENDEN 76
59
Opening T Salvo
“FOR PERSONS LIVING IN POVERTY” VIOLATION

A. INTERPRETATION – TOPICAL AFFS MUST USE THE OFFICIAL POVERTY THRESHOLD AS AN
ELIGIBILITY CRITERION
1. FOR IS A TERM OF EXCLUSION WHICH MUST BE GIVEN STATUTORY MEANING

US CUSTOMS COURT 39
AMERICAN COLORTYPE CO. v. UNITED STATES
C. D. 107, Protest 912094-G against the decision of the collector of customs at the port of New York
UNITED STATES CUSTOMS COURT, THIRD DIVISION
2 Cust. Ct. 132; 1939 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 35
The same reasons used by the appellate court may be adopted in construing the language of the statute
herein involved. If the words "for industrial use" mean no more than the words "articles of utility,"
there could be no reason for inserting the additional words "for industrial use" in the paragraph.
Therefore, it must be held that the [*135] new language "for industrial use" was intended to have a
different meaning from the words "articles of utility," as construed in the case of Progressive Fine Arts Co.
v. United States, [**8] supra.
Webster's New International Dictionary defines the word "industrial" as follows:
Industrial. 1. Relating to industry or labor as an economic factor, or to a branch or the branches of
industry; of the nature of, or constituting, an industry or industries * * * .
The transferring of the scenes on an oil painting to a printed copy is a branch of industry under the
definition above quoted.
Some of the meanings of the preposition "for" signify intent, as shown by the following definition in
the same dictionary:
For. 2. Indicating the end with reference to which anything is, acts, serves, or is done; as: a. As a
preparation for; with the object of; in order to be, become, or act as; conducive to. * * *.
d. Intending, or in order, to go to or in the direction of.
Therefore, the words "articles for industrial use" in paragraph 1807 imply that Congress intended to
exclude from that provision articles either purchased or imported with the intention to use the same
in industry for manufacturing purposes.
60
Opening T Salvo
2. POVERTY IS CLEARLY DEFINED BY THE USFG

INSTITUTE FOR POVERTY RESEARCH 3/19/9
http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq1.htm
IRP is a center for interdisciplinary research into the causes and consequences of poverty and social
inequality in the United States. It is based at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. As one of three Area
Poverty Research Centers sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, it has a
particular interest in poverty and family welfare in the Midwest.
What are poverty thresholds and poverty guidelines?
Each year, generally in the fall, the U.S. Census Bureau issues a report on poverty in the United States.
Among other information, it provides statistics on how many people are poor, and on how poverty is
distributed by age, by race or ethnicity, by region, and by family type. Individuals or families are poor if
their annual pretax cash income falls below a federal measure of poverty that is also recalculated each
year. The Census Bureau's most recent poverty report is for 2007, and was issued in August 2008 as a
combined report, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007.
Since 1965, there have been two slightly different versions of the federal poverty measure:
* the poverty thresholds, and

* the poverty guidelines.
The poverty thresholds are the original version of the federal poverty measure (developed by Mollie
Orshansky of the Social Security Administration). They are updated each year by the Census Bureau.
The thresholds are used mainly for statistical purposes—for instance, preparing the estimates of the
number of Americans in poverty for each year's report. Values of the poverty thresholds for the years
1980–2007 for families of different sizes are available on the Census Bureau's Web site. For example, for
a four-person family unit with two children, the 2007 poverty threshold is $21,027. For one- or two-person
family units, the poverty thresholds differ by age; the 2007 threshold for one individual under age 65 is
$10,787, whereas for an individual 65 or over it is $9,944.
The poverty guidelines are the other version of the federal poverty measure. They are issued each year,
generally in the winter, in the Federal Register by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The guidelines are a simplification of the poverty thresholds for use for administrative purposes—
for instance, determining financial eligibility for certain federal programs. They are adjusted for
families of different sizes.
Poverty guidelines for the years since 1982 and other historical information appear on the Web page
"Poverty Guidelines, Research, and Measurement" of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning
and Evaluation in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Separate HHS poverty guidelines
for Alaska and Hawaii reflect Office of Economic Opportunity administrative practice beginning in the
1966-1970 period.
Both the thresholds and the guidelines are the same for all mainland states, regardless of regional
differences in the cost of living. Both are updated annually for price changes using the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). The poverty guidelines are sometimes loosely referred to as the
"federal poverty level" or "poverty line," but these terms are ambiguous, and should be avoided in
situations (e.g., legislative or administrative) where precision is important.
61
Opening T Salvo
A DETERMINATE SET OF PROGRAMS USE THE POVERTY THRESHOLD TO DETERMINE

ELIGIBILITY
INSTITUTE FOR POVERTY RESEARCH 3/19/9
http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq1.htm
IRP is a center for interdisciplinary research into the causes and consequences of poverty and social
inequality in the United States. It is based at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. As one of three Area
Poverty Research Centers sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, it has a
particular interest in poverty and family welfare in the Midwest.
The HHS poverty guidelines are used in setting eligibility criteria for a number of federal
programs. Some programs actually use a percentage multiple of the guidelines, such as 125 percent,
150 percent, or 185 percent. This is not the result of a single coherent plan; instead, it stems from
decisions made at different times by different congressional committees or federal agencies.
Some examples of federal programs that use the guidelines in determining eligibility are:
* HHS: Community Services Block Grant, Head Start, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance,
Children's Health Insurance Program
* Department of Agriculture: Food Stamps; Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC); the National School Lunch and School Breakfast programs
* Department of Energy: Weatherization Assistance
* Department of Labor: Job Corps, Senior Community Service Employment Program, National
Farmworker Jobs Program
* Legal Services Corporation: Legal services for the poor
Certain relatively recent provisions of Medicaid use the poverty guidelines; however, the rest of that
program (accounting for roughly three-quarters of Medicaid eligibility determinations) does not use the
guidelines.
Major means-tested programs that do NOT use the poverty guidelines in determining eligibility
include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (and its predecessor, Aid to Families with
Dependent Children), Supplemental Security Income, the Earned Income Tax Credit program, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development's means-tested housing assistance programs,
and the Social Services Block Grant.
B. VIOLATION – THE AFF DOESN’T USE POVERTY AS AN ELIGIBILITY CRITERION, SO THEY

AREN’T FOR PERSONS LIVING IN POVERTY, EVEN IF THEY AFFECT PERSONS IN
POVERTY
62
Opening T Salvo
C. VOTE NEG FOR OUR INTERPRETATION
1. SUBJECT SPECIFIC FIELD CONTEXT –
POVERTY PROGRAMS TARGET WITH MEANS TESTING TO ENSURE THEY ARE FOR THE POOR.
THAT’S A KEY LIMIT
COONTZ ET AL 99
American families
By Stephanie Coontz, Maya Parson, Gabrielle Raley
Author Stephanie Coontz teaches history and family studies at The Evergreen State College in Olympia,
WA.
2. LIMITS – ALL PROGRAMS AFFECT THE POOR IN SOME WAY, AND ALL SOCIAL PROBLEMS
DISPROPRTIONATELY IMPACT PEOPLE IN POVERTY, INCLUDING WAR, NANOTECH,
POLLUTION, AND INJUSTICE.
THE PREPOSITION HAS TO BE A STATUTORY LIMIT – NOT JUST A CHARACTERISTIC – TO

STOP UNFAIR AND SHALLOW DEBATES OVER EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING
3. PRECISION AND CLARITY – OUR INTERPRETATION ALLOWS A RESOLUTION BASED ON A

DETERMINATE LIST OF PROGRAMS. YOU LOOK AT A CHART – BAM!
THAT TRUMPS ARBITRARY AND SELF-SERVING DECLARATIONS OF INTENT
63
Opening T Salvo
FOR IS A TERM OF EXCLUSION
FOR IS A TERM OF EXCLUSION: FIFTH AMENDMENT PROVES

