How Long Can a Family Collect Aid From Tanf

U.Due south. federal assistance program

Department of Wellness and Human Services

Official seal
HHS Logo
Program overview
Preceding Program	Assistance to Families with Dependent Children
Jurisdiction	Federal regime of the United States
Annual budget	$17.35 billion (FY2014)[1]
Website	TANF

Temporary Assist for Needy Families (TANF ) is a federal assistance program of the United States. It began on July 1, 1997, and succeeded the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, providing greenbacks help to indigent American families through the United States Department of Health and Human being Services.^[ii] TANF is often but referred to as welfare.

The TANF plan, emphasizing the welfare-to-work principle, is a grant given to each state to run its ain welfare program and designed to exist temporary in nature and has several limits and requirements. The TANF grant has a maximum benefit of two sequent years and a five-twelvemonth lifetime limit and requires that all recipients of welfare aid must find work within two years of receiving assist, including single parents who are required to work at least thirty hours per week opposed to 35 or 55 required by two parent families. Failure to comply with work requirements could effect in loss of benefits. TANF funds may be used for the following reasons: to provide assistance to needy families so that children can be cared for at habitation; to end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work and marriage; to prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-matrimony pregnancies; and to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.

Background [edit]

Prior to TANF, Help to Families with Dependent Children was a major federal assistance program that was coming nether heavy criticism. Some argued that such programs were ineffective, promoted dependency on the government, and encouraged behaviors detrimental to escaping from poverty.^[3] Some people besides argued that TANF is detrimental to its recipients considering using these programs have a stigma attached to them, which makes the people that use them less likely to participate politically to defend this program, and thus the programs have been subsequently weakened. Beginning with President Ronald Reagan's administration and standing through the first few years of the Clinton administration, growing dissatisfaction with AFDC, especially the ascension in welfare caseloads, led an increasing number of states to seek waivers from AFDC rules to allow states to more stringently enforce work requirements for welfare recipients. The 27 percent increase in caseloads between 1990 and 1994 accelerated the push by states to implement more radical welfare reform.^[4]

States that were granted waivers from AFDC program rules to run mandatory welfare-to-work programs were also required to rigorously evaluate the success of their programs. As a result, many types of mandatory welfare-to-piece of work programs were evaluated in the early on 1990s. While reviews of such programs found that almost all programs led to significant increases in employment and reductions in welfare rolls, in that location was lilliputian evidence that income among sometime welfare recipients had increased. In effect, increases in earnings from jobs were first by losses in public income, leading many to conclude that these programs had no anti-poverty effects.^[v] However, the findings that welfare-to-work programs did accept some issue in reducing dependence on government increased support among policymakers for moving welfare recipients into employment.^[6]

While liberals and conservatives agreed on the importance of transitioning families from authorities assistance to jobs, they disagreed on how to accomplish this goal. Liberals thought that welfare reform should expand opportunities for welfare mothers to receive preparation and work experience that would aid them enhance their families' living standards past working more and at college wages.^[6] Conservatives emphasized piece of work requirements and time limits, paying little attending to whether or not families' incomes increased. More than specifically, conservatives wanted to impose a five-year lifetime limit on welfare benefits and provide block grants for states to fund programs for poor families.^[7] Conservatives argued that welfare to work reform would be beneficial by creating part models out of mothers, promoting maternal self-esteem and sense of control, and introducing productive daily routines into family life. Furthermore, they argued that reforms would eliminate welfare dependence by sending a powerful message to teens and immature women to postpone childbearing. Liberals responded that the reform sought past conservatives would overwhelm severely stressed parents, deepen the poverty of many families, and force young children into unsafe and unstimulating child care situations. In addition, they asserted that welfare reform would reduce parents' ability to monitor the behaviors of their children, leading to bug in child and adolescent functioning.^[viii]

In 1992, as a presidential candidate, Neb Clinton pledged to "end welfare equally nosotros know it" by requiring families receiving welfare to work after ii years. Every bit president, Clinton was attracted to welfare proficient and Harvard University Professor David Ellwood's proposal on welfare reform and thus Clinton eventually appointed Ellwood to co-chair his welfare task force. Ellwood supported converting welfare into a transitional arrangement. He advocated providing aid to families for a limited time, after which recipients would be required to earn wages from a regular job or a work opportunity program.^{[half dozen]} Depression wages would be supplemented by expanded tax credits, access to subsidized childcare and health insurance, and guaranteed child support.

In 1994, Clinton introduced a welfare reform proposal that would provide job grooming coupled with time limits and subsidized jobs for those having difficulty finding piece of work, just information technology was defeated.^[seven] Later that year, when Republicans attained a Congressional bulk in Nov 1994, the focus shifted toward the Republican proposal to finish entitlements to help, repeal AFDC and instead provide states with blocks grants.^[nine] The debates in Congress about welfare reform centered around five themes:^[ix]

• Reforming Welfare to Promote Work and Fourth dimension Limits: The welfare reform discussions were dominated by the perception that the then-existing cash aid program, AFDC, did not practice enough to encourage and crave employment, and instead incentivized non-work. Supporters of welfare reform also argued that AFDC fostered divorce and out-of-wedlock birth, and created a culture of dependency on government assist. Both President Clinton and Congressional Republicans emphasized the need to transform the cash assist system into a piece of work-focused, time-limited program.
• Reducing Projected Spending: Republicans argued that projected federal spending for low-income families was as well loftier and needed to be reduced to lower overall federal spending.

