Which of the Following Is Not a Stated Goal of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families

U.S. federal aid program

Department of Health and Human Services

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

Temporary Assist for Needy Families (TANF ) is a federal assistance programme of the United States. It began on July 1, 1997, and succeeded the Assistance to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) programme, providing cash assistance to indigent American families through the U.s.a. Section of Health and Human Services.^[2] TANF is oftentimes merely referred to equally welfare.

The TANF program, emphasizing the welfare-to-work principle, is a grant given to each state to run its ain welfare program and designed to be temporary in nature and has several limits and requirements. The TANF grant has a maximum benefit of two consecutive years and a five-yr lifetime limit and requires that all recipients of welfare assist must observe piece of work within two years of receiving help, including single parents who are required to work at least 30 hours per calendar week opposed to 35 or 55 required past two parent families. Failure to comply with work requirements could result in loss of benefits. TANF funds may be used for the post-obit reasons: to provide help to needy families so that children tin can be cared for at dwelling house; to cease the dependence of needy parents on authorities benefits by promoting job preparation, work and union; to forbid and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and to encourage the germination and maintenance of 2-parent families.

Background [edit]

Prior to TANF, Aid to Families with Dependent Children was a major federal assistance program that was coming under 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 also 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 continuing through the first few years of the Clinton administration, growing dissatisfaction with AFDC, particularly the ascent 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 pct increase in caseloads between 1990 and 1994 accelerated the push past states to implement more radical welfare reform.^[four]

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 event, many types of mandatory welfare-to-work programs were evaluated in the early 1990s. While reviews of such programs establish that virtually all programs led to pregnant increases in employment and reductions in welfare rolls, there was little testify that income amidst former welfare recipients had increased. In consequence, increases in earnings from jobs were offset by losses in public income, leading many to conclude that these programs had no anti-poverty effects.^[5] Yet, the findings that welfare-to-work programs did accept some effect in reducing dependence on regime increased support among policymakers for moving welfare recipients into employment.^[half-dozen]

While liberals and conservatives agreed on the importance of transitioning families from government assistance to jobs, they disagreed on how to reach this goal. Liberals thought that welfare reform should expand opportunities for welfare mothers to receive training and work feel that would help them raise their families' living standards by working more and at higher wages.^[vi] Conservatives emphasized work requirements and fourth dimension limits, paying picayune attention to whether or not families' incomes increased. More than specifically, conservatives wanted to impose a 5-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 benign by creating function models out of mothers, promoting maternal cocky-esteem and sense of control, and introducing productive daily routines into family life. Furthermore, they argued that reforms would eliminate welfare dependence past sending a powerful message to teens and immature women to postpone childbearing. Liberals responded that the reform sought by conservatives would overwhelm severely stressed parents, deepen the poverty of many families, and forcefulness young children into dangerous and unstimulating child care situations. In improver, they asserted that welfare reform would reduce parents' ability to monitor the behaviors of their children, leading to problems in child and adolescent functioning.^[8]

In 1992, as a presidential candidate, Neb Clinton pledged to "end welfare equally we know it" by requiring families receiving welfare to piece of work after two years. As president, Clinton was attracted to welfare adept and Harvard University Professor David Ellwood's proposal on welfare reform and thus Clinton eventually appointed Ellwood to co-chair his welfare task strength. Ellwood supported converting welfare into a transitional system. He advocated providing assistance to families for a express time, afterward which recipients would be required to earn wages from a regular job or a work opportunity program.^[6] Low 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 training coupled with time limits and subsidized jobs for those having difficulty finding work, but it was defeated.^[7] Later that year, when Republicans attained a Congressional majority in November 1994, the focus shifted toward the Republican proposal to cease entitlements to assist, repeal AFDC and instead provide states with blocks grants.^[9] The debates in Congress about welfare reform centered around 5 themes:^[nine]

• Reforming Welfare to Promote Work and Time Limits: The welfare reform discussions were dominated past the perception that the then-existing greenbacks assistance program, AFDC, did non exercise plenty to encourage and require employment, and instead incentivized not-piece of work. Supporters of welfare reform also argued that AFDC fostered divorce and out-of-wedlock birth, and created a culture of dependency on government assistance. Both President Clinton and Congressional Republicans emphasized the need to transform the greenbacks assistance system into a work-focused, time-limited program.
• Reducing Projected Spending: Republicans argued that projected federal spending for low-income families was too high and needed to be reduced to lower overall federal spending.