FALLS 5
B.A., 2000, Southwest Missouri State University; J.D. Candidate 2005, Washburn University School of
Law. I
44 Washburn L.J. 355
Legal scholars have struggled to determine the scope of the public use requirement as envisioned by the
Framers. n134 This struggle has occurred due to the lack of evidence as to what the Framers intended by
implementing the public use language of the Fifth Amendment. n135 According to strict textualists, the
three words "for public use," located just after "taken" but before "without just compensation," imply
that private property must be taken for a "public use." n136
Additionally, textualists argue that the phrase "for public use" is narrowing rather than broadening
the public use requirement under the Takings Clause. n137 For example, the preposition "for" appears
only two other times in the Fifth Amendment, and both times, there is little doubt that the phrases are
seen as narrowing the scope of the Amendment. n138
Finally, if the Framers intended a broad interpretation of "for public use," the Framers would have
used such a phrase. n139 For example, [*370] the Takings Clause does not state "nor shall private
property be taken, unless for public use" or "taken for legitimate public purpose." n140
THE PREPOSITION FOR DENOTES THE CHIEF USE OF A GIVEN STATUTORY PROVISION
UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS 79
THE UNITED STATES V. SORTEX CO. OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.
NO. 78-14, C.A.D. 1221
UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS
66 C.C.P.A. 57; 596 F.2D 1002; 1979 CCPA LEXIS 276; C.A.D. 1221
We cannot adopt the Government's interpretation [***12] of TSUS 666.25, because it ignores the
grammatical construction of the provision. In the heading "Industrial machinery for preparing and
manufacturing food of drink" both verbs are used in the identical form, as gerunds following the
preposition "for." The Government would have us construe the first gerund, "preparing," as establishing
for what the machine must be used, and the second gerund, "manufacturing," as establishing where (in or
at what place) the machine must be used. Such a construction disregards the fact that both gerunds are
objects of the preposition "for." If Congress had intended to create a where-used requirement, it would
have used another prepositional phrase, e.g., industrial machinery for preparing food or drink in a
manufacturing operation. Since both gerunds follow the preposition for, both must be construed as
establishing the for-what-use requirement.
Furthermore, since TSUS item 666.25 is a chief use provision, the phrase "for preparing and
manufacturing food or drink" cannot be construed as creating two for-what chief use requirements, it
being impossible to have two chief uses under the definition of chief use in TSUS General Interpretative
[***13] Rule 10(e)(i). This rule defines chief use as "the use which exceeds all other uses (if any)
combined." Obviously, there cannot be two uses each of which exceeds all other uses combined.
In view of this and the fact that there is only a subtle distinction between [**1007] the meaning of the
verbs "prepare" and "manufacture" when used in the context of foods (e.g., Is frozen orange juice
prepared or manufactured?), we conclude that the phrase "for preparing and manufacturing food or
drink" must be construed as creating just one for-what chief use requirement.
64
Opening T Salvo
“FOR” – PREPOSITION IMPACTS

PREPOSITIONS ARE KEY TO ACTUALLY SPEAKING ENGLISH
BOND AND HAYASHI 6
Kanto Gakuin University, Japanese translator
http://opac.kanto-gakuin.ac.jp/cgi-bin/retrieve/sr_bookview.cgi/U_CHARSET.utf-
8/NI20000010/Body/link/02hayashi.pdf
The importance of prepositions and their use in the English language cannot be overstated.
Prepositions show relationships in time and space. Prepositions also help establish logical relationships
between ideas. Communicative English that is logical and easy to understand does rely strongly on
the correct use of prepositions and prepositional phrases.
PREPOSITIONAL INTERPRETATION KEY TO MEANING - OUTWEIGHS THEIR DISTINCTION

EMERSON 1896
http://grammar.about.com/od/basicsentencegrammar/a/teachgrammar_2.htm
Dr. Oliver Farrar Emerson (1860-1927) was for many years a highly regarded professor of rhetoric and
English philology at Cornell University. A specialist in medieval English literature, he wrote and edited
several books, including The History of the English Language (1894) and A Middle English Reader
(1905).
Further, owing to misconceptions of language, our text-books of English grammar show an entire neglect
of some fundamental distinctions. In an inflected language, syntactical relations are made evident by
inflectional endings. How are syntactical relations shown in an analytical language like English?
Manifestly, first, by certain relational words, as prepositions and auxiliary verbs, and, second, by the
order of words. Now I know of no grammar of English which begins to do justice to the syntactical
importance of prepositions. Certainly there is none which attempts to treat word order in any adequate
manner. Yet these are fundamental facts of English syntax, more important than all
the logical distinctions with which our text-books are filled.
PREPOSITIONS KEY TO MEANING

English Tap, no date
School of English
www.englishtap.net/dipti/grammar/prep_added.htm
The importance of prepositions

Omitting or including just one article or preposition can completely change the meaning.
65
Opening T Salvo
DEFINTIONS OF “POVERTY”: US FEDERAL GOVERNMNET

PRECISION – THE CENSUS BUREAU OFFICIALLY DEFINES THE TERMS “PEOPLE IN POVERTY”
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 9
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/faq.shtml#programs
How many people are in poverty in the United States? How many people are in poverty in [my state
OR my county OR my city]?
The Census Bureau is the federal agency that prepares statistics on the number of people in
poverty in the United States. To obtain figures on the number of people in poverty since 1959, visit the
Poverty section of the Census Bureau’s web site, or contact the Census Bureau’s Demographic Call
Center Staff at (301) 763-2422 or 1-866-758-1060 (toll-free), or visit <http://ask.census.gov>.
The Census Bureau’s poverty statistics represent the number of people below the Census Bureau poverty
thresholds. Neither the Census Bureau nor the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services prepare
tabulations of the number of people below the HHS poverty guidelines, which are a simplified version of
the poverty thresholds used for program eligibility purposes. The best approximation for the number of
people below the HHS poverty guidelines in a particular area would be the number of persons below the
Census Bureau poverty thresholds in that area.
[ Go to Questions ]
Since there is an official federal definition of “poverty,” does the federal government also have official
definitions for such terms as “middle class,” “middle income,” “rich,” and “upper income”?
No. The federal government does not have official definitions for such terms as “middle class,” “middle
income,” “rich,” and “upper income.”
THE CENSUS BUREAU DEFINES POVERTY ACCORDING TO USFG DIRECTIVES

US CENSUS BUREAU 8
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povdef.html
Following the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive 14, the Census
Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine
who is in poverty. If a family’s total income is less than the family’s threshold, then that family and every
individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but
they are updated for inflation using Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). The official poverty definition uses
money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public
housing, Medicaid, and food stamps).
66
Opening T Salvo
POVERTY GUIDELINES UNIQUELY PREDICTABLE

POVERTY DEFINITIONS ARE DEEPLY ENTRENCHED WITHIN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT –
THEY’RE UNIQUELY PREDICTABLE BECAUSE THEY’RE USED BY SO MANY PROGRAMS
BLANK 7
http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/u/working_paper07-30.pdf
Rebecca Blank, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan and Brookings Institution
“How to Improve Poverty Measurement in the United States”
National Poverty Center Working Paper Series #07-30, November 2007
This paper was prepared as the Presidential Address to the Association for Public Policy Analysis and
Management at their annual conference, November 8-10, 2007.
Second, changes in poverty have become harder the longer that the statistic has gone without
changes, in part because the current poverty measure is used by a large number of programs.
According to a recent Congressional Research Service estimate (Gabe, 2007), 82 federal
programs use the official poverty rate (typically as a basis for 20 allocating funds) or
the Poverty Guidelines (typically as one element in their eligibility determinations.)
POVERTY GUIDELINES ARE THE MOST COMMON DEFINITIONS

besharov and germanis 4
http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/poverty/povmeasure.description.pdf.
Douglas J. Besharov, a lawyer and the first director of the U.S. National Center on Child Abuse and
Neglect, is also a professor at the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy. There, he directs the
university's Welfare Reform Academy and teaches courses on family policy, welfare reform, evaluation,
and the implementation of social policy. As the director of AEI's Social and Individual Responsibility
Project, Mr. Besharov led research on state welfare and Medicaid policy reforms; private and community
efforts to restore stability to inner cities; and the effectiveness of federal nutrition, rehabilitation, and
vocational training programs.
Peter Germanis is assistant director of the. University of Maryland's Welfare Reform Academy
The federal poverty measure is the most commonly used indicator of the material well-
being of low-income Americans. It compares an individual’s or a family’s income to the amount
believed necessary to meet a minimum standard of living. For almost four decades, it has been the
primary statistic by which the extent of U.S. poverty is measured and by which federal, state, and
local governments allocate means-tested social welfare benefits.
THE POVERTY DEFINITION IS UNUSUALLY WELL CODIFIED

BLANK 7
This methodology was imbedded as the official poverty calculation when the Bureau of the Budget (now
the Office of Management and Budget, OMB) issued a directive in 1969 stating that the Census
Bureau should calculate and report this figure annually.6 I will return to this point below, but note here
that this is relatively unusual. Most government statistics are not defined by an OMB directive, but are
under the control and jurisdiction of one of the U.S. statistical agencies which has authority to implement
improvements and updates over time. In contrast, any change in the official measurement of poverty
requires a change in this directive. Since OMB sits within the Executive Office of the President, this
67
Opening T Salvo
means the White House needs to sign off on any change, a point that will be quite important later in
this paper
68
Opening T Salvo
RESOLUTIONAL CONTEXT NET BENEFIT: POVERTY DEFINITION USES

“PERSONS IN POVERTY”
CENSUS FORMULA IDENTIFIES PEOPLE IN POVERTY
besharov and germanis 4
The “poverty thresholds” are used by the Census Bureau to calculate the number of people in
poverty.
THE RESOLUTIONAL PHRASE IS A CENSUS TERM OF ART
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION NO DATE
http://www.data.gosap.governor.virginia.gov/GOSAP_App/DocumentsUploaded/20050606132236.Povert
y%20All%20Ages.pdf
This database is a project of the Governor's Office for Substance Abuse Prevention (GOSAP)
Collaborative. Virginia’s state agencies are collaborating to provide information that impacts the
development of our children and the well-being of our communities on this easy-to-use site. Please visit
often as we frequently are adding data and enhancing what the database can do. Please use the
Feedback form (upper right) to give us your comments and ideas for making it more useful.’
Persons Living in Poverty

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates
(SAIPE) program.
Definition: The total number of people in poverty.
THE RESOLUTUIONAL PHRASE REFERS TO DERIVATIONS FROM CENSUS COUNTS