• Promoting Parental Responsibility: There was wide agreement amid politicians that both parents should support their children. For custodial parents, this meant an emphasis on piece of work and cooperation with child back up enforcement. For non-custodial parents, it meant a gear up of initiatives to strengthen the effectiveness of the child support enforcement.
• Addressing Out-of-Spousal relationship Nascency: Republicans argued that out of matrimony nascency was presenting an increasingly serious social problem and that the federal government should work to reduce out-of-wedlock births.
• Promoting Devolution: A common theme in the debates was that the federal government had failed and that states were more successful in providing for the needy, and thus reform needed to provide more ability and authority to states to shape such policy.

Clinton twice vetoed the welfare reform nib put forwards by Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole. Then simply before the Democratic Convention he signed a 3rd version after the Senate voted 74–24^[x] and the House voted 256–170^[xi] in favor of welfare reform legislation, formally known equally the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Human activity of 1996 (PRWORA). Clinton signed the beak into law on August 22, 1996. PRWORA replaced AFDC with TANF and dramatically changed the way the federal regime and states determine eligibility and provide aid for needy families.

Before 1997, the federal government designed the overall plan requirements and guidelines, while states administered the program and determined eligibility for benefits. Since 1997, states have been given cake grants and both pattern and administer their ain programs. Access to welfare and amount of assist varied quite a bit past state and locality under AFDC, both because of the differences in state standards of need and considerable subjectivity in caseworker evaluation of qualifying "suitable homes".^[12] Yet, welfare recipients under TANF are really in completely different programs depending on their state of residence, with dissimilar social services available to them and unlike requirements for maintaining help.^[thirteen]

Country implementations [edit]

States have big amounts of latitude in how they implement TANF programs.^{[14] [xv] [sixteen] [17]}

• Alabama: The Family Assistance Program
• Alaska: The Alaska Temporary Assistance Plan
• Arizona: Cash Assistance
• Arkansas: Arkansas TANF
• California: CalWORKs
• Colorado: Colorado Works Program
• Connecticut: Connecticut TANF
• Delaware: Delaware TANF
• Florida: Temporary Greenbacks Assistance
• Georgia: Georgia TANF
• Hawaii: Hawaii TANF
• Idaho: Temporary Aid for Families in Idaho
• Illinois: Illinois TANF
• Indiana: Indiana TANF
• Iowa: Family Investment Programme
• Kansas: Successful Families Program
• Kentucky: Kentucky Transitional Assistance Program
• Louisiana: Family unit Independence Temporary Assistance
• Maine: Maine TANF
• Maryland: Temporary Cash Assist
• Massachusetts: Massachusetts TANF
• Michigan:Cash Assistance
• Minnesota: Minnesota TANF
• Mississippi: Mississippi TANF
• Missouri: Temporary Aid
• Montana: Montana TANF
• Nebraska: Assistance to Dependent Children
• Nevada: Nevada TANF
• New Hampshire: The Fiscal Assist to Needy Families Program
• New Bailiwick of jersey: WorkFirstNJ
• New Mexico: NMWorks
• New York: Temporary Assistance
• Due north Carolina: Work First Cash Assistance
• North Dakota: Northward Dakota TANF
• Ohio: Ohio Work First
• Oklahoma: Oklahoma TANF
• Oregon: Oregon TANF
• Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania TANF
• Rhode Island: RI Works
• South Carolina: TANF/Formerly Family Independence
• Due south Dakota: South Dakota TANF
• Tennessee: Families First
• Texas: Texas TANF
• Utah: Utah TANF
• Vermont: Vermont TANF Programs
• Virginia: Virginia TANF
• Washington: Washington TANF
• West Virginia: Family Assist
• Wisconsin: Wisconsin Works
• Wyoming: POWER Works

Funding and eligibility [edit]

Evolution of monthly AFDC and TANF benefits in the United states (in 2006 dollars)^[xviii]

PRWORA replaced AFDC with TANF and ended entitlement to cash assistance for low-income families, pregnant that some families may be denied aid even if they are eligible. Under TANF, states take broad discretion to decide who is eligible for benefits and services. In full general, states must use funds to serve families with children, with the only exceptions related to efforts to reduce non-marital childbearing and promote marriage. States cannot utilise TANF funds to help virtually legal immigrants until they have been in the country for at least five years. TANF sets along the following work requirements in order to qualify for benefits:^[19]

1. Recipients (with few exceptions) must work as soon as they are task ready or no later than ii years after coming on help.
2. Single parents are required to participate in work activities for at to the lowest degree 30 hours per calendar week. Two-parent families must participate in work activities 35 or 55 hours a week, depending upon circumstance.
3. Failure to participate in work requirements can issue in a reduction or termination of benefits to the family.
4. States, in fiscal year 2004, have to ensure that 50 percent of all families and ninety percent of 2-parent families are participating in work activities. If a state meets these goals without restricting eligibility, it can receive a caseload reduction credit. This credit reduces the minimum participation rates the state must achieve to proceed receiving federal funding.