• Promoting Parental Responsibility: There was wide understanding among politicians that both parents should back up their children. For custodial parents, this meant an emphasis on piece of work and cooperation with child support enforcement. For non-custodial parents, it meant a set of initiatives to strengthen the effectiveness of the child support enforcement.
• Addressing Out-of-Spousal relationship Birth: Republicans argued that out of wedlock nativity was presenting an increasingly serious social problem and that the federal authorities should work to reduce out-of-matrimony 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 power and authority to states to shape such policy.

Clinton twice vetoed the welfare reform bill put forwards by Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole. Then only earlier the Democratic Convention he signed a third version after the Senate voted 74–24^[x] and the Firm voted 256–170^[eleven] in favor of welfare reform legislation, formally known equally the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Human action of 1996 (PRWORA). Clinton signed the pecker into police force on August 22, 1996. PRWORA replaced AFDC with TANF and dramatically changed the style the federal authorities and states make up one's mind eligibility and provide aid for needy families.

Before 1997, the federal government designed the overall program requirements and guidelines, while states administered the program and determined eligibility for benefits. Since 1997, states have been given cake grants and both design and administer their own programs. Admission to welfare and amount of assistance varied quite a scrap past state and locality under AFDC, both because of the differences in state standards of demand and considerable subjectivity in caseworker evaluation of qualifying "suitable homes".^[12] Notwithstanding, welfare recipients nether TANF are really in completely different programs depending on their state of residence, with different social services available to them and different requirements for maintaining assist.^[13]

State implementations [edit]

States have big amounts of latitude in how they implement TANF programs.^{[14] [15] [16] [17]}

• Alabama: The Family Assistance Program
• Alaska: The Alaska Temporary Assist Program
• Arizona: Cash Help
• 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 Help for Families in Idaho
• Illinois: Illinois TANF
• Indiana: Indiana TANF
• Iowa: Family Investment Plan
• Kansas: Successful Families Program
• Kentucky: Kentucky Transitional Assistance Program
• Louisiana: Family Independence Temporary Assistance
• Maine: Maine TANF
• Maryland: Temporary Greenbacks Assistance
• Massachusetts: Massachusetts TANF
• Michigan:Cash Assistance
• Minnesota: Minnesota TANF
• Mississippi: Mississippi TANF
• Missouri: Temporary Assistance
• Montana: Montana TANF
• Nebraska: Help to Dependent Children
• Nevada: Nevada TANF
• New Hampshire: The Financial Assist to Needy Families Program
• New Jersey: WorkFirstNJ
• New Mexico: NMWorks
• New York: Temporary Assistance
• North Carolina: Work Kickoff Greenbacks Assistance
• North Dakota: North 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
• S Dakota: Southward Dakota TANF
• Tennessee: Families Kickoff
• Texas: Texas TANF
• Utah: Utah TANF
• Vermont: Vermont TANF Programs
• Virginia: Virginia TANF
• Washington: Washington TANF
• West Virginia: Family Assist
• Wisconsin: Wisconsin Works
• Wyoming: Ability Works

Funding and eligibility [edit]

Development of monthly AFDC and TANF benefits in the The states (in 2006 dollars)^[18]

PRWORA replaced AFDC with TANF and ended entitlement to cash assistance for low-income families, meaning that some families may be denied aid fifty-fifty if they are eligible. Nether TANF, states have wide discretion to determine who is eligible for benefits and services. In general, states must use funds to serve families with children, with the simply exceptions related to efforts to reduce non-marital childbearing and promote marriage. States cannot employ TANF funds to assist most legal immigrants until they have been in the land for at least five years. TANF sets forth the following work requirements in order to qualify for benefits:^[xix]

1. Recipients (with few exceptions) must work as before long every bit they are job ready or no later than ii years after coming on assistance.
2. Unmarried parents are required to participate in work activities for at to the lowest degree 30 hours per calendar week. Ii-parent families must participate in work activities 35 or 55 hours a week, depending upon circumstance.
3. Failure to participate in work requirements can result in a reduction or termination of benefits to the family.
4. States, in fiscal twelvemonth 2004, have to ensure that fifty per centum of all families and ninety percent of ii-parent families are participating in piece of work activities. If a land 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 continue receiving federal funding.

While states are given more flexibility in the design and implementation of public assist, they must practice then within various provisions of the constabulary:^[20]

1. Provide aid to needy families and so that children may exist cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives;
2. end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage;
3. foreclose and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and constitute almanac numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies;
4. and encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.