LANG AND POLANKSY 94
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/331/23/1542
From the Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy and Immunology (D.M.L.), and the Department of
Humanities, Social Sciences, and Biometrics (M.P.), Hahnemann University Hospital, Philadelphia.
Presented in part at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy and Immunology, Chicago,
March 16, 1993.
Volume 331:1542-1546 December 8, 1994 Number 23
Patterns of Asthma Mortality in Philadelphia from 1969 to 1991”
Persons living in poverty were identified with a standard used by federal government agencies:
total income is adjusted to a poverty threshold that varies depending on the size and composition of a
family.
69
Opening T Salvo
POVERTY GUIDELINES MEANS TESTING: LIST OF EXCLUSION

THE FOLLOWING MEANS-TESTED PROGRAMS DON’T MEET OUR DEFINTION OF “FOR PERSON
IN POVERTY”
Major means-tested programs that do not use the poverty guidelines in determining eligibility include the
following:
* Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and its predecessor, Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) (in most cases)
* Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
* Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)
* State/local-funded General Assistance (in most cases)
* Large parts of Medicaid (69 percent of eligibles in Fiscal Year 2004)
* Section 8 low-income housing assistance
* Low-rent public housing
70
Opening T Salvo
EXCLUDES VETERAN’S AND SOCIAL SECURITY

SOCIAL SECURITY AND VETERANS BENEFITS DON’T DO ANY MEANS TESTING – THEY AREN’T
FOR POVERTY
BURKE 11/25/3
Data, FY2000-FY2002
RESEARCH SERVICE
This report excludes income maintenance programs that are not income-tested, including
social insurance and many veterans’ benefits, and all but two tax-transfer
programs. Thus, it excludes Social Security cash benefits, unemployment compensation, and
Medicare. Outlays for the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance programs (Social Security
cash benefit programs) in FY2002 totaled $456 billion, financed primarily from payroll tax collections. The
report also excludes payments, even though financed with general revenues, that may be regarded as
“deferredcompensation,” such as veterans’ housing benefits and
medical care for veterans with a service-connected disability.
VETERANS BENEFITS DON’T DIRECT TO POVERTY – THEY APPLY TO ALL VETERAN’S AND
PRIORITIZE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY
BURKE 11/25/3
Data, FY2000-FY2002
RESEARCH
Eligibility Requirements3 Unlike other medical benefit entitlements such as Medicare or Medicaid,
eligibility for medical benefits from VA conveys varying degrees of rights. In principle, all veterans are
eligible to receive services from VA medical facilities, although the potential total amount of services
available to all veterans is contingent on appropriations. Veterans with high-priority rights under VA law
are generally assured a full array of services, and those with lower-priority are provided services if space
and resources are available. Highest priority for the full range of medical services is granted to veterans
with severe, service-connected disabilities. Other veterans have varying degrees of access for the
different types of medical services, with distinctions based on the severity of the condition, whether or not
it is serviceconnected, level of income, and type of medical service provided. In practice, there is no
evidence that any veterans were denied services at any VA facility in FY2002, and no denials are
expected during FY2003 (except for nursing home care, which is provided only on a space-available
basis, regardless of priority status). As a general rule, no veteran is denied medical services upon
presenting a health complaint to qualified personnel at a VA medical facility. For administrative
purposes, and to best manage the medical needs of individual patients, veterans are encouraged to enroll
in regional VA health care plans (enrollment for veterans who do not have a service-connection, whose
enrollments are above the threshold for means-tested services, or who are not already enrolled has been
temporarily halted). There are 23 of these Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) nationwide.
71
Opening T Salvo
SOME VETERAN’S AFFS MEET [TOPICAL VERSION OF YOUR CASE]

CERTAIN VETERAN’S MEDICAL ASSISTANCE CATEGORIES ARE EXPLICITLY DIRECTED TO
PEOPLE IN POVERTY
BURKE 11/25/3
Data, FY2000-FY2002
RESEARCH
The largest category of veterans provided free medical care by VA consists of persons who
qualify for that care because their assets and income are below certain annually adjusted
standards (in 2003: single person, $24,644; with one dependent, $29,576; for each additional dependent,
$1,586), with possible additional adjustments for regional differences in medical costs. VA estimates that
out of 25 million veterans, about 7 million would qualify for free care because they meet the lowincome
standards. Veterans whose incomes in the previous calendar year were no higher than the pension of a
veteran in need of regular aid and attendance (in 2003: single person, $16,169; with one dependent,
$19,167; for each additional dependent, $1,653) are also eligible for free medications; others pay
copayments of $7 monthly for prescriptions filled in VA pharmacies, up to a maximum of $840 per year. A
veteran applying for care under the low-income eligibility test is advised that reported income is subject to
verification by matching the amount shown on the application with income reported to the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS). Once eligible under the income rules, a veteran remains eligible until
determined upon (annual) reevaluation to no longer meet the income standard. VA has estimated that
about 38% of the applications for medical services are from veterans entitled to free care because
of meeting the income standards.4
72
Opening T Salvo
FOR PERSONS IN POVERTY: EXCLUDES HOUSING, INCOME TAX credit

MEASUREMENT BY THE POVERTY GUIDELINES EXCLUDES HOUSING AND EARNED INCOME
TAX CREDIT
WILLIS 00
http://www.ocpp.org/poverty/how.htm
OREGON CENTER OFR PUBLIC POLICY, The Oregon Center for Public Policy (OCPP) does in-depth
research and analysis on budget, tax, and economic issues. Our goal is to improve decision making and
generate more opportunities for all Oregonians.
Poverty guidelines differ slightly from poverty thresholds. The guidelines are a simplification of the poverty
thresholds for administrative purposes such as determining the financial eligibility for certain federal
programs. The Department of Health and Human Services issues poverty guidelines each year in the
Federal Register. Poverty guidelines are designated by the year that they are issued. For instance, the
guidelines issued generally in the beginning of 1999 are designated the 1999 poverty guidelines, but
reflect only the price changes through the 1998 calendar year; they are approximately equal to the
Census Bureau poverty thresholds for the 1998 calendar year.
Programs and policies that use poverty guidelines to determine eligibility include Head Start, the
National School Lunch Program, the Food Stamp Program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program, the Oregon Health Plan, and the Oregon Working Families Child Care Credit. These
guidelines are used for many, but not all, federal, state, and local poverty programs. The Federal
Earned Income Tax Credit is one example that does not use the poverty guidelines. Public
Housing programs, such as Section 8, uses the area median income to determine eligibility.
73
Opening T Salvo
EXCLUDES INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES HAVE NO INCOME REQUIREMENT
BURKE 11/25/3
Data, FY2000-FY2002
RESEARCH
Eligible under Public Health Service regulations are persons of American Indian or Alaskan Native
(AI/AN) descent who: (1) are members of a federally recognized Indian tribe; (2) reside within an IHS
Health Service Delivery Area (HSDA); or (3) are the natural minor children (18 years old or younger) of
such an eligible member and reside within an IHS HSDA. The program imposes no income test; any
eligible AI/AN can receive health services. The program serves Indians living on federal reservations,
Indian communities in Oklahoma and California, and Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut communities in Alaska.
According to the 2000 census, more than 57% of AI/AN reside in urban areas. Under the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act of 1976, P.L. 94-437, as amended, the IHS contracts with 34 urban Indian
organizations to make health services more accessible to 605,000 urban Indians. Combined, all IHS
programs serve between 1.6 million AI/AN.
74
Opening T Salvo
EXCLUDES COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS DON’T IMPOSE INDIVIDUAL INCOME REQUIREMENTS – THEY
SERVE AREAS IN POVERTY, NOT PERSONS IN POVERTY
BURKE 11/25/3
Data, FY2000-FY2002
RESEARCH
Eligibility Requirements1 A health center is an entity that provides health care services to a
medically underserved population, or a special medically underserved population comprised of
migratory and seasonal agricultural workers, the homeless, and residents of public housing by providing
required primary health services and additional health services as may be appropriate for particular
centers. By regulation, medically underserved areas are designated by the HHS Secretary on the basis of
such factors as: (1) ratio of primary care physicians to population, (2) infant mortality rate, (3) percentage
of population aged 65 and over, and (4) percentage of population with family income below the poverty
level. Profit-making organizations are not eligible for health center grants. All residents of an area
served by a health center are eligible for its services.
75
Opening T Salvo
A/T NO CASE MEETS: LIST OF INCLUSION

FAMILY PLANNING FOR LOW INCOME MEETS
BURKE 11/25/3
Data, FY2000-FY2002
RESEARCH
Eligibility Requirements1 The law requires that priority for clinic services go to persons from low-
income families. Clinics must provide family planning services to all persons who request
them, but the priority target group has been women aged 15-44 from low-income
families who are at risk of unplanned pregnancy. Clinics are required to encourage
family participation. Clinics must provide services free of charge (except to the extent that
Medicaid or other health insurers cover these services) to persons whose incomes do not
exceed 100% of the federal poverty income guidelines ($18,400 for a family of four in the 48
contiguous states in 2003). A sliding payment scale must be offered for those whose
incomes are between 100% and 250% of the poverty guideline.
REFUGEE AND ASYLEE SOCIAL SERVICE MEET – THEY’RE CONTINGENT ON POVERTY

