Temporary Help for Families in Need ( TANF ) is one of the United States federal aid programs. It started on July 1, 1997, and replaced the Assistance for Families with Dependent Kids (AFDC) program, providing cash assistance to poor American families through the US Department of Health and Human Services. This cash benefit is often referred to simply as "well-being."
TANF was created by the Personal Responsibility and Employment Opportunities Act instituted under President Bill Clinton in 1996. This law provides temporary financial assistance while aiming to free people of the aid, primarily through employment. There are a maximum of 60 months of benefits in a person's lifetime, but some states have implemented a shorter period. This reform provides the state with flexibility on how to distribute TANF rights. The state also has the authority to remove payments to the recipients at once. Under the new law, TANF recipients are requested to seek employment within 24 months of receiving assistance. In enforcing a 60-month deadline, some countries place restrictions on the adult part of the grant alone, while still assisting eligible children in the household.
Video Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
​​â € <â €
Before TANF, Help for Families with Dependent Children is a major federal aid program that gets harsh criticism. Some argue that such programs are ineffective, encourage dependence on governments, and encourage destructive behavior to escape poverty. Some people also argue that TANF harms its recipients because using these programs has a stigma attached to them, which makes those who use them less politically participate to maintain the program, and thus the programs are subsequently attenuated. Beginning with the administration of President Ronald Reagan and continuing during the first few years of the Clinton administration, increasing dissatisfaction with AFDC, in particular an increase in the burden of welfare cases, led to more countries seeking relief from the AFDC rules to allow countries to strictly enforce employment requirements for welfare recipients. A 27 percent increase in caseload between 1990 and 1994 has accelerated the urge of countries to implement more radical welfare reforms.
Countries granted waivers of the AFDC program rules for mandatory welfare-to-work programs are also required to strictly evaluate the success of their programs. As a result, many types of welfare-to-work programs must be evaluated in the early 1990s. While a review of such programs finds that almost all programs lead to significant increases in employment and reduction in welfare rolls, there is little evidence that income among former welfare recipients has increased. As a result, increased income from employment is offset by a loss in public revenues, leading many to conclude that these programs have no anti-poverty effects. However, findings that welfare-to-work programs do have some effect in reducing dependence on increased government support among policymakers to move welfare recipients into jobs.
While liberals and conservatives agree on the importance of transferring families from government aid to work, they disagree about how to achieve this goal. Liberal thinks that welfare reform should broaden opportunities for welfare mothers to receive training and work experience that will help them improve their family's living standards by working more and with higher wages. Conservatives emphasize work requirements and time limits, paying little attention to whether family income increases or not. More specifically, conservatives want to impose a five-year life limit on welfare benefits and provide grants to countries to fund programs for poor families. Conservatives argue that welfare for work reform will be beneficial by creating a role model of the mother, promoting mother's self-esteem and sense of control, and introducing a productive daily routine into family life. Furthermore, they argue that reform will eliminate welfare dependence by sending a strong message to teenagers and young women to delay childbearing. The liberals replied that the reforms sought by conservatives would overwhelm parents, deepen the poverty of many families, and force young people into insecure and non-stimulating childcare situations. In addition, they affirm that welfare reform will reduce the ability of parents to monitor the behavior of their children, which causes problems in the functioning of children and adolescents.
In 1992, as a presidential candidate, Bill Clinton pledged to "end the well-being as we know it" by requiring families to receive welfare to work after two years. As president, Clinton is interested in welfare experts and Harvard University proposals Professor David Ellwood on welfare reform and finally Clinton has finally appointed Ellwood to become chairman along with his welfare task force. Ellwood supports turning prosperity into a transitional system. He advises to provide assistance to the family for a limited time, after which the recipient will be required to get a wage from a permanent job or job opportunity program. Low wages will be supplemented by an expanded tax credit, access to childcare and subsidized health insurance, and child benefit guarantees.
In 1994, Clinton introduced a welfare reform proposal that would provide job training plus a deadline and subsidized work for those who had trouble finding work, but it was defeated. Later that year, when Republicans reached a majority of Congress in November 1994, the focus shifted toward Republican proposals to end aid, revoke AFDC and instead provide countries with grants. The Congressional debate on welfare reform centered around five themes:
- Welfare Reform for Promoting Work and Deadlines: Discussion of welfare reforms is dominated by the perception that an existing cash transfer program, AFDC, does not do enough to encourage and obliging work, and instead of non-work incentives. Proponents of welfare reform also argue that AFDC encourages the birth of divorce and out of wedlock, and creates a culture of dependence on government aid. Both President Clinton and the Republican Congress stressed the need to turn the cash transfer system into a time-focused, work-limited program.