While states are given more than flexibility in the design and implementation of public assistance, they must do so inside diverse provisions of the law:^[20]

1. Provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives;
2. end the dependence of needy parents on regime benefits past promoting job preparation, piece of work, and spousal relationship;
3. preclude and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and plant annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies;
4. and encourage the germination and maintenance of ii-parent families.

TANF Program Spending^[19]

Since these four goals are securely general, "states tin use TANF funds much more broadly than the core welfare reform areas of providing a safety net and connecting families to work; some states use a substantial share of funding for these other services and programme".^[21]

Funding for TANF underwent several changes from its predecessor, AFDC. Under AFDC, states provided greenbacks assistance to families with children, and the federal government paid half or more than of all plan costs.^[9] Federal spending was provided to states on an open up-ended basis, meaning that funding was tied to the number of caseloads. Federal law mandated that states provide some level of cash assistance to eligible poor families but states had wide discretion in setting the benefit levels. Nether TANF, states qualify for cake grants. The funding for these block grants have been fixed since fiscal year 2002 and the amount each state receives is based on the level of federal contributions to the state for the AFDC programme in 1994, with no adjustments for inflation, size of caseload, or other factors.^{[22] [23] : 4} This has led to a corking disparity in the grant size per child living in poverty amongst the states, ranging from a depression of $318 per child in poverty in Texas to a high of $3,220 per child in poverty in Vermont, with the median per kid grant size being $1,064 in Wyoming.^{[23] : Effigy 1} The states are required to maintain their spending for welfare programs at 80 pct of their 1994 spending levels, with a reduction to 75 per centum if states run across other work-participation requirements. States have greater flexibility in deciding how they spend funds equally long as they meet the provisions of TANF described in a higher place.

Currently, states spend merely slightly more than one-quarter of their combined federal TANF funds and the state funds they must spend to meet TANF'south "maintenance of effort" (MOE) requirement on basic assistance to meet the essential needs of families with children, and but another quarter on child care for depression-income families and on activities to connect TANF families to work. They spend the rest of the funding on other types of services, including programs not aimed at improving employment opportunities for poor families. TANF does not require states to report on whom they serve with the federal or state funds they shift from greenbacks assistance to other uses.^[24]

In July 2012, the Department of Wellness and Man Services released a memo notifying states that they are able to utilise for a waiver for the work requirements of the TANF program. Critics claim the waiver would let states to provide assistance without having to enforce the piece of work component of the program.^[25] The administration has stipulated that any waivers that weaken the piece of work requirement will be rejected.^[26] The DHHS granted the waivers after several Governors requested more state command.^[27] The DHHS agreed to the waivers on the stipulation that they continue to meet all Federal requirements.^[28] States were given the right to submit their own plans and reporting methods only if they continued to run across Federal requirements and if the country programs proved to be more constructive.

Impact [edit]

Case load [edit]

Between 1996 and 2000, the number of welfare recipients plunged by 6.five million, or 53% nationally. The number of caseloads was lower in 2000 than at any fourth dimension since 1969, and the percentages of persons receiving public assistance income (less than 3%) was the lowest on record.^[29] Since the implementation of TANF occurred during a period of stiff economic growth, there are questions about how much of the refuse in caseloads is attributable to TANF program requirements. First, the number of caseloads began declining after 1994, the year with the highest number of caseloads, well earlier the enactment of TANF, suggesting that TANF was not solely responsible for the caseload turn down.^[4] Enquiry suggests that both changes in welfare policy and economical growth played a substantial role in this decline, and that no larger than one-tertiary of the decline in caseloads is attributable to TANF.^{[29] [xxx] [ needs update ]}

Work, earnings, and poverty [edit]

Ane of the major goals of TANF was to increment piece of work amidst welfare recipients. During the post-welfare reform period, employment did increment amidst single mothers. Single mothers with children showed little changes in their labor force participation rates throughout the 1980s and into the mid-1990s, but between 1994–1999, their labor force participation rose past 10%.^[iv] Among welfare recipients, the percentage that reported earnings from employment increased from 6.7% in 1990 to 28.i% by 1999.^[iv] While employment of TANF recipients increased in the early on years of reform, it declined in the later period afterwards reform, particularly after 2000. From 2000–2005, employment amongst TANF recipients declined past half-dozen.5%.^[31] Among welfare leavers, it was estimated that close to two-thirds worked at a future point in time^{[32] [33]} About xx percent of welfare leavers are not working, without a spouse, and without any public assistance.^[31] Those who left welfare because of sanctions (fourth dimension limits or failure to run across program requirements) fared comparably worse than those who left welfare voluntarily. Sanctioned welfare recipients accept employment rates that are, on average, 20 percentage beneath those who left for reasons other than sanctions.^[34]

While the participation of many low-income single parents in the labor market has increased, their earnings and wages remained depression, and their employment was full-bodied in low-wage occupations and industries. 78 percent of employed low-income unmarried parents were concentrated in 4 typically low-wage occupations: service; administrative support and clerical; operators, fabricators, and laborers; and sales and related jobs.^[35] While the average income among TANF recipients increased over the early years of reform, it has become stagnant in the after period; for welfare leavers, their average income remained steady or declined in the later on years.^[31] Studies that compared household income (includes welfare benefits) before and after leaving welfare find that between ane-third and ane-one-half of welfare leavers had decreased income after leaving welfare.^{[30] [36]}