TANF Program Spending^[19]

Since these iv goals are deeply general, "states can utilize TANF funds much more broadly than the core welfare reform areas of providing a safety cyberspace and connecting families to piece of work; some states employ a substantial share of funding for these other services and program".^[21]

Funding for TANF underwent several changes from its predecessor, AFDC. Nether AFDC, states provided greenbacks assist to families with children, and the federal government paid half or more of all program costs.^[9] Federal spending was provided to states on an open up-concluded footing, significant that funding was tied to the number of caseloads. Federal police mandated that states provide some level of cash assistance to eligible poor families but states had broad discretion in setting the benefit levels. Nether TANF, states qualify for block grants. The funding for these cake grants take been fixed since financial year 2002 and the corporeality each state receives is based on the level of federal contributions to the state for the AFDC program in 1994, with no adjustments for inflation, size of caseload, or other factors.^{[22] [23] : four} This has led to a great disparity in the grant size per kid living in poverty among usa, ranging from a low of $318 per child in poverty in Texas to a high of $iii,220 per child in poverty in Vermont, with the median per child grant size being $ane,064 in Wyoming.^{[23] : Figure i} The states are required to maintain their spending for welfare programs at 80 percent of their 1994 spending levels, with a reduction to 75 percentage if states meet other piece of work-participation requirements. States have greater flexibility in deciding how they spend funds as long as they run across the provisions of TANF described above.

Currently, states spend merely slightly more than 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 aid to encounter the essential needs of families with children, and just some other quarter on kid intendance for low-income families and on activities to connect TANF families to piece of 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 crave states to written report on whom they serve with the federal or land funds they shift from cash assistance to other uses.^[24]

In July 2012, the Department of Wellness and Homo Services released a memo notifying states that they are able to utilise for a waiver for the work requirements of the TANF plan. Critics claim the waiver would permit states to provide assistance without having to enforce the work component of the program.^[25] The assistants has stipulated that any waivers that weaken the work requirement volition be rejected.^[26] The DHHS granted the waivers subsequently several Governors requested more land control.^[27] The DHHS agreed to the waivers on the stipulation that they continue to run into all Federal requirements.^[28] States were given the right to submit their own plans and reporting methods simply if they continued to meet Federal requirements and if the state programs proved to exist more than effective.

Impact [edit]

Case load [edit]

Betwixt 1996 and 2000, the number of welfare recipients plunged by 6.5 million, or 53% nationally. The number of caseloads was lower in 2000 than at any time 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 catamenia of strong economic growth, in that location are questions most how much of the pass up in caseloads is attributable to TANF program requirements. First, the number of caseloads began declining afterward 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 decline.^[4] Enquiry suggests that both changes in welfare policy and economic growth played a substantial function in this decline, and that no larger than one-third of the decline in caseloads is attributable to TANF.^{[29] [30] [ needs update ]}

Work, earnings, and poverty [edit]

1 of the major goals of TANF was to increment piece of work among welfare recipients. During the post-welfare reform period, employment did increase among single mothers. Unmarried mothers with children showed piffling changes in their labor force participation rates throughout the 1980s and into the mid-1990s, simply between 1994–1999, their labor force participation rose by 10%.^[4] Amid welfare recipients, the percentage that reported earnings from employment increased from 6.7% in 1990 to 28.1% past 1999.^[4] While employment of TANF recipients increased in the early years of reform, information technology declined in the later period afterward reform, specially afterward 2000. From 2000–2005, employment among TANF recipients declined by vi.5%.^[31] Amongst welfare leavers, it was estimated that close to two-thirds worked at a future point in time^{[32] [33]} Well-nigh twenty 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 encounter program requirements) fared comparably worse than those who left welfare voluntarily. Sanctioned welfare recipients have employment rates that are, on average, 20 percent beneath those who left for reasons other than sanctions.^[34]

While the participation of many depression-income single parents in the labor marketplace has increased, their earnings and wages remained depression, and their employment was concentrated in low-wage occupations and industries. 78 per centum of employed low-income single 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, information technology has get stagnant in the later period; for welfare leavers, their average income remained steady or declined in the afterward years.^[31] Studies that compared household income (includes welfare benefits) earlier and after leaving welfare find that betwixt one-third and half of welfare leavers had decreased income after leaving welfare.^{[xxx] [36]}

During the 1990s, poverty among single-mother and their families declined chop-chop from 35.iv% in 1992 to 24.7% in 2000, a new historic low.^[4] However, due to the fact that depression-income mothers who left welfare are likely to be concentrated in low-wage occupations, the pass up in public assistance caseloads has not translated easily into reduction in poverty. The number of poor female-headed families with children dropped from iii.8 1000000 to 3.1 million between 1994 and 1999, a 22% decline compared to a 48% pass up in caseloads.^[29] As a event, the share of working poor in the U.S. population rose, as some women left public assistance for employment just remained poor.^[4] Well-nigh studies take found that poverty is quite high among welfare leavers. Depending on the source of the information, estimates of poverty amid 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] but at that place has been little modify in the national poverty rate during this fourth dimension.^[39] The table below shows these figures along with the almanac unemployment rate.^{[40] [41] [42]}