- Reducing Expenditure on Projections: Republicans argue that the projected federal expenditures for low-income families need to be reduced because they are too high and that these reductions are needed to reduce federal spending.
- Promoting Parental Responsibility: There is widespread agreement among politicians that both parents should support their children. For custodial parents, this means an emphasis on work and cooperation with the enforcement of child support. For non-custody parents, it means a set of initiatives to strengthen the effectiveness of child support enforcement.
- Overcoming Exit-Wedlock Birth: Republicans argue that beyond the birth of marriage is an increasingly serious social problem and that the federal government should work to reduce the birth of marriage.
- Promoting Devolution: The common theme in the debate is that the federal government has failed and the states are more successful in providing for the needy, and so reform is needed to provide more power and authority to the state to shape the policy.
Clinton twice vetoed the welfare reform bill proposed by Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole. Then just before the Democratic Convention he signed the third version after the Senate voted 74-24 and the House voted 256-170 in favor of the welfare reform legislation, officially known as Individual Responsibility and Employment Opportunity Act of 1996 (PRWORA). Clinton signed the bill into law on August 22, 1996. PRWORA replaced AFDC with TANF and dramatically altered the way the federal and state governments define eligibility and provide assistance to needy families.
Prior to 1997, the federal government designed overall program requirements and guidelines, while states managed programs and determined eligibility for benefits. Since 1997, countries have been awarded grants and design and manage their own programs. Access to welfare and the amount of assistance varies somewhat by states and locality under AFDC, both because of differences in country requirements standards and substantial subjectivity in the social worker's evaluation of "appropriate home" qualifications. However, the welfare recipients under TANF are actually in a completely different program depending on their country of residence, with different social services available to them and different requirements for sustaining assistance.
Maps Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Implementation state
Countries have a large number of latitude in how they apply the TANF program.
- California: CREATE
- Colorado: Colorado Work Program
- South Carolina: TANF/Former Family Independence
Funding and eligibility
PRWORA replaces AFDC with TANF and terminates the right to cash assistance for low-income families, which means that some families may be denied assistance even if they qualify. Under TANF, the state has extensive discretion to determine who is eligible for benefits and services. In general, countries should use funds to serve families with children, with the only exception associated with efforts to reduce the birth of unmarried children and promote marriage. The state can not use TANF funds to help most legal immigrants until they are in the country for at least five years. TANF sets the following working conditions to be eligible for benefits:
- Recipients (with some exceptions) should work as soon as they are ready for work or not more than two years after receiving assistance.
- Single parents are asked to participate in work activities for at least 30 hours per week. Two parent families should participate in work activities 35 or 55 hours a week, depending on circumstances.
- Failure to participate in the terms of employment may result in the reduction or discontinuance of benefits for the family.
- The state, in fiscal year 2004, should ensure that 50 percent of all families and 90 percent of families of two parents participate in work activities. If a country meets these goals without limiting eligibility, it may accept caseload reduction credits. This credit reduces the minimum participation rate that countries must achieve to continue receiving federal funding.
While countries are given more flexibility in the design and implementation of public assistance, they must do so under various legal provisions:
- Provide assistance to needy families so that children can be treated in their own homes or in relatives' homes;
- end the dependency of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, employment, and marriage;
- prevent and reduce the incidence of pregnancy out of wedlock and set annual numerical goals to prevent and reduce the incidence of pregnancy;
- and encourage the formation and maintenance of a family of two parents.
Because these four objectives are so common, "countries can use TANF funds far more broadly than the core welfare reform areas to provide safety nets and connect families to work; some countries use a large share of funding for other services and programs".
Funding for TANF has undergone several changes from its predecessor, AFDC. Under the AFDC, states provide cash assistance to families with children, and the federal government pays half or more of all program costs. Federal expenditures are granted to countries openly, which means that funding is linked to the total caseload. The federal law mandates that states provide cash assistance to eligible poor families, but the state has wide discretion in setting benefits levels. Under TANF, countries are eligible for block grants. Funding for this block grant is set and the amount received by each country is based on the federal contribution level to the state for the AFDC program in 1994 States are required to maintain their welfare spending on 80 percent of their 1994 level of expenditure, with a reduction of up to 75 percent if the state meets the requirements of other employment participation. Countries have greater flexibility in deciding how they spend their funds as long as they meet the requirements of the TANF described above.
