How Long Can a Family Collect Aid From Tanf Program

U.S. federal assistance plan

Section of Health and Human Services

Official seal
HHS Logo
Programme overview
Preceding Program	Aid to Families with Dependent Children
Jurisdiction	Federal government of the The states
Annual budget	$17.35 billion (FY2014)[i]
Website	TANF

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF ) is a federal aid program of the The states. It began on July 1, 1997, and succeeded the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, providing cash assistance to indigent American families through the United states of america Department of Health and Human Services.^[2] TANF is often merely referred to as welfare.

The TANF program, emphasizing the welfare-to-work principle, is a grant given to each state to run its own welfare program and designed to be 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 ii years of receiving assist, including unmarried parents who are required to piece of work at least 30 hours per week opposed to 35 or 55 required by two parent families. Failure to comply with work requirements could result in loss of benefits. TANF funds may be used for the following reasons: to provide assistance to needy families so that children tin can be cared for at home; to terminate the dependence of needy parents on government benefits past promoting task preparation, piece of work and matrimony; to prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-matrimony pregnancies; and to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.

Groundwork [edit]

Prior to TANF, Aid to Families with Dependent Children was a major federal aid plan that was coming under heavy criticism. Some argued that such programs were ineffective, promoted dependency on the regime, and encouraged behaviors detrimental to escaping from poverty.^[iii] Some people also argued that TANF is detrimental to its recipients because using these programs take a stigma attached to them, which makes the people that utilize them less likely to participate politically to defend this program, and thus the programs have been afterwards weakened. Beginning with President Ronald Reagan's assistants and continuing through the outset few years of the Clinton administration, growing dissatisfaction with AFDC, peculiarly the rising in welfare caseloads, led an increasing number of states to seek waivers from AFDC rules to let 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-piece of 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 1990s. While reviews of such programs establish that almost all programs led to significant increases in employment and reductions in welfare rolls, there was fiddling evidence that income amidst sometime welfare recipients had increased. In event, 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] Nevertheless, the findings that welfare-to-piece of work programs did have some effect 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 government assistance to jobs, they disagreed on how to accomplish this goal. Liberals idea that welfare reform should expand opportunities for welfare mothers to receive training and work experience that would help them raise their families' living standards by working more and at higher wages.^[6] Conservatives emphasized work requirements and time limits, paying piddling attention to whether or not families' incomes increased. More 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.^[seven] Conservatives argued that welfare to work reform would be beneficial by creating function 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 young women to postpone childbearing. Liberals responded that the reform sought by conservatives would overwhelm severely stressed parents, deepen the poverty of many families, and force young children into unsafe 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 bug in child and adolescent functioning.^[8]

In 1992, as a presidential candidate, Bill Clinton pledged to "end welfare every bit we know information technology" by requiring families receiving welfare to work after two years. As president, Clinton was attracted to welfare good and Harvard Academy Professor David Ellwood'southward proposal on welfare reform and thus Clinton somewhen appointed Ellwood to co-chair his welfare task force. Ellwood supported converting welfare into a transitional organisation. He advocated providing aid to families for a limited time, after which recipients would exist required to earn wages from a regular chore or a work opportunity plan.^[6] Low wages would exist supplemented by expanded tax credits, access to subsidized childcare and health insurance, and guaranteed child back up.

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 bulk 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 effectually five themes:^[9]

• Reforming Welfare to Promote Work and Time Limits: The welfare reform discussions were dominated by the perception that the and so-existing cash aid program, AFDC, did non exercise enough to encourage and require employment, and instead incentivized not-piece of work. Supporters of welfare reform likewise 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 greenbacks assist system into a piece of work-focused, fourth dimension-limited programme.
• Reducing Projected Spending: Republicans argued that projected federal spending for low-income families was likewise high and needed to be reduced to lower overall federal spending.