During the 1990s, poverty among single-mother and their families declined quickly from 35.4% in 1992 to 24.7% in 2000, a new historic depression.^[4] Withal, due to the fact that low-income mothers who left welfare are likely to be concentrated in depression-wage occupations, the decline in public assistance caseloads has not translated hands into reduction in poverty. The number of poor female-headed families with children dropped from 3.8 million to 3.1 1000000 between 1994 and 1999, a 22% decline compared to a 48% refuse in caseloads.^[29] Equally a result, the share of working poor in the U.S. population rose, as some women left public help for employment only remained poor.^[4] Most studies accept found that poverty is quite high amid welfare leavers. Depending on the source of the data, estimates of poverty amongst leavers vary from about 48% to 74%.^{[32] [37]}

TANF requirements have led to massive drops in the number of people receiving greenbacks benefits since 1996,^[38] just there has been piffling change in the national poverty charge per unit during this time.^[39] The table below shows these figures along with the almanac unemployment charge per unit.^{[40] [41] [42]}

Average monthly TANF recipients, per centum of U.Southward. families in poverty and unemployment rate

Twelvemonth	Average monthly TANF recipients	Poverty rate (%)	Almanac unemployment rate (%)
1996	12,320,970 (run into note)	11.0	5.4
1997	10,375,993	ten.3	four.9
1998	8,347,136	10.0	four.v
1999	6,824,347	9.3	four.two
2000	five,778,034	viii.7	4.0
2001	v,359,180	ix.2	4.7
2002	5,069,010	9.half-dozen	five.8
2003	4,928,878	10.0	six.0
2004	four,748,115	ten.two	v.5
2005	4,471,393	9.9	5.1
2006	4,166,659	ix.8	4.6
2007	3,895,407	ix.8	iv.5
2008	iii,795,007	10.iii	5.4
2009	4,154,366	11.1	8.1
2010	4,375,022	11.seven	8.six

Note: 1996 was the last year for the AFDC program, and is shown for comparison. All figures are for calendar years. The poverty rate for families differs from the official poverty rate.

Marriage and fertility [edit]

A major impetus for welfare reform was concern about increases in out-of-matrimony births and failing marriage rates, especially among low-income women. The major goals of the 1996 legislation included reducing out-of-matrimony births and increasing rates and stability of marriages.^[4]

Studies take produced only modest or inconsistent evidence that marital and cohabitation decisions are influenced by welfare program policies. Schoeni and Bare (2003) constitute that pre-1996 welfare waivers were associated with modest increases in probabilities of wedlock.^[43] Yet, a similar analysis of post-TANF upshot revealed less consistent results. Nationally, only 0.4% of airtight cases gave marriage as the reason for leaving welfare.^[29] Using data on marriage and divorces from 1989–2000 to examine the office of welfare reform on marriage and divorce, Bitler (2004) found that both state waivers and TANF plan requirements were associated with reductions in transitions into marriage and reductions from marriage to divorce.^[44] In other words, individuals who were not married were more likely to stay single, and those who were married were more likely to stay married. Her explanation behind this, which is consistent with other studies, is that later on reform single women were required to work more, increasing their income and reducing their incentive to requite up independence for marriage, whereas for married women, post-reform there was potentially a significant increase in the number of hours they would have to work when single, discouraging divorce.^{[45] [46]}

In addition to spousal relationship and divorce, welfare reform was also concerned about unwed childbearing. Specific provisions in TANF were aimed at reducing unwed childbearing. For example, TANF provided cash bonuses to states with the largest reductions in unwed childbearing that are not accompanied by more abortions. States were also required to eliminate cash benefits to unwed teens under age 18 who did not reside with their parents. TANF allowed states to impose family caps on the receipt of additional cash benefits from unwed childbearing. Between 1994 and 1999, unwed childbearing among teenagers declined twenty percent among 15- to 17-twelvemonth-olds and x percent among xviii- and xix-year-olds.^[29] In a comprehensive cross-state comparing, Horvath-Rose & Peters (2002) studied nonmarital birth ratios with and without family cap waivers over the 1986–1996 period, and they plant that family caps reduced nonmarital ratios.^[47] Any fears that family unit caps would pb to more abortions was allayed by declining numbers and rates of abortion during this period.^[48]

Child well-being [edit]

Proponents of welfare reform argued that encouraging maternal employment will enhance children's cognitive and emotional development. A working mother, proponents affirm, provides a positive function model for her children. Opponents, on the other hand, argued that requiring women to work at low pay puts additional stress on mothers, reduces the quality fourth dimension spent with children, and diverts income to work-related expenses such as transportation and childcare.^[29] Evidence is mixed on the impact of TANF on kid welfare. Duncan & Chase-Lansdale (2001) found that the impact of welfare reform varied by age of the children, with by and large positive furnishings on school achievement amid uncomplicated-schoolhouse age children and negative effects on adolescents, peculiarly with regards to risky or problematic behaviors.^[49] Some other study found big and pregnant furnishings of welfare reform on educational accomplishment and aspirations, and on social behavior (i.east. instructor cess of compliance and self-control, competence and sensitivity). The positive effects were largely due to the quality of childcare arrangement and afterschool programs that accompanied the move from welfare to work for these recipients.^[50] Yet another written report found that exchange from maternal care to other breezy care had caused a pregnant drop in operation of young children.^[51] In a program with less generous benefits, Kalili et al. (2002) found that maternal work (measured in months and hours per week) had piffling overall effect on children'southward antisocial beliefs, anxious/depressed behavior or positive behavior. They find no testify that children were harmed by such transitions; if anything, their mothers report that their children are better behaved and take better mental health.^[52]