In July 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services released a memo informing countries that they can apply for waiver for the terms of employment of the TANF program. Critics claiming a waiver would allow the state to provide assistance without having to enforce the work component of the program. The administration has determined that any waivers that undermine the terms of employment will be rejected. DHHS provides waivers after some Governors ask for more state control. The DHHS agrees with waivers on the stipulation that they continue to meet all Federal requirements. States are given the right to submit their own plans and reporting methods only if they continue to meet Federal requirements and if state programs prove to be more effective.
Impact
Discussions about the effectiveness of TANF by policy makers and welfare reform advocates have centered on the rapid decline in the number of families on welfare since TANF came into force. Indeed, if measured by reducing the burden of welfare cases, TANF has been successful. Between 1996 and 2000, the number of welfare recipients fell by 6.5 million, or 53% nationally. In addition, the number of caseloads was lower in 2000 than at any time since 1969, and the percentage of people receiving public assistance income (less than 3%) was the lowest on record.
Since the implementation of TANF occurs during periods of strong economic growth, there is the question of how much the decrease in caseload is caused by the TANF program requirements. First, the number of caseloads began to decline after 1994, the year with the highest number of caseloads, long before the enactment of TANF, indicated that TANF was not entirely responsible for the decrease in caseloads. Research shows that both changes in welfare policies and economic growth play an important role in this decline, and that no more than a third of the decrease in caseload caused by TANF
While declining case burdens dominated the discussion on the effects of TANF, declining caseload was an incomplete and misleading indicator of TANF's success. Reduced cargo shiploads show less dependent on government assistance, but they do not take into account the welfare of families and poor children. Thus, other factors have been taken into account in assessing the impact of TANF: employment, income, and poverty of former welfare recipients; marriage and fertility of mothers; maternal welfare; and child welfare.
Jobs, income, and poverty
One of the main objectives of TANF is to improve employment among welfare recipients. During the post-welfare reform period, employment increased among single mothers. Single mothers with children showed slight changes in their labor force participation rates throughout the 1980s and into the mid-1990s, but between 1994-1999, their labor force participation increased 10%. Among the welfare recipients, the percentage of reported income from employment increased from 6.7% in 1990 to 28.1% in 1999. While employment of TANF recipients increased in the early years of reform, it declined in the subsequent period after the reform, after 2000. From 2000-2005, employment among TANF beneficiaries decreased by 6.5%. Among the breadwinners, it is estimated that nearly two-thirds work at the time point ahead. About 20 percent of welfare graduates do not work, without spouse, and without public assistance. Those who leave their welfare because sanctions (deadlines or failure to meet program requirements) are fared much worse than those who leave voluntary welfare. Recipients of sanctioned relief have job rates that are, on average, 20 percent below those who go for reasons other than sanctions.
While the participation of many single-income, low-income parents in the labor market has increased, their income and wages have remained low, and their work is concentrated in low-wage jobs and industries. More than three quarters (78 percent) of single-income single-employed parents are concentrated in 4 low-paid jobs: services; administrative and administrative support; operators, assemblers, and laborers; and sales and related work. While the average income among TANF recipients increased during the early years of reform, it became stagnant in later periods; for lucky graduates, their average income remains stable or declining in the coming years. A study comparing household income (including welfare benefits) before and after leaving the welfare found that between one-third and half of welfare earners have decreased income after leaving the welfare.
During the 1990s, poverty among single mothers and their families dropped dramatically from 35.4% in 1992 to 24.7% in 2000, a new historical low. However, due to the fact that low-income mothers who leave welfare tend to be concentrated in low-wage jobs, the decline in the burden of public aid cases has not been translated easily into poverty reduction. The number of poor-headed poor families with children fell from 3.8 million to 3.1 million between 1994 and 1999, a decrease of 22% compared with 48% decrease in caseload. As a result, the share of working poor in the US increases, as some women leave public aid for work but remain poor. Most studies have found that poverty is quite high among welfare graduates. Depending on the data source, the estimated poverty among graduates differs from about 48% to 74%.
The TANF requirement has led to a large decline in the number of people who received cash benefits since 1996, but there has been little change in the national poverty rate during this time. The table below shows these figures along with the annual unemployment rate.
Note: The year 1996 is the last year for the AFDC program, and is shown for comparison. All numbers are for calendar year. The poverty rate for families is different from the official poverty level.
Marriage and fertility
The main thrusts for welfare reform are concerns about increased births outside marriage and lower marriage rates, especially among low-income women. The main goals of the 1996 law include reducing extramarital births and increasing marital numbers and stability.