• Promoting Parental Responsibility: There was broad understanding amidst politicians that both parents should support their children. For custodial parents, this meant an emphasis on work and cooperation with kid support enforcement. For non-custodial parents, it meant a fix of initiatives to strengthen the effectiveness of the kid support enforcement.
• Addressing Out-of-Wedlock Birth: Republicans argued that out of union birth was presenting an increasingly serious social trouble and that the federal government should work to reduce out-of-wedlock births.
• Promoting Devolution: A mutual theme in the debates was that the federal regime had failed and that states were more successful in providing for the needy, and thus reform needed to provide more power and potency to states to shape such policy.

Clinton twice vetoed the welfare reform bill put frontward by Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole. Then just before the Democratic Convention he signed a third version subsequently the Senate voted 74–24^[10] and the House voted 256–170^[11] in favor of welfare reform legislation, formally known as the Personal Responsibleness and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 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 authorities and states determine 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 block grants and both design and administer their own programs. Access to welfare and amount of help varied quite a bit by country and locality under AFDC, both because of the differences in land standards of need and considerable subjectivity in caseworker evaluation of qualifying "suitable homes".^[12] Nonetheless, welfare recipients nether TANF are actually in completely different programs depending on their land of residence, with unlike social services available to them and unlike requirements for maintaining aid.^[13]

State implementations [edit]

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

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

Funding and eligibility [edit]

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

PRWORA replaced AFDC with TANF and ended entitlement to cash assist for low-income families, meaning that some families may be denied aid fifty-fifty if they are eligible. Under TANF, states take broad discretion to decide who is eligible for benefits and services. In general, states must use funds to serve families with children, with the but exceptions related to efforts to reduce not-marital childbearing and promote marriage. States cannot use TANF funds to assist most legal immigrants until they have been in the country for at least five years. TANF sets along the post-obit piece of work requirements in club to authorize for benefits:^[xix]

1. Recipients (with few exceptions) must work as soon every bit they are job ready or no subsequently than 2 years later on coming on assistance.
2. Single parents are required to participate in work activities for at least thirty hours per week. Ii-parent families must participate in work activities 35 or 55 hours a week, depending upon circumstance.
3. Failure to participate in piece of work requirements can result in a reduction or termination of benefits to the family.
4. States, in fiscal year 2004, accept to ensure that 50 per centum of all families and ninety percent of ii-parent families are participating in piece of work activities. If a state meets these goals without restricting eligibility, information technology can receive a caseload reduction credit. This credit reduces the minimum participation rates the state must reach to continue receiving federal funding.

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

1. Provide assistance to needy families then that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives;
2. end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting chore grooming, work, and marriage;
3. forestall and reduce the incidence of out-of-spousal relationship pregnancies and constitute annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies;
4. and encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.

TANF Programme Spending^[19]

Since these four goals are deeply full general, "states can utilise TANF funds much more broadly than the core welfare reform areas of providing a safety cyberspace 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. Nether AFDC, states provided greenbacks assistance to families with children, and the federal regime paid half or more of all program costs.^[9] Federal spending was provided to states on an open-ended basis, meaning that funding was tied to the number of caseloads. Federal law mandated that states provide some level of cash help to eligible poor families but states had broad discretion in setting the do good levels. Under TANF, states qualify for cake grants. The funding for these cake grants have been fixed since fiscal year 2002 and the amount each land receives is based on the level of federal contributions to the state for the AFDC plan in 1994, with no adjustments for inflation, size of caseload, or other factors.^{[22] [23] : 4} This has led to a great disparity in the grant size per child living in poverty among the states, ranging from a low of $318 per kid in poverty in Texas to a high of $3,220 per child in poverty in Vermont, with the median per child grant size beingness $1,064 in Wyoming.^{[23] : Figure 1} United states are required to maintain their spending for welfare programs at 80 pct of their 1994 spending levels, with a reduction to 75 pct if states meet other work-participation requirements. States have greater flexibility in deciding how they spend funds every bit long as they meet the provisions of TANF described above.