Synthesizing findings from an extensive selection of publications, Golden (2005) reached the determination that children's outcomes were largely unchanged when examining children's developmental risk, including wellness status, beliefs or emotional problems, suspensions from school, and lack of participation in extracurricular activities.^[53] She argues that contrary to the fears of many, welfare reform and an increment in parental work did not seem to have reduced children's well-being overall. More abused and neglected children had not entered the child welfare organization. However, at the same time, comeback in parental earnings and reductions in child poverty had not consistently improved outcomes for children.

Maternal well-being [edit]

While the material and economic well-beingness of welfare mothers later on the enactment of TANF has been the subject of endless studies, their mental and physical well-beingness has received picayune attending. Research on the latter has establish that welfare recipients confront mental and physical problems at rates that are college than the general population.^[54] Such problems which include low, anxiety disorder, mail-traumatic stress disorder, and domestic violence mean that welfare recipients face many more than barriers to employment and are more at risk of welfare sanctions due to noncompliance with work requirements and other TANF regulations^[29] Research on the health condition of welfare leavers take indicated positive results. Findings from the Women'south Employment Study, a longitudinal survey of welfare recipients in Michigan, indicated that women on welfare but not working are more likely to have mental health and other problems than are former welfare recipients now working.^{[54] [55]} Similarly, interviews with now employed welfare recipients find that partly as a result of their increased material resource from working, the women felt that piece of work has led to college self-esteem, new opportunities to expand their social support networks, and increased feelings of self-efficacy.^[56] Furthermore, they became less socially isolated and potentially less prone to depression. At the same time, however, many women were experiencing stress and burnout from trying to remainder piece of work and family responsibilities.

Paternal well-being [edit]

For unmarried fathers inside the plan, at that place is a minor percentage increment of employment in comparison to single mothers, but there is a significant increase of increased wages throughout their time in the program.^[57] Equally of June 2020, the number of one-parent families participating in TANF is 432,644.^[58]

[edit]

Enacted in July 1997, TANF was set for reauthorization in Congress in 2002. Notwithstanding, Congress was unable to reach an agreement for the next several years, and every bit a result, several extensions were granted to go along funding the program. TANF was finally reauthorized under the Deficit Reduction ACT (DRA) of 2005. DRA included several changes to the original TANF program. It raised work participation rates, increased the share of welfare recipients subject to work requirements, limited the activities that could be counted as work, prescribed hours that could be spent doing sure work activities, and required states to verify activities for each adult casher.^[59]

In February 2009, as office of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Human action of 2009 (ARRA), Congress created a new TANF Emergency Fund (TANF EF), funded at $v billion and available to states, territories, and tribes for federal fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The original TANF law provided for a Contingency Fund (CF) funded at $2 billion which allows states meeting economic triggers to draw additional funds based upon loftier levels of state MOE spending. This fund was expected to (and did) run out in FY 2010. The TANF Emergency Fund provided states 80 percent of the funding for spending increases in three categories of TANF-related expenditures in FYs 2009 or 2010 over FYs 2007 or 2008. The 3 categories of expenditures that could be claimed were basic assistance, non-recurrent short-term benefits, and subsidized employment.^[60] The third category listed, subsidized employment, fabricated national headlines^[61] equally states created nearly 250,000 developed and youth jobs through the funding.^[62] The plan however expired on September 30, 2010, on schedule with states cartoon down the entire $v billion allocated past ARRA.^[63]

TANF was scheduled for reauthorization again in 2010. Nevertheless, Congress did non work on legislation to reauthorize the plan and instead they extended the TANF cake grant through September 30, 2011, as part of the Claims Resolution Act.^[64] During this period Congress once again did non reauthorize the program simply passed a three-month extension through December 31, 2011.^{[ needs update ]}

Exiting The TANF Program [edit]

When transitioning out of the TANF program, individuals notice themselves in i of 3 situations that constitute the reasons for exiting:^[65]

1. The first situation involves work related TANF leave, in which individuals no longer authorize for TANF assistance due to caused employment.
2. The 2nd type of situation is non- work TANF related go out in which the recipient no longer qualifies for assistance due to reaching the maximum time immune to be enrolled in the assistance program. Once their time limit has been reached, individuals are removed from receiving assistance.
3. The tertiary type of situation is continued TANF receipt in which employed recipients earning a wage that does not aid encompass expenses continue receiving assistance.