Studies have yielded only simple or inconsistent evidence that marriage and cohabitation decisions are influenced by welfare program policies. Schoeni and Blank (2003) found that pre-1996 welfare release was associated with a slight increase in the probability of marriage. However, a similar analysis of post-TANF effects revealed less consistent results. Nationally, only 0.4% of closed cases make marriage an excuse to leave wellbeing. Using data on marriage and divorce from 1989-2000 to examine the role of welfare reform on marriage and divorce, Bitler (2004) found that both state release requirements and the TANF program were associated with a reduction in the transition to marriage and reduction from marriage to divorce. In other words, unmarried individuals are more likely to remain unmarried, and those who marry are more likely to remain married. The explanation behind this, consistent with other research, is that after the reform of single women are required to work more, increase their income and reduce their incentives to release independence for marriage, whereas for married women, post-reform there is a potential increase Significantly in the number of hours they have to work when singles, disappointing the divorce.
In addition to marriage and divorce, welfare reform is also concerned about childbearing. Special provisions in TANF are aimed at reducing the care of unmarried children. For example, TANF provides cash bonuses to states with the greatest reduction in childbearing that is not accompanied by more abortions. Countries are also required to abolish cash benefits for unmarried teenagers under the age of 18 who do not live with their parents. TANF allows countries to impose a family hat on the reception of additional cash allowances from giving birth to unmarried children. Between 1994 and 1999, childless teenagers decreased 20 percent among children aged 15 to 17 and 10 percent among children aged 18 and 19. In comprehensive cross-country comparisons, Horvath-Rose & amp; Peters (2002) studied the ratio of nonmarital births with and without abandonment of family hats during the period 1986-1996, and they found that the family hat reduced the nonmarital ratio. Any worries that a family hat would cause more abortion were alleviated by the declining number and extent of abortion during this period.
Child welfare
Proponents of welfare reform argue that encouraging maternal work will improve the cognitive and emotional development of children. A working mother, supporters assert, set a positive example for her children. Opponents, on the other hand, argue that requiring women to work on low wages puts additional pressure on mothers, reduces quality time spent with children, and diverts income to work-related expenses such as transportation and childcare. Evidence mixed on the impact of TANF on child welfare. Duncan & amp; Chase-Lansdale (2001) found that the impact of welfare reform varies according to the age of children, with generally a positive effect on school performance among primary school-aged children and the negative effects on adolescents, particularly those related to risky or problematic behavior. Other studies have found a large and significant effect of welfare reform on educational attainment and aspirations, and social behavior (ie teacher's assessment of compliance and self-control, competence and sensitivity). The positive impact is largely due to the quality of parenting arrangements and the post-school programs that accompany the migration from welfare to the workplace to these recipients. Yet another study found that substitution from maternal care to other informal treatments has led to significant reductions in childhood performance. In programs with less favorable benefits, Kalili et al. (2002) found that maternal work (measured in months and hours per week) had little overall effect on children's antisocial behavior, anxiety/depression behavior or positive behavior. They found no evidence that children were harmed by such transitions; if any, their mothers report that their children are behaving better and have better mental health.
Synthesizing findings from various publication options, Golden (2005) reached the conclusion that child outcomes were largely unchanged when examining the risk of child development, including health status, emotional behavior or problems, school suspensions, and lack of participation in extracurricular activities. He argues that contrary to the fear of many, welfare reform and the improvement of the work of parents does not seem to reduce the welfare of the child as a whole. Children who are more abused and neglected do not enter the child welfare system. At the same time, however, increased parental incomes and child poverty reduction do not consistently improve outcomes for children.
Mother's health
While the material and economic welfare of the welfare mothers following the enactment of TANF has been the subject of countless studies, their mental and physical health has received little attention. Recent research has found that the welfare recipient faces mental and physical problems at a higher rate than the general population. Issues that include depression, anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, and domestic violence mean that the welfare recipient faces more barriers to work and more at risk of welfare sanctions due to non-compliance with other TANF work requirements and regulations Research on health status welfare earners have shown positive results. Findings from the Women Labor Research, a longitudinal survey of welfare recipients in Michigan, show that women who are prosperous but not employed are more likely to have mental health problems and other problems than previous welfare recipients who are now employed. Similarly, interviews with current welfare recipients find that partly as a result of increasing their material resources from work, women feel that work has led to higher self-esteem, new opportunities to expand their social support network, and enhance feelings of self own. efficacy. Furthermore, they become less socially isolated and potentially less susceptible to depression. At the same time, however, many women experience stress and fatigue trying to balance work and family responsibilities.