Currently, states spend merely slightly more than one-quarter of their combined federal TANF funds and the country funds they must spend to meet TANF's "maintenance of attempt" (MOE) requirement on basic assistance to come across the essential needs of families with children, and just another quarter on kid care for low-income families and on activities to connect TANF families to work. They spend the balance 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 cash help to other uses.^[24]

In July 2012, the Department of Wellness and Human Services released a memo notifying states that they are able to apply 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 work component of the plan.^[25] The assistants has stipulated that any waivers that weaken the work requirement will exist rejected.^[26] The DHHS granted the waivers subsequently several Governors requested more than state control.^[27] The DHHS agreed to the waivers on the stipulation that they continue to see all Federal requirements.^[28] States were given the right to submit their own plans and reporting methods just if they continued to encounter Federal requirements and if the land programs proved to be more effective.

Impact [edit]

Example load [edit]

Betwixt 1996 and 2000, the number of welfare recipients plunged by half-dozen.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 help income (less than 3%) was the lowest on record.^[29] Since the implementation of TANF occurred during a menstruation of strong economic growth, at that place are questions about how much of the pass up in caseloads is owing to TANF program requirements. First, the number of caseloads began declining after 1994, the yr with the highest number of caseloads, well earlier the enactment of TANF, suggesting that TANF was not solely responsible for the caseload decline.^[4] Research suggests that both changes in welfare policy and economic growth played a substantial role in this decline, and that no larger than 1-tertiary of the decline in caseloads is attributable to TANF.^{[29] [30] [ needs update ]}

Work, earnings, and poverty [edit]

One of the major goals of TANF was to increase piece of work among welfare recipients. During the postal service-welfare reform period, employment did increase among unmarried 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 by 10%.^[iv] Among welfare recipients, the percentage that reported earnings from employment increased from vi.seven% in 1990 to 28.1% by 1999.^[4] While employment of TANF recipients increased in the early years of reform, it declined in the later period subsequently reform, specially subsequently 2000. From 2000–2005, employment among TANF recipients declined by 6.5%.^[31] Among welfare leavers, it was estimated that close to 2-thirds worked at a future betoken in time^{[32] [33]} About 20 percent of welfare leavers are non working, without a spouse, and without any public aid.^[31] Those who left welfare because of sanctions (time limits or failure to come across plan requirements) fared comparably worse than those who left welfare voluntarily. Sanctioned welfare recipients take employment rates that are, on boilerplate, 20 percent below 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 low, and their employment was concentrated in low-wage occupations and industries. 78 percent of employed low-income single parents were full-bodied in 4 typically depression-wage occupations: service; administrative support and clerical; operators, fabricators, and laborers; and sales and related jobs.^[35] While the average income amongst TANF recipients increased over the early on years of reform, it has go brackish in the later on catamenia; for welfare leavers, their boilerplate income remained steady or declined in the afterward years.^[31] Studies that compared household income (includes welfare benefits) before and subsequently leaving welfare find that between one-tertiary and one-half of welfare leavers had decreased income later leaving welfare.^{[30] [36]}

During the 1990s, poverty amidst single-mother and their families declined rapidly from 35.four% 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 full-bodied in low-wage occupations, the decline in public assistance caseloads has not translated easily into reduction in poverty. The number of poor female-headed families with children dropped from 3.8 meg to 3.ane 1000000 between 1994 and 1999, a 22% refuse compared to a 48% reject in caseloads.^[29] Equally a consequence, the share of working poor in the U.S. population rose, as some women left public assist for employment but remained poor.^[4] Nigh studies take found that poverty is quite high among welfare leavers. Depending on the source of the data, estimates of poverty among leavers vary from near 48% to 74%.^{[32] [37]}

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

Boilerplate monthly TANF recipients, pct of U.Southward. families in poverty and unemployment rate

Year	Average monthly TANF recipients	Poverty charge per unit (%)	Annual unemployment rate (%)
1996	12,320,970 (run across note)	eleven.0	five.4
1997	10,375,993	10.3	four.9
1998	8,347,136	10.0	4.v
1999	6,824,347	ix.three	4.2
2000	5,778,034	eight.7	4.0
2001	5,359,180	9.two	four.seven
2002	v,069,010	9.half-dozen	5.8
2003	4,928,878	10.0	6.0
2004	4,748,115	10.2	5.5
2005	4,471,393	nine.9	v.one
2006	four,166,659	9.viii	iv.6
2007	3,895,407	9.eight	4.5
2008	3,795,007	ten.3	5.4
2009	4,154,366	xi.1	8.one
2010	four,375,022	11.7	8.6

Annotation: 1996 was the last yr 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 charge per unit.

Wedlock and fertility [edit]

A major impetus for welfare reform was business organization about increases in out-of-wedlock births and declining wedlock rates, especially among low-income women. The major goals of the 1996 legislation included reducing out-of-wedlock births and increasing rates and stability of marriages.^[four]

Studies have produced only modest or inconsistent testify that marital and cohabitation decisions are influenced past welfare programme policies. Schoeni and Blank (2003) institute that pre-1996 welfare waivers were associated with modest increases in probabilities of marriage.^[43] Even so, a similar analysis of postal service-TANF effect revealed less consistent results. Nationally, only 0.4% of closed cases gave marriage as the reason for leaving welfare.^[29] Using information on spousal relationship and divorces from 1989–2000 to examine the role of welfare reform on marriage and divorce, Bitler (2004) found that both state 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 not married were more likely to stay single, and those who were married were more than likely 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, post-reform there was potentially a significant increase in the number of hours they would accept to work when single, discouraging divorce.^{[45] [46]}

In improver to marriage 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 historic period 18 who did not reside with their parents. TANF immune states to impose family unit caps on the receipt of additional cash benefits from unwed childbearing. Between 1994 and 1999, unwed childbearing among teenagers declined 20 percent among 15- to 17-yr-olds and 10 percent amid 18- and 19-twelvemonth-olds.^[29] In a comprehensive cross-state comparison, 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] Whatsoever fears that family unit caps would lead to more than abortions was allayed past 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 cerebral and emotional evolution. A working female parent, proponents assert, provides a positive role model for her children. Opponents, on the other mitt, argued that requiring women to work at low pay puts additional stress on mothers, reduces the quality time 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 child welfare. Duncan & Chase-Lansdale (2001) found that the impact of welfare reform varied by historic period of the children, with by and large positive effects on school accomplishment among unproblematic-schoolhouse age children and negative effects on adolescents, especially with regards to risky or problematic behaviors.^[49] Another written report plant large and significant effects of welfare reform on educational achievement and aspirations, and on social beliefs (i.e. instructor assessment of compliance and self-control, competence and sensitivity). The positive furnishings 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 study found that exchange from maternal care to other informal care had acquired a significant driblet in operation of young children.^[51] In a program with less generous benefits, Kalili et al. (2002) plant that maternal work (measured in months and hours per calendar week) had footling overall effect on children's antisocial behavior, anxious/depressed behavior or positive behavior. They notice no evidence 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 choice of publications, Gilded (2005) reached the conclusion that children's outcomes were largely unchanged when examining children'south developmental chance, including health status, behavior or emotional problems, suspensions from school, and lack of participation in extracurricular activities.^[53] She argues that reverse to the fears of many, welfare reform and an increment in parental work did non seem to have reduced children's well-being overall. More abused and neglected children had not entered the kid welfare arrangement. Yet, at the same time, improvement in parental earnings and reductions in kid poverty had not consistently improved outcomes for children.

Maternal well-being [edit]

While the material and economical well-being of welfare mothers after the enactment of TANF has been the subject field of countless studies, their mental and concrete well-being has received little attention. Research on the latter has found that welfare recipients face mental and physical problems at rates that are college than the full general population.^[54] Such problems which include depression, anxiety disorder, mail service-traumatic stress disorder, and domestic violence hateful that welfare recipients face many more barriers to employment and are more at risk of welfare sanctions due to noncompliance with work requirements and other TANF regulations^[29] Enquiry on the health condition of welfare leavers have indicated positive results. Findings from the Women'southward Employment Report, a longitudinal survey of welfare recipients in Michigan, indicated that women on welfare but not working are more likely to accept mental wellness and other problems than are former welfare recipients now working.^{[54] [55]} Similarly, interviews with now employed welfare recipients detect that partly as a result of their increased material resources from working, the women felt that work has led to higher cocky-esteem, new opportunities to expand their social back up networks, and increased feelings of cocky-efficacy.^[56] Furthermore, they became less socially isolated and potentially less decumbent to low. At the same time, still, many women were experiencing stress and exhaustion from trying to balance piece of work and family unit responsibilities.

Paternal well-beingness [edit]

For single fathers within the program, there is a small per centum increase of employment in comparison to single mothers, merely there is a significant increase of increased wages throughout their time in the program.^[57] As of June 2020, the number of one-parent families participating in TANF is 432,644.^[58]

[edit]

Enacted in July 1997, TANF was ready for reauthorization in Congress in 2002. Even so, Congress was unable to reach an understanding for the next several years, and as a effect, several extensions were granted to keep funding the program. TANF was finally reauthorized under the Deficit Reduction ACT (DRA) of 2005. DRA included several changes to the original TANF program. Information technology raised work participation rates, increased the share of welfare recipients subject to work requirements, limited the activities that could exist counted as piece of work, prescribed hours that could be spent doing sure work activities, and required states to verify activities for each adult beneficiary.^[59]

In February 2009, as role of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Human activity 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 financial years 2009 and 2010. The original TANF constabulary provided for a Contingency Fund (CF) funded at $2 billion which allows states meeting economic triggers to draw 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 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 exist claimed were basic assistance, non-recurrent short-term benefits, and subsidized employment.^[60] The third category listed, subsidized employment, fabricated national headlines^[61] as states created nearly 250,000 developed and youth jobs through the funding.^[62] The program yet expired on September thirty, 2010, on schedule with states drawing down the entire $five billion allocated by ARRA.^[63]

TANF was scheduled for reauthorization again in 2010. However, Congress did not work on legislation to reauthorize the program and instead they extended the TANF cake grant through September thirty, 2011, as office of the Claims Resolution Deed.^[64] During this period Congress over again did not reauthorize the program but passed a three-month extension through December 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 showtime situation involves work related TANF exit, in which individuals no longer qualify for TANF assistance due to acquired employment.
2. The second type of situation is not- 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 help program. One time their fourth dimension limit has been reached, individuals are removed from receiving assistance.
3. The 3rd type of situation is continued TANF receipt in which employed recipients earning a wage that does not help cover expenses continue receiving assistance.

It has been observed that sure situations of TANF go out are more prominent depending on the geographic area which recipients live in. Focusing the comparison between metropolitan (urban) areas and non-metropolitan (rural) areas, the number of recipients experiencing non piece of work TANF related go out is highest amidst rural areas (rural areas in the South experience the highest cases of this type of exiting the program).^[65]

Information asymmetry or lack of knowledge among recipients on the various TANF piece of work incentive programs is a contributor to recipients experiencing not work related TANF exits. Not being 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 time periods requiring TANF services.^[66] Recipients who exit TANF due to work are also affected by information asymmetry due to lack of awareness on the "transitional support" programs available to facilitate their transitioning into the work field. Programs such as childcare, food stamps, and Medicaid are meant increase work incentive but many TANF recipients transitioning into piece of work do not know they are eligible.^[67] Information technology has been shown that TANF-exiting working women who use and maintain the transitional incentive services described above are less likely to render to receiving assist and are more probable to experience long term employment.^[68]

Criticism [edit]

Peter Edelman, an assistant secretary in the Department of Health and Homo Services, resigned from the Clinton administration in protest of Clinton signing the Personal Responsibleness and Work Opportunity Human action, which he chosen, "The worst thing Pecker Clinton has done."^[69] According to Edelman, the 1996 welfare reform law destroyed the prophylactic net. It increased poverty, lowered income for single mothers, put people from welfare into homeless shelters, and left states costless to eliminate welfare entirely. It moved mothers and children from welfare to piece of work, but many of them aren't making enough to survive. Many of them were pushed off welfare rolls because they didn't show up for an appointment, when they had no transportation to get to the date, or weren't informed nearly the appointment, said Edelman.^{[70] [71]}

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

References [edit]