Boilerplate monthly TANF recipients, percent of U.S. families in poverty and unemployment rate

Year	Average monthly TANF recipients	Poverty rate (%)	Annual unemployment charge per unit (%)
1996	12,320,970 (encounter annotation)	11.0	five.4
1997	10,375,993	ten.3	iv.9
1998	8,347,136	10.0	four.five
1999	six,824,347	ix.3	four.ii
2000	five,778,034	8.7	4.0
2001	5,359,180	nine.2	4.seven
2002	5,069,010	9.half dozen	5.eight
2003	4,928,878	10.0	6.0
2004	4,748,115	10.two	five.v
2005	4,471,393	9.9	five.ane
2006	iv,166,659	nine.8	4.6
2007	3,895,407	9.8	4.5
2008	3,795,007	10.three	5.four
2009	4,154,366	eleven.1	eight.ane
2010	4,375,022	11.7	8.half dozen

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

Matrimony and fertility [edit]

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

Studies have produced only minor or inconsistent bear witness that marital and cohabitation decisions are influenced past welfare program policies. Schoeni and Blank (2003) found that pre-1996 welfare waivers were associated with modest increases in probabilities of marriage.^[43] However, a like analysis of post-TANF upshot revealed less consistent results. Nationally, only 0.four% of closed cases gave spousal relationship as the reason for leaving welfare.^[29] Using data on marriage and divorces from 1989–2000 to examine the role of welfare reform on spousal relationship and divorce, Bitler (2004) establish that both land waivers and TANF program requirements were associated with reductions in transitions into marriage and reductions from marriage to divorce.^[44] In other words, individuals who were non married were more likely to stay single, and those who were married were more than probable to stay married. Her explanation behind this, which is consistent with other studies, is that after reform single women were required to work more, increasing their income and reducing their incentive to surrender independence for marriage, whereas for married women, postal service-reform at that place was potentially a meaning increase in the number of hours they would have to work when unmarried, discouraging divorce.^{[45] [46]}

In addition to spousal relationship and divorce, welfare reform was also concerned nearly 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 immune states to impose family caps on the receipt of boosted cash benefits from unwed childbearing. Betwixt 1994 and 1999, unwed childbearing among teenagers declined 20 pct amidst 15- to 17-twelvemonth-olds and 10 per centum among 18- and 19-year-olds.^[29] In a comprehensive cantankerous-country comparison, Horvath-Rose & Peters (2002) studied nonmarital nascency ratios with and without family cap waivers over the 1986–1996 menses, and they found that family caps reduced nonmarital ratios.^[47] Any fears that family unit caps would lead to more abortions was allayed by failing numbers and rates of abortion during this flow.^[48]

Child well-being [edit]

Proponents of welfare reform argued that encouraging maternal employment will enhance children's cognitive and emotional evolution. A working mother, proponents assert, provides a positive role 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 piece of work-related expenses such every bit transportation and childcare.^[29] Evidence is mixed on the bear on of TANF on kid welfare. Duncan & Hunt-Lansdale (2001) found that the impact of welfare reform varied by age of the children, with by and large positive effects on schoolhouse achievement amid elementary-schoolhouse historic period children and negative effects on adolescents, especially with regards to risky or problematic behaviors.^[49] Some other written report found big and meaning effects of welfare reform on educational accomplishment and aspirations, and on social behavior (i.e. teacher assessment of compliance and self-command, competence and sensitivity). The positive furnishings were largely due to the quality of childcare organization and afterschool programs that accompanied the movement from welfare to work for these recipients.^[l] Yet another report constitute that exchange from maternal intendance to other informal care had caused a significant drop in performance of young children.^[51] In a program with less generous benefits, Kalili et al. (2002) constitute that maternal piece of work (measured in months and hours per week) had little overall effect on children's antisocial behavior, anxious/depressed behavior or positive behavior. They observe no evidence that children were harmed by such transitions; if anything, their mothers report that their children are better behaved and have ameliorate mental health.^[52]