Stipulated in July 1997, TANF was set for re-authorization at the Congress in 2002. However, Congress was unable to reach agreement for the next few years, and as a result, several extensions were granted to continue funding the program. TANF was eventually reauthorized under the Deficit Reduction ACT (DRA) of 2005. The DRA incorporated some changes to the original TANF program. This increases the level of employment participation, increases the portion of the welfare recipient subject to the terms of employment, limits the activities that can be counted as work, the hours specified that can be spent for certain work activities, and requires states to verify activities for each adult beneficiary.
In February 2009, as part of the US Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Congress created a new TANF Emergency Fund (TANF EF), funded at $ 5 billion and available to states, territories and tribes for the fiscal year federal 2009 and 2010. The original TANF Act provides a $ 2 billion Funded Contingency Fund (CF) that allows countries to meet the economic drivers to attract additional funds based on high levels of state MOE expenditures. These funds are expected (and not) discharged in FY 2010. The TANF Emergency Fund provided provides 80 percent of funds for increased spending in three TANF related expenditure categories in FY 2009 or 2010 during FY 2007 or 2008. The three categories of expenditures that can be claimed are aid basic, non-recurrent short-term benefits, and subsidized employment. The listed third category, subsidized work, made national headlines when countries created nearly 250,000 adult and youth jobs through funding. But the program ends on September 30, 2010, as scheduled with countries withdrawing all the $ 5 billion allocated by ARRA.
TANF is scheduled for re-authorization again in 2010. However, Congress does not work on legislation to re-certify the program and instead they extend TANF block grants until September 30, 2011, as part of the Claims Settlement Law. During this period, Congress again did not re-authorize the program but passed the three-month extension until December 31, 2011.
Quit the TANF Program
When transitioning out of the TANF program, individuals find themselves in one of three situations that is the reason to quit:
- The first situation involved work related outgoing TANF, in which the individual no longer qualified for TANF assistance due to the work earned.
- The second type of situation is the release of non-employment work at TANF where the recipient is no longer eligible for assistance as it reaches the maximum time allowed to be enrolled in the aid program. After their time limit is reached, the individual is removed from receiving assistance.
- The third type of situation is forwarded to the acceptance of TANF where recipients who work get wages that do not help cover the cost of continuing to receive assistance.
It has been observed that certain situations of TANF exit are more prominent depending on the geographical area where the recipient lives. Focusing comparisons between metropolitan (non urban) and non-metropolitan (rural) areas, the number of recipients experiencing non-work outbreaks was associated with the highest exit among rural areas (rural areas in the South experienced the highest case of type out of the program).
Information asymmetry or lack of knowledge among recipients at various TANF incentive programs is a contributor to unemployed recipients associated with labor migrants. Unaware of the program being offered impacts its use and creates misunderstandings that affect the responsiveness of those eligible for the program, so a longer period of time requires TANF services. Recipients who leave TANF because of work are also affected by information asymmetry because of a lack of awareness of the "transitional support" program available to facilitate their transition into the work field. Programs such as childcare, food stamps, and Medicaid mean increasing work incentives but many TANF recipients who turn to jobs do not know they are eligible. It has been shown that women working outside Indonesian labor migrants who use and maintain the above-described transitional incentive services are less likely to return to receive assistance and are more likely to find long-term employment.
Criticism
Peter Edelman, assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services, resigned from the Clinton administration in protest at Clinton signing Personal Responsibility and Employment Opportunity Act, which he called, "The worst thing Bill Clinton did." According to Edelman, the welfare reform legislation of 1996 destroyed the safety net. It increases poverty, lowers income for single mothers, keeps people out of well-being into homeless shelters, and leaves free countries to wipe out their full wellbeing. It moves mothers and children from welfare to work, but many of them are not enough to survive. Many of them pushed the welfare rolls because they did not show up for an appointment, when they did not have the transport to get to the appointment, or were not informed of the appointment, Edelman said.
Critics later said that TANF succeeded during the Clinton Administration when the economy was booming but failed to support the poor when jobs were no longer available during the crisis, particularly the financial crisis of 2007-2010, and especially after the lifetime limit imposed by TANF may have been covered by many receiver.
References
External links
- Welfare and Single Reform (Yale Economic Review)
- Congressional Research Service Report on TANF
- Government Accountability Office Report at TANF
- Social Law and Policy Center
- Prosperous Numbers Seeing Sharp Increase by Sara Murray, The Wall Street Journal , June 21, 2009
- The Welfare safety net is difficult to measure between states by Amy Goldstein, "The Washington Post", October 2, 2010
- "Family Assistance Office (OFA)"
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments