In Focus: State TANF Policies and Data
Mar 6, 2015 | PERMALINK »
The Grand Canyon Isn't the Biggest Chasm in Arizona: Proposed Budget Widens Gap to Economic Security for Low-Income Families
UPDATE: The Arizona legislature passed a budget for FY2016 in the early morning hours of Saturday, March 7. According to the Associated Press, the budget deal included the reduction of the lifetime limit for receipt of TANF to 12 months from 24 months, as well as the elimination of all state funding for two counties’ community college systems (Pima and Maricopa), with the funding for Pinal County’s community colleges spared from cuts.
State lawmakers in Arizona are working furiously on a FY16 budget deal designed to reduce the state’s deficit. Unfortunately, Governor Doug Ducey and the Republican leadership in Arizona’s House and Senate plan to achieve these cuts by slashing funds for programs that support low-income children, families, and individuals in seeking economic security. According to reports, the proposal includes draconian cuts to community colleges and other higher education programs, cash assistance to poor families under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and child care. Reductions in these individual programs are bad enough, but this combination of cuts is especially problematic because it generates the potential for devastating effects for the future of Arizona and its labor force and economy.
The surest path to economic security is a job that pays family-sustaining wages. And poor and low-income families need support—in the form of education, job training, child care and other assistance—as they seek to obtain and hold onto employment with decent pay. Arizona already has the eighth highest rate of child poverty among the 50 states at 26.5 percent. The rate is particularly high among Native American and Hispanic children (38.6 percent and 28.9 percent, respectively). The state can ill afford to abandon children and families who are striving for success. That’s why the proposed cuts are so concerning.
Governor Ducey’s proposal would completely eliminate state funding for the three largest community college districts in Arizona, while also significantly cutting state support for public universities. Many low-income, minority and nontraditional students rely on community colleges as relatively inexpensive routes to getting the training, education, and skills required for career success. For instance, Maricopa Community College, which would see its state funding eliminated under the proposal, serves nearly 265,000 students annually. Of these students, half are racial or ethnic minorities, while 41 percent are at least age 25 and 72 percent attend part time. The governor’s proposal would put opportunities for career success that much farther out of reach for these and other low-income Arizonans.
Poor families also benefit from the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which is operated through block grants that allow states to determine (within guidelines) how to use the federal funds. The reported deal would slash the amount of time that the poorest parents and children could receive TANF cash assistance to meet their basic needs. Currently, Arizona provides up to 24 months of TANF cash assistance (which is already one of the shortest lifetime limits for any state); the proposal would slash that to only 12 months, which is unprecedented and far and away the shortest time limit for TANF of any state. Moreover, this time limit would apply to many cases where only children receive benefits. These cuts put children at risk of hunger, homelessness, and toxic stress that makes it harder for them to succeed in school and grow up as healthy, successful adults.
Another way to support low-income working families is by offering assistance with child care so that parents can seek and hold onto jobs while their children are being well cared for in safe and affordable settings. Governor Ducey’s proposal eliminates $4 million in funding that was just added this year to open up the child care assistance waiting list for children in low-income working families.
Arizona policymakers would do well to consider the impact of this short-sighted budget. By drastically cutting off the support that hard-working poor and low-income people in their state need to climb up the ladder to economic security, the state’s leaders are forsaking Arizona’s overall future success. For national policymakers, a key lesson driven home by this budget—negotiated behind closed doors—is the deep risks posed by proposals to give states flexibility to alter the fundamental structure of key federally funded safety net programs.
Aug 22, 2014 | PERMALINK »
TANF Came Up Short in Response to the Recession
A recent Brookings blog post poses a provocative question: “was the TANF welfare program's response to the Great Recession adequate?” While the blog post asserts that it was, the answer is actually a resounding “no.” As our colleagues at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) have shown, while state programs varied in their response to the recession, TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) cash assistance overall failed to keep pace with sharp increases in unemployment and poverty.
The blog draws on a new Brookings paper (authored by Ron Haskins, Vicky Albert, and Kimberly Howard) that claims TANF largely met increased need during the recession. But Brookings’ two major arguments are extremely flawed and don’t hold up to scrutiny.
TANF’s Responsiveness to Recession Unemployment Compared to the Old Program
Brookings argues that TANF is more responsive to unemployment during recessions than its predecessor program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which was replaced by TANF in 1996. While that’s technically true, it ignores important context. Under TANF, poor single mothers are expected to work whenever possible. AFDC had no such expectation, even when jobs were available. Therefore, it’s not surprising that there was little correlation between AFDC single-mother caseloads and unemployment rates. The number of families receiving cash assistance fell sharply when TANF replaced AFDC; even in the states where TANF grew the most in response to the recession, caseloads remained well below their AFDC levels. Too often, low-income single mothers who lost their jobs in the recession often received neither TANF cash assistance nor unemployment benefits.