Synthesizing findings from an extensive choice of publications, Golden (2005) reached the conclusion that children's outcomes were largely unchanged when examining children'southward developmental risk, including health status, beliefs or emotional bug, suspensions from schoolhouse, and lack of participation in extracurricular activities.^[53] She argues that contrary to the fears of many, welfare reform and an increase in parental work did not seem to accept reduced children'south well-existence overall. More abused and neglected children had not entered the child welfare organization. However, at the same time, improvement in parental earnings and reductions in child poverty had non 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 little attending. Enquiry on the latter has institute that welfare recipients face mental and physical problems at rates that are higher than the general population.^[54] Such issues which include low, anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and domestic violence mean that welfare recipients face many more barriers to employment and are more than at take chances of welfare sanctions due to noncompliance with work requirements and other TANF regulations^[29] Research on the health status of welfare leavers take indicated positive results. Findings from the Women's Employment Study, a longitudinal survey of welfare recipients in Michigan, indicated that women on welfare simply not working are more probable to take mental health and other bug than are former welfare recipients now working.^{[54] [55]} Similarly, interviews with now employed welfare recipients notice that partly as a result of their increased material resource from working, the women felt that work has led to higher self-esteem, new opportunities to expand their social back up networks, and increased feelings of self-efficacy.^[56] Furthermore, they became less socially isolated and potentially less prone to depression. At the same time, notwithstanding, many women were experiencing stress and exhaustion from trying to rest work and family responsibilities.

Paternal well-being [edit]

For single fathers within the program, in that location is a small-scale per centum increase of employment in comparing to single mothers, but there is a significant increase of increased wages throughout their time in the programme.^[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 gear up for reauthorization in Congress in 2002. However, Congress was unable to reach an agreement for the adjacent several years, and as a result, several extensions were granted to continue funding the program. TANF was finally reauthorized under the Arrears Reduction Human activity (DRA) of 2005. DRA included several changes to the original TANF plan. It raised work participation rates, increased the share of welfare recipients subject to work requirements, limited the activities that could be counted as piece of work, prescribed hours that could exist spent doing certain work activities, and required states to verify activities for each adult beneficiary.^[59]

In February 2009, as function of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Human action of 2009 (ARRA), Congress created a new TANF Emergency Fund (TANF EF), funded at $5 billion and available to states, territories, and tribes for federal fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The original TANF police force provided for a Contingency Fund (CF) funded at $ii billion which allows states meeting economic triggers to describe boosted funds based upon high levels of state MOE spending. This fund was expected to (and did) run out in FY 2010. The TANF Emergency Fund provided states eighty pct 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 aid, non-recurrent short-term benefits, and subsidized employment.^[60] The tertiary category listed, subsidized employment, fabricated national headlines^[61] as states created nearly 250,000 adult and youth jobs through the funding.^[62] The programme however expired on September xxx, 2010, on schedule with states drawing down the entire $5 billion allocated past ARRA.^[63]

TANF was scheduled for reauthorization over again in 2010. However, Congress did not work on legislation to reauthorize the plan and instead they extended the TANF block grant through September xxx, 2011, every bit part of the Claims Resolution Act.^[64] During this period Congress once again did not reauthorize the program but passed a iii-month extension through Dec 31, 2011.^{[ needs update ]}

Exiting The TANF Program [edit]

When transitioning out of the TANF program, individuals find themselves in one of three situations that constitute the reasons for exiting:^[65]

1. The kickoff situation involves work related TANF leave, in which individuals no longer authorize for TANF assist due to acquired employment.
2. The 2d type of situation is non- work TANF related exit in which the recipient no longer qualifies for help due to reaching the maximum fourth dimension allowed to be enrolled in the assistance program. In one case their time limit has been reached, individuals are removed from receiving assistance.
3. The 3rd type of situation is connected TANF receipt in which employed recipients earning a wage that does not help cover expenses continue receiving assist.

It has been observed that certain situations of TANF exit are more prominent depending on the geographic expanse which recipients live in. Focusing the comparison betwixt metropolitan (urban) areas and non-metropolitan (rural) areas, the number of recipients experiencing not work TANF related exit is highest among rural areas (rural areas in the S experience the highest cases of this type of exiting the program).^[65]

Data asymmetry or lack of knowledge among recipients on the various TANF work incentive programs is a correspondent to recipients experiencing non work related TANF exits. Not existence aware of the offered programs impacts their use and creates misconceptions that influence the responsiveness of those who qualify for such programs, resulting in longer fourth dimension periods requiring TANF services.^[66] Recipients who exit TANF due to work are also affected past information asymmetry due to lack of sensation on the "transitional support" programs available to facilitate their transitioning into the work field. Programs such equally childcare, food stamps, and Medicaid are meant increment work incentive but many TANF recipients transitioning into work exercise non know they are eligible.^[67] It has been shown that TANF-exiting working women who employ and maintain the transitional incentive services described above are less likely to return to receiving assist and are more probable to feel long term employment.^[68]

