Tanf

Syma Mian

PLSI 560

5/24/2006

Prof. Leveen.

FINAL EXAM

(1) TANF has been scheduled for reauthorization since 2002, but major disagreements about how to strengthen the program prevented Congress from adopting new legislation until this spring. Based on the evidence we have reviewed in class, what would you have recommended? What do you think is needed to make TANF more effective?

In 1996 Congress and President Clinton passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) ending sixty years of federal entitlement. The reforms under PRWORA greatly changed the nature of welfare. The largest and most important change was the termination of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). AFDC was a federal entitlement, meaning that anyone who satisfied eligibility requirements was entitled to receive aid (Schiller 2004). According to Schiller, the amount spent on welfare was unable to be anticipated since it depended on the "flow of welfare applicants" (p. 222).

Replacement of AFDC came in the form of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). TANF, unlike federal entitlement, is a block grant with certain restrictions and requirements expected of recipients. In addition, it is at individual states' discretion as to how much aid is given out. Congress decided to give a fixed amount to states each year. The states, in turn, are able to decide what benefits and services they deem appropriate for their citizens. Since the states now have authority to design their own welfare programs, they are able to decide "who is eligible for welfare, how much aid they get, and what services and work requirements accompany a welfare check" (Schiller p. 222). While all states confront similar issues, each state is able to resolve these issues as they see fit.

Although the design and implementation of welfare programs has become the responsibility of individual states, Congress did set some national rules that all states would have to follow. One of these rules is the lifetime eligibility cap of five years which according to Schiller, "Ð'...is intended to break the cycle of dependency" (p. 222). Even though this limit is set at five years, states may decide to have a shorter limit or longer if they continue to use nonfederal funds. Another national rule is the work requirement. Welfare recipients are required to find work within two years of receiving aid. Under PRWORA states are required to be able to show a rising percentage of welfare recipients who are working over 30 hours a week. As Schiller states, "The work participation requirement began at 25 percent in 1997 and rose five percentage points a yearÐ'...thus, by 2002, half of adult recipients were supposed to be in some form of work activity (a job, job search, education, or training)" (p. 222).

In order to promote work to welfare recipients, reformers increased funding for child care. The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) helps states offer child care to any welfare parent who works. In addition, the TANF program guarantees Medicaid to families for one year after leaving welfare. A large focus of the reform set forth by PRWORA was the reduction of unwed births. The new law requires teenage mothers to live with a responsible adult, not allowing them to establish their own households. Unmarried teen mothers are required to attend school while receiving welfare and must identify the father of their children. The last reform under PRWORA to be discussed is the limit set for noncitizens. While illegal immigrants have never been eligible for aid, the 1996 reforms also exclude most legal immigrants (Schiller p. 223).

Since PRWORA has been implemented there are various politicians and scholars who have mixed emotions and opinions on whether or not the program has effectively helped the issue of poverty. The major disagreements include the number of caseloads and the impact on poverty. In terms of the number caseloads, it is true that since the 1996 reforms the amount of caseloads has dropped dramatically and has literally been cut in half. However, the numbers fail to show the true meaning behind the drop in caseloads. Also, the reforms have indeed helped families rise out of poverty. A majority of families once leaving the welfare program have found jobs; however, these jobs generally pay low wages and have no benefits or security.

In the article titled The Continuing Good News about Welfare Reform by the Heritage Foundation, they say "Since the enactment of welfare reform, welfare dependence has been cut by more then half. The caseload in the former AFDC (now TANF) program has fallen from 4.3 million families in August 1996 to 2.02 million in September 2002" (Pg. 6). Now, technically, this is a great gain for our nation as a whole. Creating a system that is less dependent upon its government and much more self-reliant. However, what this data assumes is that the new program consisting of time limits and works requirements is the main reason behind the decline. In fact, caseload decline began in 1994, prior to the PRWORA. Also, as Schiller states, "the period 1996-2000 was a boom time for the U.S. economy. Strong economic growth pushed the national unemployment rate to it lowest levels in a generation. This job growth created opportunities for welfare recipients to leave the welfare rolls that had nothing to do with the specifics of welfare reform" (Pg. 224). In short, although this evidence is very optimistic, the truth is that a decline in caseloads does not necessarily mean that families are better off now and that the rate in poverty has been decreased. In fact many families do not even consider welfare to be an option because of the lengthy application process or due to an exhaustion of time limits.

There are two camps in the argument regarding welfare reform. One argues that reform has substantially contributed to the decrease in poverty, while the others argue against this. As stated by the Heritage Foundation, "Poverty has dropped substantially. Although liberals predicted that welfare reform would push an additional 2.6 million person into poverty, 3.5 million fewer people live in poverty today then in 1995, according to Census Bureau figures" (Pg. 1). Among the rate in poverty, the Heritage Foundation also goes on to say that fewer children are in poverty, poverty rates of children with single mothers has decreased, the amount of hungry children has decreased, the employment of single mothers has increased and out of wedlock child bearing has come to a "halt," which has ultimately