REQUIREMENTS
BURKE 11/25/3
Data, FY2000-FY2002
RESEARCH
A person must (a) have been admitted to the United States as a refugee or asylee under the Immigration
and Nationality Act or have been paroled as a refugee or asylee under the Act, (b) be a Cuban or Haitian
paroled into the United States between April 15 and October 20, 1980, and designated a “Cuban/Haitian
entrant,” or be a Cuban or Haitian national paroled into the United States after October 10, 1980, (c) be a
person who has an application for asylum pending or is subject to exclusion or deportation and against
whom a final order of deportation has not been issued, or (d) be a Vietnam-born Amerasian immigrant
fathered by a U.S. citizen. If a needy person in one of the above groups meets the income and
assets tests prescribed by his state for Medicaid eligibility but does not otherwise qualify for that
program because of its categorical requirements, such as family composition, the person is eligible for
RMA. Under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193),
as amended by P.L. 105-33, these persons are now eligible for 7 years after entry (earlier law gave
permanent eligibility). After 7 years their continued participation is at state option, as it is with other legal
permanent residents.5
76
Opening T Salvo
[FYI] POVERTY GUIDELINES MEANS TESTING: LIST OF INCLUSION

THE FOLLOWING PROGRAMS MEET OUR INTERPRETATION OF POVERTY
What programs use the poverty guidelines?
The HHS poverty guidelines, or percentage multiples of them (such as 125 percent, 150 percent, or 185 percent), are used as an
eligibility criterion by a number of federal programs, including those listed below. For examples of major means-tested programs
that do not use the poverty guidelines, see the end of this response.
* Department of Health and Human Services:

o Community Services Block Grant
o Head Start
o Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
o Community Food and Nutrition Program
o PARTS of Medicaid (31 percent of eligibles in Fiscal Year 2004)
o Hill-Burton Uncompensated Services Program
o AIDS Drug Assistance Program
o State Children’s Health Insurance Program
o Medicare – Prescription Drug Coverage (subsidized portion only)
o Community Health Centers
o Migrant Health Centers
o Family Planning Services
o Health Professions Student Loans — Loans for Disadvantaged Students
o Health Careers Opportunity Program
o Scholarships for Health Professions Students from Disadvantaged Backgrounds
o Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals
o Assets for Independence Demonstration Program
* Department of Agriculture:
o Food Stamp Program
o Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
o National School Lunch Program (for free and reduced-price meals only)
o School Breakfast Program (for free and reduced-price meals only)
o Child and Adult Care Food Program (for free and reduced-price meals only)
o Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program
* Department of Energy:
o Weatherization Assistance for Low-Income Persons
* Department of Labor:
o Job Corps
o National Farmworker Jobs Program
o Senior Community Service Employment Program
o Workforce Investment Act Youth Activities
* Department of the Treasury:
o Low-Income Taxpayer Clinics
* Corporation for National and Community Service:
o Foster Grandparent Program
o Senior Companion Program
* Legal Services Corporation:
o Legal Services for the Poor
Most of these programs are non-open-ended programs — that is, programs for which a fixed amount of money is appropriated each
year. The only open-ended or “entitlement” programs that use the poverty guidelines for eligibility are Food Stamps, the National
School Lunch Program, certain parts of Medicaid, and the subsidized portion of Medicare – Prescription Drug Coverage.
77
Opening T Salvo
[FYI CHART] FOR PERSONS IN POVERTY: EXCLUDES

GRAPH – HERE’S WHAT’S TESTED ACCORDING TO POVERTY
BURKE 11/25/3
Data, FY2000-FY2002
RESEARCH
78
Opening T Salvo
79
Opening T Salvo
80
Opening T Salvo
POVERTY THRESHOLD GRAPH

FYI
US CENSUS BUREAU 7
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh07.html
81
Opening T Salvo
POVERTY GUIDELINES ARE PRECISE: A/T PROGRAMMATIC VARIATION

EVEN IF THE MEANS TESTING FORMULA VARIES, THE THRESHOLD IS UNIFORM AND
INVARIABLE
While there is no standard definition of income for program eligibility purposes, the Census
Bureau uses a standard definition of income for computing poverty statistics based on the official
poverty thresholds. More information is available on the Census Bureau’s web site.
82
Opening T Salvo
A/T POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD

NO COUNTERDEFINTION – EVEN OPPONENTS AGREE THAT THERE IS NOT A PREDICTABLE
ALTERNATIVE
BLANK 7
Let me take stock of this history. Despite widespread agreement about some of the deficiencies of
the current official poverty line, no substantial changes in that measure have occurred.
Furthermore, while the overall thrust of the NAS recommendations were viewed as a credible alternative
by many policy analysts and researchers, there was disagreement about some of the specific
recommendations. As a result, agreement has not coalesced around one specific
alternative calculation. While the Census Bureau has been very interested in poverty measurement
and devoted substantial resources to new experimental and alternative measures, its efforts have
largely resulted in a proliferation of alternatives measures without agreement
on the comparative merits of different measures.
ARBITRARINESS IS NON-UNIQUE – IT’S A IMPRECISE CONCEPT, WHICH IS WHY WE DEFAULT

TO STATUTE
BLANK 7
http://ww.npc.umich.edu/publications/u/working_paper07-30.pdf
Third, a key difficulty in seeking agreement about a new alternative poverty measure is that
‘poverty’ is an inherently vague concept, and developing a poverty measure requires a number of
relatively arbitrary assumptions. While all statistics require some value judgment about how they
are constructed, the very concept of ‘economic need’ is vague. There is no ‘right’ way to develop
poverty thresholds or resource measures. Substantial disagreements exist about the nature of need
among low income American families, which have echoed through our debates over welfare reform for
many decades. At the end of the day, the statistician must make a call that balances good statistical
measurement with astute political and social judgment about acceptable public definitions of poverty. The
decisions are not always obvious, however, as indicated by the ongoing debates about whether and how
to make geographical adjustments, child care expense adjustments, and medical expense adjustments to
the measure of poverty.
The NAS committee discussed this explicitly in developing their measure for the poverty thresholds, trying
for a measure that would be acceptable to a broad population (hence, expenditures on necessities plus a
little more). Of course, given the role for judgment in this decision, those who engage in poverty
measurement can often be quite influenced by their sense of where they want to end up. It is,
perhaps, not surprising that persons who believe poverty is an over-rated problem in the U.S. have
argued for imputing the value of in-kind benefits in resources without changing the thresholds (which
would unambiguously lower poverty counts.) Meanwhile, those who believe that poverty is a serious
problem are more likely to argue for methodologies that lead to substantially higher thresholds (and hence
higher poverty counts.)
83
Opening T Salvo
A/T “BLANK” EVIDENCE

BLANK’S ULTIMATE CONCLUSION IS NORMATIVE NOT DESCRIPTIVE – SHE WANTS A
CHANGED DEFINTION, BUT ACKNOWLEDGES IT DOESN’T EXIST NOW
BLANK 7
If we are serious about improving the measurement of poverty in the United States, I would recommend
taking four actions. None of these are quickly done, but will require the active intervention of Congress,
which means finding Members who will help make these changes happen. Some support for these
changes within the relevant cabinet agencies would be helpful as well, as would support within the
Administration for such changes. Strong support from within the research community for these changes
also will be necessary.
1. Assign a statistical agency the authority to develop an alternative measure of income poverty,
based on the work already done to develop alternative poverty measures. An important part of the
assignment is the authority for this measure to be regularly improved and updated.
We must remove control over poverty measurement from within the Executive Office of the President if
we want to produce a regularly updated and improved poverty measure. Poverty measurement should be
treated like all other statistics. Note that nothing in this recommendation overturns the OMB directive
asking that Census continue to compute and report the current official poverty counts. Given this directive
requires 32
Census to call this line the poverty rate, it might be very helpful to call the new measure something else.
My own recommendation is to call it the Revised Poverty Measure. It is important that the agency be
directed to produce one primary Revised Poverty Measure, although of course ongoing reports in
appendix tables on alternative definitions are always useful. It is not useful, however, to produce 4 or 5
alternative Revised Poverty Measures and expect people to figure out which is the best one to use. The
agency should be given a reasonable time line, by which point it should be annually reporting the Revised
Poverty Measure as part of its official responsibilities.
THEIR BEST AUTHOR CONCEDES THAT IT’S THE BEST EXISTANT GROUNDING
BLANK 7
I have spent some amount of my time over the past two decades working to change the official poverty
measure. This paper argues that working to change the current OMB directive is not the appropriate
place to expend effort. The current poverty measures are what they are,
imbedded inside a necessarily political agency which has many reasons to avoid change. We need to
escape the argumentative box we have been in for several decades and assign responsibility for
calculating a Revised Poverty Measure to an agency prepared to take on such a task. At the same
time, we need to recognize the inherent limitations in any measure of income poverty.
84
Opening T Salvo
POVERTY GUIDELINES IMPRECISE: PROGRAM VARIATION
DIFFERENT PROGRAMS USE DIFFERENT CALCULATIONS FOR MEANS TESTING – IT ISN’T

