Yet, as the Great Recession showed, fixed federal block grants mean that there are no additional funds to meet increased need when the economy lags. TANF also gives states vast discretion in designing and administering their TANF programs and there is disturbing evidence of a disproportionate negative impact on racial minorities.
In the early s, 5. By September , only 2. The impact is even more troubling when one views how TANF performed during the worst recession since the Great Depression. Image courtesy of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Moreover, the impact on children has been particularly brutal. Under TANF, that figure is reduced to one in five poor children being lifted out of deep poverty.
Almost one half of all TANF cases provide assistance to children-only cases, because these children often live with a relative other than a parent. In yet other households, the parent is a person with a disability who cannot earn enough to provide for her family.
NCLEJ has applied impact litigation and policy advocacy, and has partnered with low-income communities and advocates across the country to fight for fundamental fairness in the administration of TANF and other safety net programs. Rather, it is a recognition that until it is replaced with a program that unequivocally meets the needs of children and families, we must continue to preserve even these most tattered remnants of a safety net. Since the passage of TANF, we have secured important victories.
Thirty-seven percent of adult recipients were white, 33 percent were African-American, 24 percent were Hispanic, 2. There were about 75, non-citizens i. In FY , work participation was mandatory for three of every five adult recipients. Overall, Eleven percent of TANF adult recipients met work activity requirements by either being a teen parent attending school or being a single parent with a child under 6 participating for 20 hours per week parents with children ages 6 and over are required to participate for 30 hours per week.
Additionally, ten percent of adult recipients were disregarded from work participation because they were single custodial parents with a child less than 12 months old. Among all TANF adult recipients twenty-nine percent worked in unsubsidized or subsidized jobs, Some TANF adults were involved in two or three work activities. Those participating did so for an average of More than seventy four percent of recipient children were under 11 year-old.
Sixteen percent under two years of age, while 28 percent were between the ages of two and five. Less than 10 percent of the children were 16 years of age or older. Most recipient children were children of the head of the household in TANF families, and only 9. Of all recipient children in TANF families with no adult recipients, 70 percent lived with parents and Hispanic children comprised Some TANF families who were not employed received other forms of assistance such as child care, transportation and other supportive services.
Of all closed-case families, Of TANF adult recipient, Ten percent of TANF families had some cash resources e. States define what counts toward cash resources for purposes of eligibility determinations. The employment rate of adult recipients increased significantly during the s. The employment rate went from 6. After this peak in FY , the rate declined to In FY , the employment rate of adult recipients dropped another one percentage points to There was a slight difference of the employment rate between male recipients In closed-case families, The data presented here represents the labor market status of adult TANF recipients and classifies individuals as employed, not employed, or not in the labor force.
Data presented elsewhere displays the type of work activities TANF adults are participating in using additional activity categories. In cases where a few States submitted questionable data, the data from those States were eliminated.
The statistical data are estimates derived from samples and, therefore, are subject to sampling errors as well as nonsampling errors. Sampling errors occur to the extent that the results would have been different if obtained from a complete enumeration of all cases. Nonsampling errors are errors in response or coding of responses and nonresponse errors or incomplete sample frames. For FY , the average monthly caseload, annual sample sizes, average monthly sample sizes, sampling fractions and the percentage points by which estimates of the total caseload for each State might vary from the true value at the 95 percent confidence level are shown in Table and Table indicates the approximate standard error for various percentages for the U.
These standard errors are somewhat overstated because they are calculated assuming a sample of 18, cases out of a total of 1,, cases or 0. California is the State with the smallest sampling fraction of the average monthly caseload.
To obtain the 95 percent confidence level at each percent in Table , multiply the standard error by a factor of 1. To obtain the 99 percent confidence level, multiply the standard errors by a factor of 2. Every effort is made to assure that a list of the universe or the sample frame is complete. It is possible, however, that some cases receiving assistance for the reporting month are not included. There is no measure of the completeness of the universe.
The Minnesota Family Investment Program, or MFIP, a progressive demonstration project evaluated in the s, focused on providing basic assistance while helping struggling families find and keep stable employment.
The evaluations showed that this model—which was available to married and cohabitating families in addition to single-parent ones— reduced divorce among two-parent families receiving benefits. The effects were especially powerful among black married couples, who saw a 70 percent drop in their divorce rates. In contrast, programs such as SNAP do serve all types of family structures, as long as the household purchases and prepares meals together.
The number of families helped by TANF has shrunk by more than one-quarter—from 2. For the small share of struggling families that do receive income assistance from TANF, benefit levels are meager at best. Thus, it comes as little surprise that TANF does little to mitigate poverty and hardship.
Instead of undermining effective work and income supports such as SNAP and Medicaid by modeling them after TANF, policymakers should focus on strengthening the TANF program to serve as a more effective tool for helping struggling families get back on their feet. Moreover, if policymakers are serious about wanting to cut poverty and expand opportunity for struggling families, ensuring an adequate safety net is just one step.
Other key policies include creating good jobs; raising the minimum wage; boosting the Earned Income Tax Credit for workers without qualifying children, and making permanent the improvements to the EITC and Child Tax Credit under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which are set to expire in ; ensuring paid leave and paid sick days; investing in affordable, high-quality child care and pre-K for all through a partnership with the states; and removing barriers to employment for people with criminal records.
Weakening vital components of our safety net by modeling them after the waning TANF program would be a step backward. Rebecca Vallas , Shawn Fremstad. Colin Seeberger Director, Media Relations. Peter Gordon Director, Government Affairs. Madeline Shepherd Director, Government Affairs. TANF is woefully unresponsive to recessions During a recession, the number of people who lose steady employment or are unable to find work rises. TANF is not accountable for results Although it is often touted as having increased state flexibility and innovation, TANF actually imposes extensive restrictions on states when it comes to designing employment and education paths for parents who receive income assistance from the program.
Rebecca Vallas Senior Fellow.
0コメント