It has been observed that sure situations of TANF get out are more prominent depending on the geographic expanse which recipients live in. Focusing the comparison betwixt metropolitan (urban) areas and not-metropolitan (rural) areas, the number of recipients experiencing non work TANF related exit is highest amidst rural areas (rural areas in the Due south feel the highest cases of this blazon of exiting the programme).^[65]

Information disproportion or lack of knowledge among recipients on the various TANF piece of work incentive programs is a correspondent to recipients experiencing non work related TANF exits. Not being aware of the offered programs impacts their use and creates misconceptions that influence the responsiveness of those who authorize for such programs, resulting in longer time periods requiring TANF services.^[66] Recipients who exit TANF due to piece of work are too affected by information asymmetry due to lack of awareness on the "transitional support" programs available to facilitate their transitioning into the piece of work field. Programs such equally childcare, food stamps, and Medicaid are meant increase work incentive but many TANF recipients transitioning into work exercise not know they are eligible.^[67] Information technology has been shown that TANF-exiting working women who apply and maintain the transitional incentive services described above are less likely to render to receiving assistance and are more likely to experience long term employment.^[68]

Criticism [edit]

Peter Edelman, an assistant secretary in the Section of Health and Man Services, resigned from the Clinton administration in protestation of Clinton signing the Personal Responsibility and Piece of work Opportunity Act, which he called, "The worst thing Bill Clinton has done."^[69] According to Edelman, the 1996 welfare reform police destroyed the rubber net. It increased poverty, lowered income for single mothers, put people from welfare into homeless shelters, and left states free to eliminate welfare entirely. It moved mothers and children from welfare to work, but many of them aren't making enough to survive. Many of them were pushed off welfare rolls because they didn't show upwards for an appointment, when they had no transportation to get to the appointment, or weren't informed about the appointment, said Edelman.^{[lxx] [71]}

Critics later said that TANF was successful during the Clinton Administration when the economic system was booming, only failed to support the poor when jobs were no longer available during the downturn, particularly the Fiscal crisis of 2007–2010, and especially after the lifetime limits imposed by TANF may accept been reached by many recipients.^[72]

References [edit]

1. ^ U.S Department of Health and Human being Services. 2012. "TANF FY 2014 Budget." Accessed 12/2/2014 from https://world wide web.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/olab/sec3i_tanf_2014cj.pdf
2. ^ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2011. "TANF". Accessed 12/9/2011 from "Archived copy". Archived from the original on March fourteen, 2012. Retrieved March 19, 2011. {{cite spider web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
3. ^ Mead, Lawrence M. (1986). Across Entitlement: The Social Obligations of Citizenship. New York: Free Press. ISBN978-0-02-920890-viii.
4. ^ ^{a b c d e f g} Blank, Rebecca. 2002. "Evaluating Welfare Reform in the United States." Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association twoscore(iv): 1105–116
5. ^ Bloom, Dan and Charles Michalopoulos. 2001. How Welfare and Work Policies Affect Employment and Income: A Synthesis of Enquiry. New York: Manpower Sit-in Inquiry Corporation
6. ^ ^{a b c} Danziger, Sheldon (December 1999). "Welfare Reform Policy from Nixon to Clinton: What Role for Social Scientific discipline?" (PDF). Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. Retrieved December xi, 2011. Paper prepared for Briefing, "The Social Science and Policy Making". Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, March thirteen–14, 1998
7. ^ ^{a b} Institute for Policy Enquiry (2008). "A Wait Back at Welfare Reform" (PDF). thirty (one). Northwestern University. Retrieved October 11, 2011. ;
8. ^ Duncan, Greg J. and P. Lindsay Hunt-Lansdale. 2001. "For Better and for Worse: Welfare Reform and the Well-being of Children Families." In For Improve and for Worse: Welfare Reform and the Well-being of children and Families. New York: Russell Sage Foundation
9. ^ ^{a b c} Greenberg, Marker et al. 2000. Welfare Reauthorization: An Early on Guide to the Issues. Center for Law and Social Policy
10. ^ "U.Southward. Senate: Curlicue Call Vote". senate.gov.
11. ^ "Archived re-create". clerk.firm.gov. Archived from the original on October 25, 2006. Retrieved January 13, 2022. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived re-create equally championship (link)
12. ^ Lieberman, Robert (2001). Shifting the Color Line: Race and the American Welfare State . Boston: Harvard University Press. ISBN978-0-674-00711-6.
13. ^ Kaufman, Darren S. "Aid to Families with Dependent Children (ADFC)", in Encyclopedia of Health Care Direction, ed. Michael J. Stahl. SAGE Publications, 2003, p. 17
14. ^ Rowe, Gretchen (2000), "State TANF Policies as of July 1999" (PDF), Welfare Rules Database
15. ^ Cook, E.A. (1962). "Ideal and Real: The Acculturation Continuum". American Anthropologist. 64 (1): 163–165. doi:x.1525/aa.1962.64.1.02a00150. JSTOR 666735.
16. ^ Mazzeo, Christopher; Rab, Sara; Eachus, Susan (2003). "Work-Start or Work-Only: Welfare Reform, State Policy, and Access to Postsecondary Education". Register of the American Academy of Political and Social Scientific discipline. 586: 144–171. doi:x.1177/0095399702250212. JSTOR 1049724. S2CID 154484859.
17. ^ Soss, Joe; Fording, Richard C.; Schram, Sanford F. (2008). "The Color of Devolution: Race, Federalism, and the Politics of Social Control". American Journal of Political Science. 52 (3): 536–553. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00328.x. JSTOR 25193832.
18. ^ 2008 Indicators of Welfare Dependence Figure TANF 2.
19. ^ ^{a b} Schott, Liz. 2011. Policy Basics: An Introduction to TANF. Middle on Upkeep and Policy Priorities. Accessed 11/2/2011 from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=936
20. ^ U.S. Section of Health and Human Services. Near TANF.U.South. Department of Health and Human Services. Accessed 11/2/2011 from "Archived re-create". Archived from the original on March xiv, 2012. Retrieved March xix, 2011. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
21. ^ "Policy Basics: An Introduction to TANF". Heart on Upkeep and Policy Priorities. Nov 17, 2008. Retrieved May xv, 2017.
22. ^ Loprest, Pamela, Stefanie Schmidt, and Anne Dryden White. 2000. "Welfare Reform nether PRWORA: Aid to Children with Working Families?" in Taxation Policy and the Economy edited by James Chiliad. Poterba: 157–203
23. ^ ^{a b} Falk, Gene; Carter, Jameson A.; Ghavalyan, Mariam (Oct 9, 2019). The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Legislative Bug in the 116th Congress (Report). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved October 23, 2019.
24. ^ Schott, Liz. "How States Use Federal and State Funds Under the TANF Block Grant". The Heart on Upkeep Policy and Priorities.
25. ^ "Republicans accuse HHS of gutting welfare reform with quiet policy change". FoxNews.com. July 13, 2012. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
26. ^ "Romney'due south starting his race to the bottom". suntimes.com. August eight, 2012. Retrieved August viii, 2012.
27. ^ "three Reasons Why Republican Governors Asked to Reform Their Welfare Programs – Center for American Progress Action Fund". americanprogressaction.org. September 6, 2012.
28. ^ [1] ^{[ dead link ]}
29. ^ ^{a b c d e f g} Lichter, Daniel T. and Rukamalie Jayakody. 2002. "Welfare Reform: How Do We Mensurate Success?" Annual Review of Sociology 28:117–141
30. ^ ^{a b} Bavier, Richard. 2001. "Welfare Reform Data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation." Monthly Labor Review (July): xiii–24
31. ^ ^{a b c} Acs, Gregory and Pamela Loprest. 2007. "TANF Caseload Composition and Leavers Synthesis Written report". The Urban Institute
32. ^ ^{a b} Moffitt, Robert A. and Jennifer Roff. 2000. "The Diversity of Welfare Leavers, Welfare Children, and Families: A Three Urban center Report." Johns Hopkins University Policy Brief 00-02
33. ^ Devere, Christine. 2001. "Welfare Reform Research: What Do We Know About Those Who Leave Welfare?" CRS Written report for Congress. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Enquiry service
34. ^ Tweedie, Jack. 2001. "Sanctions and Exists: What States Know nigh Families that leave Welfare Because of Sanctions and Time Limits." In For Better and for Worse: Welfare Reform and the Well-being of Children Families. New York: Russell Sage Foundation
35. ^ Peterson, Janice et al. 2002. Life Later Welfare Reform: Low-income Unmarried Parent Families, Pre- and Post-TANF. Establish for Women's Policy Research #D446
36. ^ Cancian, Maria. 2000. Earlier and After TANF: The Economic Well-Being of Women Leaving Welfare. Institute for Enquiry on Poverty. Special Report no.77
37. ^ Loprest, Pamela. 2001. How Are Families that Left Welfare Doing? A Comparison of Early on and Contempo Welfare Leavers. Series B, No B-36, Assessing the New Federalism Project. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute. April