1. ^ U.S Department of Wellness and Homo 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 Health and Human Services. 2011. "TANF". Accessed 12/ix/2011 from "Archived re-create". Archived from the original on March fourteen, 2012. Retrieved March 19, 2011. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy equally title (link)
3. ^ Mead, Lawrence M. (1986). Beyond Entitlement: The Social Obligations of Citizenship. New York: Free Press. ISBN978-0-02-920890-8.
4. ^ ^{a b c d eastward f k} Blank, Rebecca. 2002. "Evaluating Welfare Reform in the The states." Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association forty(4): 1105–116
5. ^ Blossom, Dan and Charles Michalopoulos. 2001. How Welfare and Work Policies Bear on Employment and Income: A Synthesis of Research. New York: Manpower Sit-in Enquiry Corporation
6. ^ ^{a b c} Danziger, Sheldon (Dec 1999). "Welfare Reform Policy from Nixon to Clinton: What Role for Social Scientific discipline?" (PDF). Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. Retrieved December eleven, 2011. Paper prepared for Conference, "The Social Science and Policy Making". Establish for Social Research, Academy of Michigan, March xiii–14, 1998
7. ^ ^{a b} Institute for Policy Research (2008). "A Wait Back at Welfare Reform" (PDF). xxx (1). Northwestern University. Retrieved October 11, 2011. ;
8. ^ Duncan, Greg J. and P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale. 2001. "For Better and for Worse: Welfare Reform and the Well-beingness of Children Families." In For Better and for Worse: Welfare Reform and the Well-being of children and Families. New York: Russell Sage Foundation
9. ^ ^{a b c} Greenberg, Marking et al. 2000. Welfare Reauthorization: An Early Guide to the Issues. Center for Constabulary and Social Policy
10. ^ "U.S. Senate: Gyre Call Vote". senate.gov.
11. ^ "Archived copy". clerk.house.gov. Archived from the original on Oct 25, 2006. Retrieved Jan thirteen, 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 University Press. ISBN978-0-674-00711-6.
13. ^ Kaufman, Darren S. "Assistance 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), "Land TANF Policies every bit of July 1999" (PDF), Welfare Rules Database
15. ^ Cook, E.A. (1962). "Platonic and Real: The Acculturation Continuum". American Anthropologist. 64 (one): 163–165. doi:10.1525/aa.1962.64.one.02a00150. JSTOR 666735.
16. ^ Mazzeo, Christopher; Rab, Sara; Eachus, Susan (2003). "Work-First or Work-But: Welfare Reform, State Policy, and Access to Postsecondary Education". Register of the American University of Political and Social Scientific discipline. 586: 144–171. doi:ten.1177/0095399702250212. JSTOR 1049724. S2CID 154484859.
17. ^ Soss, Joe; Fording, Richard C.; Schram, Sanford F. (2008). "The Colour 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 ii.
19. ^ ^{a b} Schott, Liz. 2011. Policy Nuts: An Introduction to TANF. Eye on Upkeep and Policy Priorities. Accessed 11/2/2011 from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/alphabetize.cfm?fa=view&id=936
20. ^ U.S. Section of Health and Man Services. About TANF.U.S. Section of Wellness and Homo Services. Accessed eleven/two/2011 from "Archived re-create". Archived from the original on March 14, 2012. Retrieved March 19, 2011. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
21. ^ "Policy Basics: 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: Assist to Children with Working Families?" in Tax Policy and the Economic system edited by James M. Poterba: 157–203
23. ^ ^{a b} Falk, Gene; Carter, Jameson A.; Ghavalyan, Mariam (Oct 9, 2019). The Temporary Help for Needy Families Block Grant: Legislative Issues in the 116th Congress (Report). Congressional Inquiry Service. Retrieved October 23, 2019.
24. ^ Schott, Liz. "How States Use Federal and State Funds Under the TANF Cake Grant". The Centre on Upkeep Policy and Priorities.
25. ^ "Republicans accuse HHS of gutting welfare reform with serenity policy change". FoxNews.com. July xiii, 2012. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