Criticism [edit]

Peter Edelman, an assistant secretary in the Department of Health and Human Services, resigned from the Clinton administration in protest of Clinton signing the Personal Responsibility and Piece of work Opportunity Act, which he called, "The worst affair Neb Clinton has done."^[69] According to Edelman, the 1996 welfare reform law destroyed the safety net. It increased poverty, lowered income for single mothers, put people from welfare into homeless shelters, and left states complimentary to eliminate welfare entirely. It moved mothers and children from welfare to work, merely many of them aren't making enough to survive. Many of them were pushed off welfare rolls because they didn't show upward for an appointment, when they had no transportation to get to the appointment, or weren't informed nigh the appointment, said Edelman.^{[70] [71]}

Critics after said that TANF was successful during the Clinton Administration when the economy was booming, merely failed to support the poor when jobs were no longer available during the downturn, particularly the Financial crisis of 2007–2010, and specially after the lifetime limits imposed by TANF may take been reached by many recipients.^[72]

References [edit]

1. ^ U.S Department of Health and Human Services. 2012. "TANF FY 2014 Budget." Accessed 12/2/2014 from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/olab/sec3i_tanf_2014cj.pdf
2. ^ U.S. Department of Wellness and Human Services. 2011. "TANF". Accessed 12/9/2011 from "Archived copy". Archived from the original on March 14, 2012. Retrieved March nineteen, 2011. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
3. ^ Mead, Lawrence K. (1986). Beyond Entitlement: The Social Obligations of Citizenship. New York: Gratis Press. ISBN978-0-02-920890-8.
4. ^ ^{a b c d e f g} Blank, Rebecca. 2002. "Evaluating Welfare Reform in the United States." Periodical of Economic Literature, American Economic Association forty(four): 1105–116
5. ^ Flower, Dan and Charles Michalopoulos. 2001. How Welfare and Piece of work Policies Touch on Employment and Income: A Synthesis of Research. New York: Manpower Demonstration Enquiry Corporation
6. ^ ^{a b c} Danziger, Sheldon (December 1999). "Welfare Reform Policy from Nixon to Clinton: What Role for Social Science?" (PDF). Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. Retrieved December 11, 2011. Paper prepared for Conference, "The Social Scientific discipline and Policy Making". Institute for Social Research, Academy of Michigan, March 13–14, 1998
7. ^ ^{a b} Institute for Policy Research (2008). "A Look Back at Welfare Reform" (PDF). 30 (1). Northwestern University. Retrieved October xi, 2011. ;
8. ^ Duncan, Greg J. and P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale. 2001. "For Better and for Worse: Welfare Reform and the Well-being of Children Families." In For Better and for Worse: Welfare Reform and the Well-existence of children and Families. New York: Russell Sage Foundation
9. ^ ^{a b c} Greenberg, Mark et al. 2000. Welfare Reauthorization: An Early on Guide to the Bug. Center for Law and Social Policy
10. ^ "U.S. Senate: Scroll Phone call Vote". senate.gov.
11. ^ "Archived copy". clerk.firm.gov. Archived from the original on October 25, 2006. Retrieved January 13, 2022. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
12. ^ Lieberman, Robert (2001). Shifting the Color Line: Race and the American Welfare State . Boston: Harvard Academy Press. ISBN978-0-674-00711-vi.
13. ^ Kaufman, Darren South. "Aid to Families with Dependent Children (ADFC)", in Encyclopedia of Wellness Care Management, 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, East.A. (1962). "Ideal and Real: The Acculturation Continuum". American Anthropologist. 64 (ane): 163–165. doi:10.1525/aa.1962.64.1.02a00150. JSTOR 666735.
16. ^ Mazzeo, Christopher; Rab, Sara; Eachus, Susan (2003). "Piece of work-Offset or Work-Only: Welfare Reform, Country Policy, and Access to Postsecondary Pedagogy". Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 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 Periodical 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. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Accessed 11/ii/2011 from http://world wide web.cbpp.org/cms/alphabetize.cfm?fa=view&id=936
20. ^ U.S. Department of Wellness and Human Services. Almost TANF.U.Southward. Department of Health and Human Services. Accessed 11/ii/2011 from "Archived re-create". Archived from the original on March fourteen, 2012. Retrieved March 19, 2011. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy every bit championship (link)