UNIFORM OR PRECISE
Are the poverty guidelines before-tax or after-tax? Are they gross income or net income? What
definition of income is used with the poverty guidelines?
There is no simple answer to these questions. When determining program eligibility, some agencies
compare before-tax income to the poverty guidelines, while other agencies compare after-tax income.
Likewise, eligibility can be dependent on gross income, net income, or some other measure of
income. Federal, state, and local program offices that use the poverty guidelines for eligibility
purposes may define income in different ways. To find out the specific definition of income (before-
tax, after-tax, etc.) used by a particular program or activity, one must consult the office or organization
that administers that program.
85
Opening T Salvo
POVERTY THRESHOLDS AND GUIDELINES BAD:UNDERCOUNTING

THE OFFICIAL POVERTY MEASURES FAIL IN MUTLIPLE WAYS – IT’S IMPRECISE
WILLIS 00
Over the years there have been a number of critiques of the way the government measures
poverty. One on-going critique is of the types of income that are included in (or excluded from) the
poverty measure. By failing to include income that many low-income people receive in the form of
public assistance, some critics maintain that the extent of poverty is over-stated. If the value of food
stamps, publicly provided health insurance benefits, and cash welfare payments were counted as income
in the poverty calculation, many people would no longer be considered poor.
Another important critique of the official poverty measure is that it is seriously flawed in continuing to
assume that families spend one-third of their income on food. This may have been true when the
measure was devised 30 years ago, but it is not an accurate reflection of current realities. Families no
longer spend one-third of their income on food and two-thirds on other basic needs. Food now accounts
for something closer to one-sixth of the family budget. Housing, transportation and utilities are much
larger components of family spending.
Furthermore, expenses most families now regard as crucial elements of their household budget
are simply excluded from consideration in the poverty calculation. The cost of childcare is not figured
in to the thresholds because the families in the 1955 USDA household survey Orshansky used had one
wage earner and a stay-at-home parent. Commuting and other travel and work-related expenses that
are a part of modern life have a huge impact on family budgets. Expenses associated with today's living
have grown. Additional basic expenses mean that more money is required to maintain the same
standard of living in today's world. By ignoring these factors, the poverty measure underestimates
poverty.
LIVING WAGE MORE ACCURATE – THE POVERTY THRESHOLD UNDERCOUNTS

WILLIS 00
In recent years there have been more fundamental challenges to the poverty measure. Concerned that
the poverty rate is far too low, community-based organizations around the country have advocated for
"living wages." These groups have argued that instead of using "poverty" as the standard to measure
people's economic well-being, we should develop a measure of "living wages." Policy and research
institutes around the country have developed living wage budgets that take into account the full range of
costs required for families of different sizes to maintain a decent standard of living.
The bottom line is that the current system of measurement is out-dated and seriously
underestimates the count of the number of poor people in this country. If the government were to
acknowledge the true extent of poverty, it would need to dedicate a greater share of its resources to pay
the costs of programs to help the poor. It is unfortunately cheaper to use an outdated system of
measurement so that fewer people will be in poverty by government standards.
86
Opening T Salvo
POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD: CONSENSUS

ACADEMIC CONSENSUS PROVES THAT THE FEDERAL POVERTY THRESHOLDS ARE
ARBITRARY
BRADY 7
http://www.duke.edu/~elb13/Papers/Brady_Roundtable.pdf
Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Duke University
Chapter 2 of Politicizing Poverty, Socializing Equality (manuscript in progress)
The vast majority of U.S. research on poverty is based on the official U.S. measure.2 Occasionally,
scholars modestly augment the measure with slight alterations or supplement it with other indicators.
However, most survey data sets supply researchers with dichotomous variables identifying respondents
as below or above the official level. Typically, analysts simply use these simple dummy variables. Others
analyze and present historical trends in official poverty and debate whether poverty has increased since
the official measure was adopted in the early 1960s. This widespread use of the official measure stands
in stark contrast to what social scientists know and have written about the limitations of the official
measure.
In recent years, a consensus has emerged that is deeply critical of this measure.3 Betson and
Warlick emphasize that the U.S. measure, “Is commonly acknowledged to be inadequate
for measuring poverty.”4 Wilson argues that the U.S. measure, “Does not capture the real
dimensions of hardship and deprivation, it also does not reflect the changing depth or severity of
poverty;” and that its income thresholds are “arbitrary.”5 In 1988, the Family Support Act called for
a scientific review of the U.S. measure. In 1995, the National Research Council (NRC), and specifically
the Panel on Poverty and Family Assistance, published the results of this review. The NRC panel, which
included many of America’s most influential poverty researchers, concluded, “The current poverty
measure has weaknesses both in the implementation of the threshold concept and in the
definition of family resources. Changing social and economic conditions over the last three
decades have made these weaknesses more obvious and more consequential. As a result, the
current measure does not accurately reflect differences in poverty across population groups and across
time. We conclude that it would be inadvisable to retain the current measure for the future.”6
BEST CONSENSUS CONCEDES THE CURRENT DEFINITION IS BAD

BLANK 7
While there is widespread consensus that the current official measure of poverty in the
United States is badly flawed, three decades of discussion and debate have not resulted in any
changes to this statistic. To a casual observer, this may seem puzzling in a nation with a long tradition of
regularly updated national statistics.
87
Opening T Salvo
POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD: RECANT

THE AUTHOR OF THE THRESHOLD AGREES IT’S OBSOLETE
BLANK 7
Even though the work of Mollie Orshansky was well-done, based on the data available in the early
1960s, the statistic that she suggested makes little sense in 2007 (and Orshansky herself
argued strongly for updating the poverty calculation in later years.)
88
Opening T Salvo
POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD: COMMODITY STANDARD

POVERTY THRESHOLD’S NONSENSICAL – IT CALCULATES BASED ON COMMODITY BASKETS
FROM THE 50S
BLANK 7
The criticisms of this methodology as a way to define a 2007 poverty rate are too numerous to list in any
complete form here.7 It is not too strong a statement to say that, forty-three years after they were
developed, the poverty thresholds are nonsensical numbers. They are based on data from
1955 and do not reflect any information related to current expenditures or needs. If one sticks with
a threshold based only on food costs, the current multiplier would be much higher, since food has become
relatively cheaper and food expenditures have declined precipitously as a share of overall
expenditures.8 But basing the threshold numbers on a single commodity is almost surely not the
correct way to calculate these thresholds, since it leaves the numbers highly sensitive to the relative
price of that commodity and insensitive to the price of any other likely expenditures, such as housing,
among low income families.
POVERTY THRESHOLD USES ANTIQUATED STATES FROM THE 50S

esharov and germanis 4
Poverty thresholds: The current poverty thresholds, often called the “poverty line,” are based on the
Economy Food Plan, a minimally adequate food budget used in the 1960s when the poverty measure
was developed. At the time, food expenditures represented about one-third of after-tax income for the
typical family, so the food plan amount was multiplied by three to establish the poverty line. This
outdated spending pattern probably does not represent the current cost of meeting basic needs,
and ignores some unavoidable expenditures that were not as large forty years ago (such as taxes
and child care expenses). In addition, the thresholds do not accurately reflect differences in family size
and composition, as well as cost-of-living differences over time and between geographic areas.
Conversely, the thresholds have not been corrected for past overadjustments for inflation
(especially for overstatements of the cost for home ownership)
89
Opening T Salvo
POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD: TAX COUNTING

THE POVERTY THRESHOLD FAILS BY FAILING TO TAKE TAXATION INTO ACCOUNT
BLANK 7
The resource definition is also seriously flawed, as cash income alone is no longer an adequate
description of the discretionary resources available to low income families. There is broad
agreement that the resource measure should reflect after-tax income. In the years after 1964,
an increasing number of poor families began to pay federal income taxes as inflation eroded the tax
brackets. Tax reforms in the mid-1980s solved this problem, giving the poor more disposable income, but
these changes were not reflected in the poverty numbers. In more recent years, the tax system has
been a source of additional funds for low income working families because of the redistributive
effects of refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).
90
Opening T Salvo
POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD: CASH INCOME MEASUREMENT

THE POVERTY MEASURE FAILS BY NOT CALCULATING IN NON-CASH BENEFITS LIKE FOOD
STAMPS
BLANK 7
Furthermore, the growth in in-kind benefits from public programs strongly suggests that in-kind
benefits from near-cash programs such as food stamps or housing assistance should be imputed
into family income.10 These programs have increased the resources available to low income
families.
INCOME COUNTING PROCEDURE BADLY DISTORTS THE POVERTY MEASURE

esharov and germanis 4
Income: The current poverty measure counts some but not all forms of income. It counts welfare
payments (about $4,200), because they are in cash. But it does not count noncash benefits such as
food stamps (about $2,200), housing assistance (about $5,400), Medicaid (about $6,000 for a family of
four), the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) (about $1,000 per child), energy assistance
(about $400), the school lunch and breakfast programs (as much as $600 per child), and the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (about $400 per person). It also
does not count refundable tax credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) (about $1,700),
because they are “post-tax.” 2 It also ignores the value of assets (especially home ownership), although it
counts any income generated by assets (but not capital gains or losses). And, although it counts the
income of family members living in the household, it excludes the income of nonfamily household
members such as boyfriends
91
Opening T Salvo
POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD: HISTORICAL PROOF