26. ^ "Romney's starting his race to the bottom". suntimes.com. Baronial 8, 2012. Retrieved August 8, 2012.
27. ^ "3 Reasons Why Republican Governors Asked to Reform Their Welfare Programs – Eye for American Progress Activity Fund". americanprogressaction.org. September 6, 2012.
28. ^ [1] ^{[ dead link ]}
29. ^ ^{a b c d east f g} Lichter, Daniel T. and Rukamalie Jayakody. 2002. "Welfare Reform: How Do We Measure Success?" Annual Review of Sociology 28:117–141
30. ^ ^{a b} Bavier, Richard. 2001. "Welfare Reform Information from the Survey of Income and Plan Participation." Monthly Labor Review (July): xiii–24
31. ^ ^{a b c} Acs, Gregory and Pamela Loprest. 2007. "TANF Caseload Composition and Leavers Synthesis Report". The Urban Institute
32. ^ ^{a b} Moffitt, Robert A. and Jennifer Roff. 2000. "The Diversity of Welfare Leavers, Welfare Children, and Families: A Iii Metropolis Study." Johns Hopkins Academy Policy Cursory 00-02
33. ^ Devere, Christine. 2001. "Welfare Reform Research: What Practise Nosotros Know About Those Who Exit Welfare?" CRS Report for Congress. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Inquiry service
34. ^ Tweedie, Jack. 2001. "Sanctions and Exists: What States Know about Families that exit Welfare Because of Sanctions and Fourth dimension 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 Mail-TANF. Constitute for Women'southward Policy Research #D446
36. ^ Cancian, Maria. 2000. Before and After TANF: The Economical Well-Being of Women Leaving Welfare. Found for Research on Poverty. Special Report no.77
37. ^ Loprest, Pamela. 2001. How Are Families that Left Welfare Doing? A Comparing of Early and Recent Welfare Leavers. Serial B, No B-36, Assessing the New Federalism Project. Washington, D.C.: Urban Plant. April
38. ^ "Caseload Data". Administration for Children and Families. Retrieved October 12, 2008.
39. ^ "Historical Poverty Tables". U.S. Census Bureau. Archived from the original on April 19, 2008. Retrieved October 12, 2008.
40. ^ "Labor Force Statistics including the National Unemployment Rate". U.South. Department of Labor, Agency of Labor Statistics. Retrieved Nov 1, 2008.
41. ^ TANF – Caseload Data – U.S. Department of Health and Homo Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Aid
42. ^ Number Below Poverty Level and Charge per unit – Historical Data – U.South. Demography, 2010
43. ^ Schoeni, Robert F.; Blank, Rebecca M. (Dec 2003). "What Has Welfare Reform Accomplished? Impacts on Welfare Participation, Employment, Income, Poverty, and Family Structure" (PDF). PSC Inquiry Report. No. 03-544.
44. ^ Bitler, Marianne. 2004. "The Bear on of Welfare Reform on Matrimony and Divorce". Demography 41(2):213–236
45. ^ Harknett, One thousand. and L.A. Gennetian. 2003. "How An Earning Supplement Tin can Affect Union Formation Amongst Low-Income Single Mothers." Demography 40:451-78
46. ^ Ellwood, D. T. and C. Jencks. 2001. "The Growing Differences in Family Structure: What Do We Know? Where Exercise We Look for Answers?" Unpublished manuscript, John F. Kennedy Schoolhouse of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
47. ^ Horvath-Rose, A. and HE Peters. 2002. "Welfare waivers and nonmarital fertility". in For Improve and For Worse: Welfare Reform and Well-Being of Children and Families. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 222–245
48. ^ Henshaw, S. K. 2001. Birth and abortion information. In Data Needs for Measuring Family and Fertility Change After Welfare Reform, ed. D. J. Basharov. College Park, Doc: Welfare Reform Academy
49. ^ Duncan, G. J. and L. Chase-Lansdale. 2002. For Amend and For Worse: Welfare Reform and the Well-Being of Children and Families. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
50. ^ Mistry, R.South., D.A. Crosby, Air conditioning Huston, and DM Casey, M Ripke. 2002. Lessons from New Hope: the touch on children's well-being of a work-based anti-poverty program for parents. Encounter Duncan and Hunt-Landsdale 2002