21. ^ "Policy Nuts: An Introduction to TANF". Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. November 17, 2008. Retrieved May 15, 2017.
22. ^ Loprest, Pamela, Stefanie Schmidt, and Anne Dryden White. 2000. "Welfare Reform under PRWORA: Help to Children with Working Families?" in Revenue enhancement Policy and the Economy edited by James M. Poterba: 157–203
23. ^ ^{a b} Falk, Gene; Carter, Jameson A.; Ghavalyan, Mariam (October 9, 2019). The Temporary Help for Needy Families Block Grant: Legislative Problems in the 116th Congress (Written report). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved October 23, 2019.
24. ^ Schott, Liz. "How States Use Federal and State Funds Under the TANF Block Grant". The Center on Budget Policy and Priorities.
25. ^ "Republicans accuse HHS of gutting welfare reform with tranquility policy alter". FoxNews.com. July 13, 2012. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
26. ^ "Romney'south starting his race to the bottom". suntimes.com. August 8, 2012. Retrieved August 8, 2012.
27. ^ "three Reasons Why Republican Governors Asked to Reform Their Welfare Programs – Middle for American Progress Activeness Fund". americanprogressaction.org. September 6, 2012.
28. ^ [one] ^{[ dead link ]}
29. ^ ^{a b c d east f thou} Lichter, Daniel T. and Rukamalie Jayakody. 2002. "Welfare Reform: How Do We Measure Success?" Annual Review of Folklore 28:117–141
30. ^ ^{a b} Bavier, Richard. 2001. "Welfare Reform Data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation." Monthly Labor Review (July): thirteen–24
31. ^ ^{a b c} Acs, Gregory and Pamela Loprest. 2007. "TANF Caseload Limerick and Leavers Synthesis Written report". The Urban Constitute
32. ^ ^{a b} Moffitt, Robert A. and Jennifer Roff. 2000. "The Diversity of Welfare Leavers, Welfare Children, and Families: A 3 City Study." Johns Hopkins University Policy Brief 00-02
33. ^ Devere, Christine. 2001. "Welfare Reform Inquiry: What Practice We Know Well-nigh Those Who Leave Welfare?" CRS Report for Congress. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research service
34. ^ Tweedie, Jack. 2001. "Sanctions and Exists: What States Know about Families that get out 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 After Welfare Reform: Low-income Single Parent Families, Pre- and Post-TANF. Institute for Women's Policy Research #D446
36. ^ Cancian, Maria. 2000. Before and Subsequently TANF: The Economical Well-Beingness of Women Leaving Welfare. Institute for Research on Poverty. Special Study no.77
37. ^ Loprest, Pamela. 2001. How Are Families that Left Welfare Doing? A Comparison of Early on and Recent Welfare Leavers. Series B, No B-36, Assessing the New Federalism Project. Washington, D.C.: Urban Found. April
38. ^ "Caseload Data". Administration for Children and Families. Retrieved October 12, 2008.
39. ^ "Historical Poverty Tables". U.Southward. Demography Bureau. Archived from the original on April 19, 2008. Retrieved October 12, 2008.
40. ^ "Labor Force Statistics including the National Unemployment Rate". U.S. Section of Labor, Agency of Labor Statistics. Retrieved November 1, 2008.
41. ^ TANF – Caseload Data – U.South. Department of Wellness and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance
42. ^ Number Below Poverty Level and Rate – Historical Data – U.S. Census, 2010
43. ^ Schoeni, Robert F.; Blank, Rebecca Yard. (December 2003). "What Has Welfare Reform Accomplished? Impacts on Welfare Participation, Employment, Income, Poverty, and Family unit Construction" (PDF). PSC Research Report. No. 03-544.
44. ^ Bitler, Marianne. 2004. "The Touch on of Welfare Reform on Marriage and Divorce". Census 41(2):213–236
45. ^ Harknett, Thousand. and 50.A. Gennetian. 2003. "How An Earning Supplement Can Affect Union Formation Among Low-Income Unmarried Mothers." Demography 40:451-78
46. ^ Ellwood, D. T. and C. Jencks. 2001. "The Growing Differences in Family Structure: What Do Nosotros Know? Where Do Nosotros Look for Answers?" Unpublished manuscript, John F. Kennedy School of Authorities, 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-Being of Children and Families. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 222–245
48. ^ Henshaw, S. Thou. 2001. Nativity and abortion data. In Data Needs for Measuring Family unit and Fertility Change After Welfare Reform, ed. D. J. Basharov. College Park, Doc: Welfare Reform Academy
49. ^ Duncan, G. J. and 50. Hunt-Lansdale. 2002. For Improve and For Worse: Welfare Reform and the Well-Beingness of Children and Families. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