HISTORY PROVES THAT THE FEDERAL POVERY MEASURE IS ARBITRARY AND POLITICIZED
BRADY 7
The history of how the measure was constructed illustrates its deep flaws. Mollie Orshansky, a
statistician in the Social Security Administration, constructed the measure in 1963. Orshansky used family
consumption data from 1955 and what she called a “crude” calculus of family budgets.7 Orshansky used
the Department of Agriculture’s (DOA) “low-cost food budget” and multiplied the dollar amount by three,
speculating that food amounted to one-third of a family’s expenses. She developed the line as a research
tool, never intended it as a policy instrument, and quickly repudiated it. Contrary to her intentions,
President Johnson’s Office of Economic Opportunity adopted it as the official measure. But, they only did
so after substituting the DOA’s “economy food plan” which was about 25% below the “low-cost” plan. The
food budgets have never been revisited since the 1955 data, and the measure was solely adjusted for
inflation – which effectively severed the food-income link.
Historians, like O’Connor and Katz, have even shown that the threshold was intentionally set low in
order to make the elimination of poverty an attainable political goal as part of Johnson’s “War on
Poverty.”8 Rather than representing a scientific absolute standard, the official threshold is politically
motivated to classify a large number of people as not poor that should reasonably be considered
poor. The dubious origins and significant elapsed time since the measure’s inception, at a minimum,
suggest routine review and updating. The NRC panel went one step further and argued, “Our major
conclusion is that the current measure needs to be revised.”9 Ultimately, it is clear that the official
measure was deeply flawed from the beginning.
92
Opening T Salvo
POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD: CHANGE OVER TIME

THE POVERTY MEASURE FAILS: CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS MAKE IT UNRELAIBLE AND
ARBITRARY
BRADY 7
Moreover, one can judge the official measure in terms of the two main ways that social scientists
assess measurement: reliability and validity. By both of these standards, the official measure is
deeply problematic.
The official measure is the same across the entire U.S., is the same for all population groups, and
has been basically the same since its adoption in the mid-1960s. Hence, it may seem surprising to fault
its reliability. However, due to its constant application across time, region and demographic groups, the
measure became clumsily incompatible with the changing realities of family life in the U.S.10
Because the measure remains unchanged after thirty years, significant demographic, economic, and
policy changes are ignored. Most pressing, the official measure was constructed during a time when
the average family had two parents and a male breadwinner, while the mother stayed home with the
children. Now that many of the U.S. poor are single parent or dual-earning couples, the official measure
is inadequate for appreciating the increased labor force participation of mothers, the relatedly
escalating need and expenses for childcare and health insurance, and the inappropriateness of
antiquated family size adjustments. Another development, the economic insecurity of the growing
elderly population – and their growing average ages – is not captured well by the official measure.
The official measure does not budget for chronic health conditions or health care necessities like
medication.
Relatedly, the share of family budgets devoted to different goods and services has dramatically
changed.11 Food no longer amounts to one-third of a family’s budget, and more accurately is about one-
sixth. When the official measure presumes that food is one-third of a family’s expenses, it significantly
understates the economic needs of a household. Also, the inflationary adjustments to the official measure
are based on the cost of a basket of goods for the entire U.S. population (or at least all urban consumers)
– which may not represent price changes
5
for poor families. Over time, the U.S. measure has actually depreciated from its value in 1963, and
become unreflective of what a family really needs to avoid poverty. Because of rising consumption and
living standards, the NRC concluded that updating the poverty threshold solely with inflation is
increasingly inadequate. In short, the U.S. measure lacks reliability due in large part to the limited
and weak means of adjusting the measure since its inception.
93
Opening T Salvo
POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD: POLITICIZED
POVERTY IS THE MOST POLITICIZED STATISTIC – IT’S AN EXAMPLE OF HOW NOT TO DEFINE
BLANK 7
Why are we stuck in this place? I think there are at least primary reasons. First, and most important is the
odd historical accident that led the Executive Office of the President to be in charge of the official
poverty measure. Primary responsibility for defining and updating virtually all other economic statistics
lies within one of the statistical agencies. Updating and changing economic statistics occurs all the time
within these agencies, even for statistics with much greater visibility, policy, and program value than the
poverty rate. For instance, major changes in the ways in which questions were asked about employment
created changes in employment and unemployment numbers in 1993. Debate about the appropriate
benchmarking for the Consumer Price Index led to a series of quite substantial changes in how that
statistic was calculated. The underlying analysis for these changes is overseen by the statistical agencies;
while these agencies report to political appointees inside Executive Branch cabinet agencies, there is a
long tradition of allowing them to do their job with minimal intervention.
Control over the measure of poverty, however, resides at OMB. Any changes to the current OMB
directive will necessarily pass through key political decision-makers within the White House. This means
that they must take direct responsibility for any changes in official poverty measurement, as
opposed to simply approving the recommendations of a statistical agency with some historical
independence. Any White House (Republican or Democratic), is likely to see far more costs than gains
from such changes. If we need an example of why economic statistics should be in the hands of
statistical agencies, the long-term stalemate over poverty measurement provides an excellent
one! At a minimum, this suggests that future poverty calculations need to be located in one of the
statistical agencies, which should be given explicit authority to make decisions over time regarding this
measure.
94
Opening T Salvo
POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD IMPACT: DESTROYS DEBATE
DEEP METHODOLOGICAL FLAWS MAKE THE OFFICIAL MEASURE THE LEAST ACCURATE
POSSIBLE – IT SHOULD BE DISCOUNTED AS A DEFINTION
BRADY 7
The official measure’s lack of reliability is concerning, but its lack of validity may be even worse.
Essentially, the official measure fails to capture the complex nature of poverty.12 Many increasingly
burdensome family expenses (e.g. health care and childcare) were not included in the household
budgets underlying the official measure. A household is defined as poor or not poor based on their
income before taxation. In tandem, in-kind public assistance and near-cash benefits are entirely
ignored when defining a household’s income. Of course, neglecting these results in an inaccurate
estimate of a household’s economic resources.13 Even low-income workers pay payroll taxes, while the
earned income tax credit, housing subsidies, and food stamps have clearly raised the economic
resources of such households. Overall, however, failing to grasp the financial reality of households
these ways probably results in an underestimation of poverty in the U.S.14
These validity problems have fluctuated over time and place and in turn, compromise reliability even
further.15 Some taxes vary across the U.S., and other taxes like payroll taxes have increased enormously
since the measure’s inception. Also, policy initiatives have not been integrated into the measure. When
the Children’s Health Insurance Plan and Food Stamps program were implemented or Medicaid was
updated, the official measure was never revised. Finally, these validity problems prevent a reliable
comparison across population groups. For example, social security pensions, a major resource for the
elderly, count as income. But, major
6
resources for young families like food stamps, housing subsidies and childcare vouchers do not. In the
past fifteen years, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) has grown into the largest assistance program
for families with children – even larger than Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF, what was
previously called AFDC).16 Unfortunately, since the official measure is based on pretax income, the EITC
is entirely ignored.
As a result, the U.S. measure lacks both validity and reliability, and warrants revision. We should be
cautious in reading any social science that solely relies on this problematic official U.S. measure.
We should scrutinize any conclusions drawn from the official measure. While the government probably
lacks the political will to implement a better measure of poverty, social
scientists have no
justification for continuing to rely on this fundamentally flawed
measure.
95
Opening T Salvo
USING THE POVERTY THRESHOLD IS THE WORST ACADEMIC STANDARD – IT’S SLOPPY AND
INACCURATE
BRADY 7
At the end of summer every year, U.S. citizens tell themselves a lie. Normally in the last week of
August, the Census Bureau releases the official rates of poverty for the previous year. Following the
Census report, pundits, politicians, the press and public and even the President engage in their annual
rehearsal of empty remarks on why poverty is higher or lower than last year, and attribute this failure or
success to things that really have nothing to do with poverty’s true causes. These poverty figures define
how we see the trends and extent of poverty in society, and in turn, shape
public debate
and policies regarding poverty. This entire episode is profoundly dishonest.
The reason that this ritual is so dishonest is because of the way that official U.S. poverty rates are
measured. Though the official U.S. measure of poverty dominates our understanding of poverty, it
simply lacks any justification as a measure of poverty. Thus, every year, we spend a great deal of
time and energy reporting, debating and scrutinizing an official statistic that really is not defensible as a
measure of poverty. The dishonesty of official poverty is not entirely the responsibility of politicians or
government bureaucrats. Though guilty of an unwillingness to revise the official measure, it would be
unusual for politicians to intentionally misrepresent poverty statistics. In some ways, the dishonesty is
partly the fault of the American public and American social scientists. By participating in the
commentary regarding the official measures and using the official measures, we give a credibility and
legitimacy to a statistic that does not 1 warrant our respect. Rather than perpetuating the
dishonesty, social
scientists must move beyond the official measure and
rethink the measurement of poverty. A wealth of scholarship has actually made
tremendous advances in poverty measurement. Several social scientists have devised innovative and
useful alternative techniques for the measurement of poverty. For example, Sen received a Nobel Prize in
Economics in 1998 for work that included his revolutionary “Ordinal Approach” to measuring poverty.
Though a few of these techniques are impractical and/or flawed, many significant theoretical and
methodological advances have been made beyond the official measure. In the studies that have emerged
around these advances, it has become clear that how we define poverty is truly consequential. As
Hagenaars explained, “Both the population of poor and the extent of their poverty appear to depend to a
large extent on the definition chosen.” Many scholars have shown that the number, composition and
trends in U.S. poverty are significantly different depending on the particular measure chosen. In fact,
simply ascertaining whether poverty has increased in the last thirty years has dramatically different
answers with contrasting measures of poverty.1 Despite the very real consequences of poverty
measurement, unfortunately these advances remain incompletely realized.
96
Opening T Salvo
POVERTY THRESHOLD BAD IMPACT: POLICY FAILURE