51. ^ Bernal, R.; Keane, M. P. (2011). "Child intendance choices and children's cerebral accomplishment: The case of unmarried mothers". Journal of Labor Economic science. 29 (3): 459–512. CiteSeerX10.one.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 Beliefs?" In For Ameliorate 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, Eight Years Later. Urban Institute
54. ^ ^{a b} Danziger, S. K. 2001. Why some fail to attain economic security: Depression chore skills and mental health problems are key barriers. Forum 4(2):1–3
55. ^ Pollack, H.; Danziger, S.; Jayakody, R.; Seefeldt, K. (2002). "Drug Testing Welfare Recipients—False Positives, False Negatives, Unanticipated Opportunities". Women'due south Health Issues. 12 (ane): 23–31. doi:10.1016/S1049-3867(01)00139-6. PMID 11786289.
56. ^ London, A. Southward., Scott, E. K., Edin, K. and Hunter, Five. (2004), "Welfare Reform, Work-Family Tradeoffs, and Child 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 Post-TANF" (PDF). Constitute for Women'southward Policy Research.
58. ^ "TANF: Total Number of One Parent Families Fiscal Yr 2020" (PDF). U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
59. ^ Zedlewski, Sheila and Olivia Golden. 2010. "Next Steps for Temporary Help for Needy Families." The Urban Institute: Cursory(11) accessed Dec 12/2011 from http://world wide web.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412047_next_steps_brief11.pdf
60. ^ "Questions and Answers about the TANF Emergency Fund" (PDF). Center for Law and Social Policy. Retrieved October 8, 2010.
61. ^ Cooper, Michael (September 25, 2010). "Task Loss Looms as Role of Stimulus Expires". New York Times . Retrieved October 8, 2010.
62. ^ "Walking Abroad From a Win-Win-Win Subsidized Jobs Slated to End Before long Are Helping Families, Businesses, and Communities Weather the Recession". Middle on Upkeep and Policy Priorities. September 2010. Retrieved October 8, 2010.
63. ^ "Canonical Land, Territory & DC TANF Emergency Fund Applications past Category". U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Retrieved October viii, 2010.
64. ^ Eye for Constabulary 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 K. (Dec 1, 2008). "Country Welfare Rules, TANF Exits, and Geographic Context: Does Place Matter?*". Rural Sociology. 73 (four): 605–630. doi:ten.1526/003601108786471549. ISSN 1549-0831.
66. ^ Anderson, Steven G. (Jan i, 2002). "Ensuring the Stability of Welfare-to-Work Exits: The Importance of Recipient Knowledge nearly Work Incentives". Social Piece of work. 47 (two): 162–170. doi:10.1093/sw/47.2.162. JSTOR 23717936. PMID 12019803.
67. ^ Anderson, Steven G.; Schuldt, Richard; Halter, Anthony P.; Scott, Jeff (January 1, 2003). "Employment Experiences and Support Services Employ Post-obit TANF Exits". The Social Policy Periodical. 2 (1): 35–56. doi:10.1300/J185v02n01_04. ISSN 1533-2942. S2CID 154639073.
68. ^ Acs, Gregory (August 2007). "Helping Women Stay Off Welfare: The Function of Post-Exit Receipt of Piece of work Supports". The Urban Institute . Retrieved Nov xvi, 2016.
69. ^ Two Clinton Aides Resign to Protest New Welfare Police by Alison Mitchell, The New York Times, September 12, 1996
70. ^ Poverty & Welfare: Does Compassionate Conservatism Have a Heart? 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. ^ As Progressives Predicted, Clinton Welfare Reform Police force Fails Families by Randy Shaw in BeyondChron (April 19‚ 2010)

External links [edit]

• Welfare Reform and Unmarried Mothers (Yale Economic Review)
• Congressional Research Service Study on TANF
• Government Accountability Office Study on TANF
• The Eye for Law and Social Policy
• Numbers On Welfare Meet Sharp Increment past Sara Murray, The Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2009
• Welfare's safety cyberspace hard to measure among states by Amy Goldstein, "The Washington Postal service", Oct 2, 2010
• "Part of Family Aid (OFA)"

cantrellperep1987.blogspot.com

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

Share this post