50. ^ Mistry, R.S., D.A. Crosby, Ac Huston, and DM Casey, M Ripke. 2002. Lessons from New Promise: the impact on children's well-being of a work-based anti-poverty program for parents. Come across Duncan and Chase-Landsdale 2002
51. ^ Bernal, R.; Keane, M. P. (2011). "Child intendance choices and children's cognitive achievement: The case of single mothers". Journal of Labor Economics. 29 (3): 459–512. CiteSeerX10.i.1.378.9391. doi:10.1086/659343. S2CID 10002078.
52. ^ Kalili, Ariel et al. 2001. "Does Maternal Employment Mandated by Welfare Reform Affect Children's Behavior?" In For Better and for Worse: Welfare Reform and the Well-being of Children Families. New York: Russell Sage Foundation
53. ^ Golden, Olivia. 2005. Assessing the New Federalism, 8 Years Later. Urban Plant
54. ^ ^{a b} Danziger, S. 1000. 2001. Why some fail to achieve economic security: Low job skills and mental wellness problems are key barriers. Forum 4(ii):ane–3
55. ^ Pollack, H.; Danziger, Due south.; Jayakody, R.; Seefeldt, K. (2002). "Drug Testing Welfare Recipients—False Positives, Faux Negatives, Unanticipated Opportunities". Women's Health Issues. 12 (1): 23–31. doi:10.1016/S1049-3867(01)00139-half dozen. PMID 11786289.
56. ^ London, A. Southward., Scott, E. Thou., Edin, K. and Hunter, V. (2004), "Welfare Reform, Piece of work-Family unit Tradeoffs, and Kid Well-Being". Family unit Relations 53: 148–158
57. ^ Peterson, Janice; Song, Xue; Jones-DeWeever, Avis (May 2002). "Life Subsequently Welfare Reform: Low-Income Single Parent Families, Pre- and Postal service-TANF" (PDF). Institute for Women's Policy Research.
58. ^ "TANF: Full Number of One Parent Families Financial Yr 2020" (PDF). U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
59. ^ Zedlewski, Sheila and Olivia Gold. 2010. "Next Steps for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families." The Urban Institute: Cursory(11) accessed December 12/2011 from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412047_next_steps_brief11.pdf
60. ^ "Questions and Answers nearly the TANF Emergency Fund" (PDF). Eye for Police force and Social Policy. Retrieved October viii, 2010.
61. ^ Cooper, Michael (September 25, 2010). "Job Loss Looms as Part of Stimulus Expires". New York Times . Retrieved October eight, 2010.
62. ^ "Walking Away From a Win-Win-Win Subsidized Jobs Slated to Finish Soon Are Helping Families, Businesses, and Communities Atmospheric condition the Recession". Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. September 2010. Retrieved Oct viii, 2010.
63. ^ "Approved State, Territory & DC TANF Emergency Fund Applications by Category". U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Retrieved October 8, 2010.
64. ^ Centre for Law and Social Policy. 2010. "TANF Reauthorization." Accessed 12/12/2011 from http://www.clasp.org/federal_policy/pages?id=0021
65. ^ ^{a b} Irving, Shelley Thousand. (December 1, 2008). "State Welfare Rules, TANF Exits, and Geographic Context: Does Place Affair?*". Rural Sociology. 73 (4): 605–630. doi:x.1526/003601108786471549. ISSN 1549-0831.
66. ^ Anderson, Steven Chiliad. (January 1, 2002). "Ensuring the Stability of Welfare-to-Work Exits: The Importance of Recipient Knowledge about Work Incentives". Social Work. 47 (ii): 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 1, 2003). "Employment Experiences and Support Services Employ Following TANF Exits". The Social Policy Periodical. ii (1): 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 Mail service-Leave Receipt of Piece of work Supports". The Urban Institute . Retrieved November 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 Empathetic Conservatism Have a Centre? Peter B. Edelman 64 Alb. L. Rev. 1076 2000–2001.
71. ^ The worst thing Bill Clinton has done, Peter Edelman, The Atlantic, March 1997
72. ^ Equally Progressives Predicted, Clinton Welfare Reform Law Fails Families by Randy Shaw in BeyondChron (April 19‚ 2010)

External links [edit]

• Welfare Reform and Single Mothers (Yale Economic Review)
• Congressional Research Service Report on TANF
• Government Accountability Part Report on TANF
• The Center for Law and Social Policy
• Numbers On Welfare Run across Precipitous Increase by Sara Murray, The Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2009
• Welfare's condom cyberspace hard to measure amidst states by Amy Goldstein, "The Washington Post", October 2, 2010
• "Part of Family Assistance (OFA)"

manningwhimily1961.blogspot.com

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

Bagikan Artikel ini