38. ^ "Caseload Information". Administration for Children and Families. Retrieved Oct 12, 2008.
39. ^ "Historical Poverty Tables". U.Due south. Census Agency. Archived from the original on Apr xix, 2008. Retrieved October 12, 2008.
40. ^ "Labor Force Statistics including the National Unemployment Rate". U.S. Section of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved November 1, 2008.
41. ^ TANF – Caseload Data – U.Due south. Department of Health and Human Services, Assistants for Children and Families, Function of Family Aid
42. ^ Number Beneath Poverty Level and Rate – Historical Information – U.Southward. Demography, 2010
43. ^ Schoeni, Robert F.; Blank, Rebecca M. (December 2003). "What Has Welfare Reform Accomplished? Impacts on Welfare Participation, Employment, Income, Poverty, and Family Structure" (PDF). PSC Research Report. No. 03-544.
44. ^ Bitler, Marianne. 2004. "The Impact of Welfare Reform on Marriage and Divorce". Demography 41(2):213–236
45. ^ Harknett, K. and 50.A. Gennetian. 2003. "How An Earning Supplement Can Affect Marriage Germination Among Low-Income Single Mothers." Census 40:451-78
46. ^ Ellwood, D. T. and C. Jencks. 2001. "The Growing Differences in Family Construction: What Exercise We Know? Where Do We Look for Answers?" Unpublished manuscript, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
47. ^ Horvath-Rose, A. and HE Peters. 2002. "Welfare waivers and nonmarital fertility". in For Better and For Worse: Welfare Reform and Well-Existence of Children and Families. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 222–245
48. ^ Henshaw, S. 1000. 2001. Birth and abortion data. In Data Needs for Measuring Family and Fertility Change After Welfare Reform, ed. D. J. Basharov. College Park, MD: Welfare Reform Academy
49. ^ Duncan, G. J. and 50. Chase-Lansdale. 2002. For Better and For Worse: Welfare Reform and the Well-Being of Children and Families. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
50. ^ Mistry, R.S., D.A. Crosby, Ac Huston, and DM Casey, Grand Ripke. 2002. Lessons from New Hope: the touch on children'south well-being of a work-based anti-poverty plan for parents. Run into Duncan and Chase-Landsdale 2002
51. ^ Bernal, R.; Keane, M. P. (2011). "Child care choices and children'due south cognitive achievement: The case of single mothers". Journal of Labor Economic science. 29 (3): 459–512. CiteSeerX10.1.1.378.9391. doi:10.1086/659343. S2CID 10002078.
52. ^ Kalili, Ariel et al. 2001. "Does Maternal Employment Mandated by Welfare Reform Touch on Children's Behavior?" In For Better and for Worse: Welfare Reform and the Well-beingness of Children Families. New York: Russell Sage Foundation
53. ^ Golden, Olivia. 2005. Assessing the New Federalism, Eight Years Later. Urban Plant
54. ^ ^{a b} Danziger, South. K. 2001. Why some neglect to reach economical security: Low job skills and mental health problems are key barriers. Forum 4(2):1–iii
55. ^ Pollack, H.; Danziger, S.; Jayakody, R.; Seefeldt, K. (2002). "Drug Testing Welfare Recipients—Imitation Positives, Fake Negatives, Unanticipated Opportunities". Women's Health Problems. 12 (1): 23–31. doi:10.1016/S1049-3867(01)00139-6. PMID 11786289.
56. ^ London, A. S., Scott, E. Thou., Edin, K. and Hunter, V. (2004), "Welfare Reform, Work-Family Tradeoffs, and Child Well-Existence". Family Relations 53: 148–158
57. ^ Peterson, Janice; Song, Xue; Jones-DeWeever, Avis (May 2002). "Life Later Welfare Reform: Low-Income Single Parent Families, Pre- and Post-TANF" (PDF). Institute for Women'due south Policy Inquiry.
58. ^ "TANF: Full Number of I Parent Families Financial Year 2020" (PDF). U.S. Department of Health & Homo Services.
59. ^ Zedlewski, Sheila and Olivia Golden. 2010. "Adjacent Steps for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families." The Urban Institute: Brief(11) accessed Dec 12/2011 from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412047_next_steps_brief11.pdf
60. ^ "Questions and Answers about the TANF Emergency Fund" (PDF). Centre for Law and Social Policy. Retrieved October 8, 2010.
61. ^ Cooper, Michael (September 25, 2010). "Job Loss Looms as Part of Stimulus Expires". New York Times . Retrieved Oct eight, 2010.
62. ^ "Walking Away From a Win-Win-Win Subsidized Jobs Slated to End Soon Are Helping Families, Businesses, and Communities Weather the Recession". Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. September 2010. Retrieved October viii, 2010.
63. ^ "Approved State, Territory & DC TANF Emergency Fund Applications by Category". U.Southward. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Retrieved Oct 8, 2010.
64. ^ Center for Police force and Social Policy. 2010. "TANF Reauthorization." Accessed 12/12/2011 from http://world wide web.squeeze.org/federal_policy/pages?id=0021
65. ^ ^{a b} Irving, Shelley M. (December 1, 2008). "State Welfare Rules, TANF Exits, and Geographic Context: Does Identify Matter?*". Rural Folklore. 73 (4): 605–630. doi:10.1526/003601108786471549. ISSN 1549-0831.
66. ^ Anderson, Steven G. (January ane, 2002). "Ensuring the Stability of Welfare-to-Work Exits: The Importance of Recipient Knowledge about Work Incentives". Social Work. 47 (two): 162–170. doi:10.1093/sw/47.2.162. JSTOR 23717936. PMID 12019803.
67. ^ Anderson, Steven M.; Schuldt, Richard; Halter, Anthony P.; Scott, Jeff (January i, 2003). "Employment Experiences and Back up Services Use Following TANF Exits". The Social Policy Journal. 2 (one): 35–56. doi:10.1300/J185v02n01_04. ISSN 1533-2942. S2CID 154639073.
68. ^ Acs, Gregory (August 2007). "Helping Women Stay Off Welfare: The Role of Post-Go out Receipt of Work Supports". The Urban Institute . Retrieved Nov 16, 2016.
69. ^ Two Clinton Aides Resign to Protest New Welfare Law by Alison Mitchell, The New York Times, September 12, 1996
70. ^ Poverty & Welfare: Does Compassionate Conservatism Have a Heart? Peter B. Edelman 64 Alb. Fifty. Rev. 1076 2000–2001.
71. ^ The worst affair Neb Clinton has done, Peter Edelman, The Atlantic, March 1997
72. ^ As Progressives Predicted, Clinton Welfare Reform Law Fails Families by Randy Shaw in BeyondChron (Apr 19‚ 2010)

External links [edit]

• Welfare Reform and Single Mothers (Yale Economical Review)
• Congressional Research Service Report on TANF
• Government Accountability Office Written report on TANF
• The Heart for Law and Social Policy
• Numbers On Welfare Meet Sharp Increase by Sara Murray, The Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2009
• Welfare's safety net hard to measure among states by Amy Goldstein, "The Washington Post", October 2, 2010
• "Office of Family Assistance (OFA)"

millerlecladmands.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_Families

Share this post