POVERTY THRESHOLD MISCOUNTING DESTORYS GOOD POLICYMAKING BY FAILING TO
MEASURE NONCASH BENEFITS. THIS DESTROYS DEBATE
BLANK 7
First, the statistic was remarkably impervious to most of the policies designed to improve life
among low income families that were implemented in the following decades. The 1970s saw rapid growth
in food stamp and housing benefits, in-kind programs not measured in the resource definition. The last 30
years have also seen large expansions in publicly paid medical care, another in-kind benefit. The 1980s
saw major reforms in the tax system that reduced tax burdens in low income families; in the 1990s, the
expansion of the EITC increased transfers from the tax system. Tax payments and tax refunds do not
affect the poverty statistics.
A primary reason to want to measure economic need is to track the trends over time, looking at the
effects of economic change as well as policy change. The public dollars that we put into anti-poverty
programs have grown enormously since the mid-1960s. But we have had an official poverty statistic
that did not measure the impact of these changes on the economic resources of the poor. While
the poverty measure was designed to measure cash income, most public assistance has come in the
form of non-cash transfers. The exception to this is the expansion of Social Security and Supplemental
Security Income to elderly low income families. The sharp decline in
11
poverty among the elderly, relative to other groups, largely reflects the fact that expanded public support
for the elderly took the form of cash transfers.
As a result, Ronald Reagan was able to declare in 1988, “My friends, some years ago the Federal
Government declared war on poverty and poverty won.”11 Looking at Figure 2, this is a reasonable
conclusion given stagnant poverty rates after the early 1970s. Although this was a period of rapid growth
in public spending on the poor, its effects were invisible since we had no official statistic that reflected how
this public spending improved the resources or the lives of low income families. In a very fundamental
way, our poverty statistics failed us and made it easy to claim that public spending on the poor
had little effect. Indeed, the primary statistical measure which we used to evaluate economic need could
not possibly have measured the impact of these effects. For
policy analysts, this should
provide a jarring and memorable lesson in the importance of good
statistics to the public debate and to public understanding of the
impact of policy changes. Even in the 1990s, when a strong economy led to substantially
reduced poverty rates, the reductions would have been even larger if expanded post-tax EITC subsidies
were counted as income.
97
Opening T Salvo
BRADY COUNTERDEFINITION
POVERTY SHOULD BE DEFINED BY SOCIAL EXCLUSION INSTEAD OF THE OFFICIAL POVERTY
MEASURE
BRADY 7
Conceptualizing Poverty As Capability Deprivation and Social Exclusion In order to construct valid and
reliable measures of poverty, it is essential to first theoretically define the nature of poverty. In the
past few decades, enormous advances have been made in the conceptualization of poverty. Two
interconnected notions collectively yield the best definition of poverty. First, European scholars
have cultivated the notion of social exclusion as way of conceptualizing poverty and disadvantage.21
Silver has argued that social exclusion is polysemic, having multiple meanings in different contexts and
for different purposes.22 At the same time, she explains that central common elements can be identified.
Social exclusion is the antithesis of Durkheim’s concept of solidarity and connotes marginalization and
irrelevance. 9 Theorists characterize social exclusion to entail “the multi-dimensional character of
disadvantage and exclusion in modern market economies;”23 multiple deprivation or “cumulative
misery;”24 those “who suffer from an accumulation of disadvantage which cannot be reached by macro-
policies;”25 and, those difficult to reach with social policy.26 Ultimately, social exclusion means
incomplete or unequal access to the status, benefits and experiences of typical citizens.27 Social
exclusion unifies many of the definitions of poverty implicitly conveyed by theorists and analysts of
poverty. The notion of social exclusion echoes Harrington’s classic concern that “the poor are losing
their links with the greater world.”28 In addition, social exclusion is consistent with Wilson’s concept of
social dislocation, which he describes as limited differential opportunities for economic resources, political
privileges, organizational influence, and cultural experiences.29 Galbraith draws a connection between
poverty and what others have called social exclusion: People are poverty-stricken when their income,
even if adequate for survival, falls radically behind that of the community. Then they cannot have
what the larger community regards as the minimum necessary for decency; and they cannot wholly
escape, therefore, the judgment of the larger community that they are indecent. They are degraded for, in
the literal sense, they live outside the grades or categories which the community regards as
acceptable.30 Last, social exclusion theorists have been influenced by Rawls’ difference principle.31
Atkinson explains that a Rawlsian notion of poverty is concerned with the “least fortunate group in society”
and these are the socially excluded who can be defined as poor.32
POVERTY IS BEST DEFINED AS CAPABILITY DEPRIVATION

BRADY 7
Second, Sen has pioneered the concept of capability deprivation.33 Capability refers to the ability to function
effectively in society and have the freedoms to participate fully and equally with the mainstream of society. The concept of capability
also emerges from Rawls’ political philosophy.34 Rawls contended that basic liberties should be prioritized in a society. A society
that deprives people of basic liberties can be understood as depriving those people of 10 capability. Sen has formulated his
definition of poverty in terms of the poor’s lack of substantive freedom of choice to achieve
valuable functionings and well-being. A functioning member of society must have basic freedoms (or capabilities) to
participate in society.35 As Rainwater and Smeeding explain, “Without a requisite level of goods and services,
individuals cannot act and participate as full members of their society.”36 In many ways, capability
deprivation and social exclusion share common ground. If one is socially excluded, that person has a limited capability to effectively
participate in society. Atkinson links social exclusion and capability deprivation by explaining that poverty involves, “people being
prevented from participation in the normal activities of the society in which they live or being incapable of functioning.”37 Similar to
social exclusion, one can think of the poor as “capability deprived” since they lack the basic liberties
to participate equally in society.38 Thus, the concepts social exclusion and capability present an engaging, broadening
direction for analysts of social inequality.
98
Opening T Salvo
A/T BRADY DEFINITION IS CULTURAL
CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC MEASURES INTERSECT – THE BRADY DEFINITION ACCOUNTS FOR
MATERIAL DEPRIVATION
BRADY 7
Because poverty is primarily an economic status and social exclusion and capability deprivation
are multifaceted and complex, some readers might see them as incompatible. It might strike some
as inappropriate to treat social exclusion and capability deprivation as market phenomena, rather than
cultural, institutional or social concepts. However, the economic market is one of several main
mechanisms triggering social exclusion and capability deprivation. In rich Western democracies, a
low level of economic resources is a principal precursor to social exclusion and capability
deprivation. Barry has argued that an interest in social exclusion demands an interest in economic
inequality, and “A government professing itself concerned with social exclusion but indifferent to
inequality is, to put it charitably, suffering from a certain amount of confusion.”39 Cantillion claims, “There
is probably not a single characteristic that the 11 ‘socially excluded’ have in common, except perhaps,
not having a stable well-paying job.”40 Atkinson exemplifies social exclusion as lacking a telephone in the
home: “A person unable to afford a telephone finds it difficult to participate in a society where the majority
have telephones.”41 While owning a telephone or lacking a job clearly reflects a person’s market standing,
these simple conditions also suggest complex social processes of dislocation and marginalization. Even
conceiving of poverty with the nuanced notions of capability deprivation and social exclusion, a
minimal level of economic resources remains essential. In order to participate in society and take part
in community life, it is essential to have a sufficient income.42 Thus, social exclusion and capability
deprivation involve marginalization in society’s institutions and, especially the market.
99
Opening T Salvo
A/T BRADY MEASURE IS IMPRECISE: RELATIVE BETTER
RELATIVE MEASURES OF POVERTY WORK BEST FOR INDUSTRIAL COUNTRIES – ACADEMCI