How to Measure TANF’s Growth During Increased Unemployment
Brookings asserts that because the recent recession hit states at somewhat different times, analyzing TANF growth during the period recognized as the “national recession” (as CBPP’s report did) does not fully capture the program’s responsiveness to increased unemployment. Brookings offers two alternative measures: one that captures changes in a state’s TANF caseload during a period of rising unemployment, and another that captures caseload increases relative to their lowest level during the recession (completely ignoring the fact that caseloads declined in many states even as unemployment levels climbed). The first alternative is somewhat reasonable; the second is absurdly weighted in favor of caseload growth.
With its second measure, Brookings categorizes states based on whether they had higher- or lower-than-median percentage increases in unemployment rates and higher- or lower-than-median increases in TANF rolls. Their analysis concludes that only seven states were unresponsive and problematic: Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Tennessee. But many of the states that they describe as “status quo”—lower than average in both categories—still had extremely high unemployment rates. For instance, Michigan is considered a “status quo” state because its 109 percent growth in unemployment during its state-level recession was slightly less than the national average, even though its unemployment rate climbed towards 15 percent. That’s why it’s extremely misleading that the authors cite South Dakota, which peaked with 6 percent unemployment, as the illustrative example of a “status quo” state. By using the median to determine a state’s responsiveness to the recession, Brookings is (by definition) asserting that just 25 states experienced high increases in unemployment—a claim with which almost no one would agree.
Having obfuscated TANF’s weakness with misleading statements, the report then shifts to the safety net as a whole, concluding: “all in all, the American system of balancing work requirements and welfare benefits worked fairly well, even during the most severe recession since the Depression of the 1930s.” This is true—but not thanks to TANF. The elasticity of the safety net is largely owed to SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – formerly called Food Stamps), Unemployment Insurance, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Child Tax Credit—all of which respond automatically to recession and received additional boosts as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This distinction is critically important because some politicians, such as Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), want to use TANF as a model for other programs—a change that would severely undermine the safety net success of which Haskins and his co-authors cite. On the 18th anniversary of TANF, its impact on “ending welfare as we know it” remains to be seen.
Jul 1, 2014 | PERMALINK »
A Step in the Right Direction, Minnesota Expands Access to TANF Education and Training Activities
The state of Minnesota is taking steps towards increasing access to education activities for poor adults receiving TANF. Signed into law by Governor Mark Dayton (D-MN), bill HF2458, which was sponsored by state Senator Jeff Hayden (D-MN) and Representative Susan Allen (D-MN), expands access to adult basic education (ABE), General Educational Development (GED), English as a Second Language (ESL) and postsecondary education for participants receiving cash assistance from the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP), the state administered TANF program. The legislation, which takes effect July 1, 2014, allows MFIP participants unlimited participation in these education activities as part of their employment plan without requiring enrollment in other work activities.
Almost 40% of MFIP adults have not earned a high school diploma or GED. Prior to the new law’s passage, an MFIP participant who wanted to pursue a degree or credential had to jump through a number of procedural hoops in order to have these activities included in their work plans and could be required to participate in other countable work activities in addition to their studies. This legislation removes these barriers by easing time and hour limitations on education and training work activities and by alleviating the burden of documentation previously required to participate in ABE, ESL or post-secondary activities. Furthermore, MFIP participants will now have the opportunity to pursue four-year degree programs while receiving TANF benefits, and caseworkers must inform participants with a high school diploma or GED that they have the opportunity to participate in postsecondary education or training while receiving TANF. Poor parents, who are MFIP participants, can now pursue educational activities without harsh restrictions.
Another component of the Minnesota legislation allows all participants 12 weeks to pursue job search activities, rather than the previously allowable 6 weeks of job search. This flexibility will provide MFIP participants more opportunity to secure a well-paying job. The changes in the legislation will affect the nearly 70,000 parents – and their children – in the state of Minnesota who receive TANF benefits.
This legislation was promoted by a broad coalition of state advocates in a campaign called “Prosperity for All.” The campaign highlighted that these changes to the MFIP rules would be good for employers and the economy, as well as participants and their children:
- Increased educational attainment will lead to increased earnings for parents. In Minnesota, wages for those who have four-year and advanced degrees have risen while wages for high school graduates have stagnated and fallen, making it hard for poor families to make ends meet.
- As mothers pursue postsecondary education activities, children also fare better academically.
- Minnesota is facing a skills gap – two out of three employers cannot find skilled employees. Allowing MFIP participants to acquire skills through credentials and degrees will help meet employers’ needs. By 2018, about 70% of jobs in Minnesota will require some postsecondary education.
Arbitrary restrictions on education and training for TANF recipients are poorly matched to the demands of today’s economy, and trap TANF families in poverty. CLASP applauds the success of Prosperity for All and Minnesota lawmakers in expanding access to education and training activities and urges other states, and the federal government, to follow suit.