APPLICATION TRUMPS ABSTRACT NOTIONS OF PRECISION
BRADY 7
Relative Versus Absolute Poverty Measures For many years, a vigorous debate persisted over relative
versus absolute definitions of poverty.43 Each taps into contrasting notions of difference and
deprivation.44 Also, absolute and relative standards produce different policy implications and
accounts of the experience of poverty, and somewhat differ in the estimation of the extent of poverty.
Despite this historical debate, poverty scholars increasingly conclude that in affluent democracies, a
relative definition is more appropriate.45 Alternatively, absolute measures of “basic needs” are
most useful in less developed countries. By reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of absolute and
relative measures, I advocate for a relative measure.
100
Opening T Salvo
CONTEXT DEMANDS A RELATIVE MEASURE THAT TAKES CULTURE AND SOCIETY INTO
ACCOUNT
BRADY 7
Absolute Measures of Poverty Absolute measures involve a cross-nationally and historically

constant and fixed threshold, which distinguishes poor from non-poor. For example, except for
inflationary 12 adjustments, the U.S. measure intends to be absolute over time, regions, and family
types. Absolute measures assume that a certain material level purchases an essential bundle of goods
necessary for well-being. For example, the World Bank defines poverty absolutely as living on less than
one dollar per day in developing countries and less than two dollars per day in former communist
countries. Thus, absolute measures tend be tied to the concept of well-being, and indicators such as
infant mortality, life expectancy, and caloric intake. Sen contends that when studying developing
countries, absolute measures should be retained.46 Nevertheless, absolute measures suffer from
serious limitations when applied to developed countries. Most international poverty analysts have
become justifiably skeptical that absolute measures can be valid and reliable when studying industrialized
democracies. Such scholars realize that a fixed bundle of goods or absolute threshold of well-being
cannot capture the complexity of poverty. Most attempts to measure such absolute thresholds tend to
be based on a series of questionable decisions. Thus, an absolute veneer is placed on top of a set of
problematic indicators. Smeeding and his colleagues avoid an absolute measure because it “conveys
an unwarranted objectivity.”47 Hagenaars contends, “The resulting estimates are not as absolute and
objective as they are claimed to be.”48 Rainwater and Smeeding conclude: “The more experience
countries have with absolute poverty definitions, the more obvious becomes the absurdity of the rationale
for them.”49 Nevertheless, proponents of absolute measures counter that such measures can capture
concepts of well-being or basic needs. After all, if basic needs are unmet or well-being is low – in terms or
physiological subsistence, and physical and mental health – poverty is truly present. For example,
families that suffer from homelessness, hunger or disproportionate infant mortalities must certainly be
poor. Other scholars provide evidence of a historical decline in 13 U.S. poverty based on measures of
absolute consumption. While the argument is not new – Milton Friedman made the argument in the
1960s, and many made it before him – a number of economists contend that that U.S. poor presently are
more affluent than the middle class in previous decades.50 As recently popularized in Cox and Alm’s book
Myths of Rich and Poor, the U.S. poor consume like the middle class in previous generations with access
to refrigerators, televisions, cars, indoor plumbing and housing.51 As a result, many conclude that poverty
is not a serious problem in the contemporary U.S. On the surface, such absolute measures of
consumption or well-being are intriguing. But, as one digs deeper, one again finds a number of shaky
assumptions and questionable decisions.52 The greatest concern is with how these measures
conceptualize and measure poverty divorced from cultural and historical context. Absolute
measures explicitly presume that being poor is the same thing in the U.S. in the 1960s or 1990s, the
same thing in Spain as in Sweden, or even the same in Kenya as in Germany. This presumption
neglects that the concept of “need” is actually culturally and historically defined – reflecting
contextualized norms of what is a “need.”53 It is highly unlikely that if one interviewed social scientists in
each of these temporal and cultural contexts there would be much agreement about what constitutes
poverty or what differentiates poor from non-poor. Ruggles has shown that consumption patterns have
changed so dramatically over the past 40-50 years that defining the basic needs of American families is
quite elusive.54 Ravallion notes that perceptions of “well-being” are contingent on the reference group’s
circumstances, and argues, “There is an inherent subjectivity and social specificity to any notion of ‘basic
needs.’”55 Hagenaars stresses that even nutritionists cannot agree about levels of calories needed for
various ages, sexes, occupations and living conditions.56 Even U.S. policy makers have long conceded
that as a society’s standard of living rises, more expensive 14 consumption is forced on the poor to
remain integrated into society.57 Townsend concludes that, “Any rigorous conceptualization of the social
determination of need dissolves the idea of ‘absolute’ need.”58 Thus, attempts to construct a list of
101
Opening T Salvo
basic needs that differentiate poor from non-poor in every society or across time-periods have not
been successful.
ANY MEASURE HAS TO CHANGE TO ACCOUNT FOR OVERALL RISE IN LIVING STANDARDS
BLANK 7
If the thresholds had been recalculated or rebenchmarked at any point since 1963, changes in
methodology would surely have occurred. Without recalculation, if an appropriate price index is used, the
poverty line would be at the same absolute level as in 1963. This raises the question of whether an
absolute poverty line makes sense. As incomes grow or as behavioral expectations change, the
things required to fully participate in society change.9 For this reason, many argue that at least
partial adjustment for changing living standards should occur in the poverty thresholds.
102
Opening T Salvo
LINKS TO ABSOLUTE MEASURE BAD DA
CURRENT POVERTY THRESHOLD IS ABSOLUTE

BLANK 7
An income-based measure of poverty requires agreement on at least four major definitional items. In this
paper, I primarily address issues related to the first two of these. First, one needs to define a poverty
threshold, the level of income or other resources below which a family is considered poor. Thresholds
that are fixed over time in real terms (that is, they are entirely nonresponsive to economic growth or
changes in living standards) are typically referred to as absolute. The official U.S. measure falls into
this category. Thresholds that vary 1-to-1 with income growth (such as a threshold set at 50 percent of
median income) are typically referred to as relative
103

Social Services T Version 2

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Social Services T Version 2

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Georgetown 2009-10 ANTONUCCI

VIOLATION –TITLE XX: NO UNCONDITIONAL ASSISTANCE OR WELFARE:

2. ELIMINATING DEPENDENCY IS HISTORICALLY THE CLEAREST DEFINING FEATURE OF

B. VIOLATION – THE AFFIRMATIVE UNCONDITIONALLY GIVES ASSISTANCE WITHOUT TYING IT

C. IMPACTS – VOTE NEGATIVE

1. PRECISION: SOCIAL SERVICES IS LEGISLATIVE TERM OF ART THAT REQUIRES UNIFORMITY

3. WE’RE BROAD ENOUGH – THE STATUTORY LIMIT OF TITLE XX FUNDING INCLUDES

VIOLATION: TITLE XX: GENERAL LIMIT

THIS IS THE MOST UNIFORM FEDERAL DEFINITION

C. IMPACT – VOTE NEG TO UPHOLD OUR INTERPRETATION

1. PRECISION: SOCIAL SERVICES IS LEGISLATIVE TERM OF ART THAT REQUIRES UNIFORMITY

3. WE’RE BROAD ENOUGH – THE STATUTORY LIMIT OF TITLE XX FUNDING INCLUDES

ADMINSITRATIVE SEPERATION KEEPS SOCIAL SERVICES AND INCOME SUPPORT IN DISTINCT

B. VIOLATION – THE AFFIRMATIVE PROVIDES INCOME SUPPORT

C. IMPACTS – VOTE NEGATIVE

1. PRECISION: SOCIAL SERVICES IS LEGISLATIVE TERM OF ART THAT REQUIRES UNIFORMITY

3. WE’RE BROAD ENOUGH – THE STATUTORY LIMIT OF TITLE XX FUNDING INCLUDES

INCOME/SOCIAL SERVICE DISTINCTION EXTENSIONS

The Growing Centrality of Social Services to the Safety Net

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH DINSTINGUISHES SOCIAL SERVICES FROM CASH ASSISTANCE

SOCIAL SERVICE HISTORICALLY DISTINCT FROM ECONOMIC OR INCOME SUPPORT

EXCLUDES NATIVE AMERICAN INCOME ASSISTANCE

EXCLUDES EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT

TITLE XX :MUST MEET ONE OF 5 GOALS

FEDERAL CODE FIXES THE FIVE PURPOSES OF SOCIAL SERVICES

SOCIAL SERVICES: TITLE XX KEY TO PRECISION/PREDICTABILITY

DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL FUNDS IS THE CLEAREST STANDARD – EVEN IF IT’S IMPERFECT,

FULL TEXT OF DEFINITION OF SERVICES – FYI

Uniform Definitions of Services for Title XX

2. Case Management Services

5. Day Care Services--Adults

6. Day Care Services--Children

7. Education and Training Services

9. Family Planning Services

10. Foster Care Services for Adults

12. Health Related and Home Health Services

13. Home Based Services

14. Home Delivered Meals

15. Housing Services

16. Independent and Transitional Living Services

17. Information and Referral Services

18. Legal Services

19. Pregnancy and Parenting Services for Young Parents

20. Prevention and Intervention Services

21. Protective Services for Adults

22. Protective Services for Children

23. Recreational Services

24. Residential Treatment Services

27. Substance Abuse Services

28. Transportation Services

29. Other Services

EFFECTS VIOLATION – CAN’T MANDATE OTHER PARTIES:

A. SOCIAL SERVICES ARE CLEARLY DISTINCT FROM MANDATES ON THIRD PARTIES.

C. IMPACT – VOTE NEG

2. GROUND – STATUTORY REGULATION OF OTHER ENTITITES AVOIDS CORE DISADS AND

VIOLATION: 3-STEP PROCESS - MUST INVOLVE SOCIAL WORKERS

A. DEFINITION AND COMPARATIVE LIMITS IMPACT –

SOCIAL SERVICES MUST INCLUDE ASSESSMENT, COUNSELLING, THEN REFERRAL TO

B. VIOLATION – THE AFFIRMATIVE DOESN’T INCLUDE ASSESSMENT, COUNSELLIG AND

AND MORE EXPANSIVE DEFINTIONS EMPIRICALLY SNOWBALL TO INCLUDE NEARLY

VIOLATION: HIERARCHY OF NEEDS T

THEY’RE THE STEP UP THE LADDER FROM BASIC NEEDS