U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Work requirements

Required recipients to work 30 hours per week after two years of cash assistance; 10 hours could be spent engaging in job training or education activities that were directly related to employment. Single parents of children under 6 years of age were required to work only 20 hours per week, and two-parent families were required to work 35 hours per week.

Administration and House Proposals
Both require recipients to work 40 hours per week. Of those hours, 24 must be direct work activity, as specified by the state within the bounds of the federal definition (discussed in next section). The remaining 16 hours per week may be spent on substance abuse counseling or treatment, rehabilitation treatment and services, work-related education or training, or job search or job readiness assistance.

Senate Proposal
Maintains the requirement of 30 hours of work participation per week, but increases the priority work activities requirement from 20 hours to 24 hours. Retains the 20-hour work week for single parents of children under 6 years of age.

Provision

1996 Welfare Bill

2002 Proposals

Definition of work activity

Counted 12 activities toward the work participation standard:

unsubsidized jobs; subsidized private jobs; subsidized public jobs; work experience; on-the-job-training; job search (six-week maximum); community service; vocational educational training (12-month limit); providing child care for certain TANF recipients; job skills training related to employment; education directly related to work; and completion of secondary school (for high school dropouts).

Allowed states to count education as a work activity for only 20 percent of welfare recipients.

Allowed, but did not require states to develop an individual responsibility plan (IRP) for TANF recipients.

Administration and House Proposals
Both have narrowly defined what can be counted toward the work activity requirements, effectively limiting the opportunities for individuals to participate in many education and job training programs that would improve their chances of obtaining self-sufficiency. Direct work activity is defined as unsubsidized employment, subsidized private sector employment, subsidized public sector employment, on-the-job training, supervised work experience, or supervised community service. Under the proposals, adult literacy, English as a second language, and high school equivalency courses do not count toward the 24 hours of required paid work for recipients.

House Bill
Reduces the time that full-time education and training can count toward work requirements to four months in a 24-month period. This is determined on a case-by-case basis, if needed to permit the individual to complete a certificate program or other work-related education or training. Also requires states to develop and monitor family self-sufficiency plans that specify appropriate activities, including direct work activities, designed to assist the family in achieving self-sufficiency.

Senate Proposal
Expands the list of approved priority work activities to include time-limited rehabilitative services, including substance abuse and mental health treatment, adult basic education, and limited English proficiency classes. As full-time activities, these are limited to three out of 24 months, with an additional three months allowed when combined with work activities. Also increases the period for counting vocational education or community college programs from 12 to 24 months, but maintains the 30 percent cap on the proportion of recipients who may engage in these activities. Educational time limits do not apply to recipients participating in at least 24 hours of priority work activities per week. Allows states to elect to count postsecondary or vocational education as an approved work activity for 10 percent of their caseloads, making individuals participating in postsecondary education eligible for cash assistance and other supports paid for with federal TANF dollars, without being subject to time limits.

Requires states to develop IRPs for recipients who have not completed high school or a GED program and are not attending secondary school. The IRP would detail the individual's work activities and needed work supports.  

Provision

1996 Welfare Bill

2002 Proposals

State work participation rates

Required states to have 50 percent of their welfare recipients engaged in work activities for at least 30 hours per week. (States could exempt single parents caring for a child under 1 year old.) For two-parent families the participation rate was set at 90 percent. States were allowed to reduce the required work participation rate by one percentage point for each percentage point drop in its welfare caseload since 1995. This provision is known as the caseload reduction credit.

The Administration, House, and Senate proposals all increase the percentage of families required to participate in work activities from 50 percent under the current law by 5 percent a year until FY 2007, when states would be expected to have 70 percent of their welfare rolls working and participating in job preparation activities. They also phase out the caseload reduction credit and replace it with an employment credit, which allows states to deduct from their participation rates welfare leavers who become employed.

Administration Plan 
Specifies that states will only be allowed to count toward their participation rates families that meet both the 24-hour work requirement and the 40-hour full participation requirement. The employment credit allows states to count for three months those who leave welfare for employment against participation rates.

House Bill
Provides super achiever credits for states whose caseloads for 2001 have declined by at least 60 percent from the state caseload for fiscal year 1995.

Senate Proposal
Eliminates the separate two-parent work participation rate. The employment credit is calculated based on two quarters of employment from the previous year for those who have left the rolls.

Allows states to exempt 10 percent of their caseloads from work requirements for the care of family members with disabilities.  

Time limit on benefits

Established a lifetime limit on cash assistance of 60 months (five years), but allowed states to exempt up to 20 percent of recipients from the time limit. States were also allowed to continue benefits beyond the five years with their own funds.

The Administration, House, and Senate proposals maintain the five-year limit on benefits to recipients, with states having the discretion to shorten the time allowable. They also include the 20 percent exemption from this requirement.

Funding for child care

Consolidated four existing programs into Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) block grant.

Under the CCDF, states were entitled to a basic mandatory block grant based on FY 1992 1995 child care expenditures. Additional mandatory funds were provided to states on a matching basis for FYs 1997 2002.

Mandatory funds increased by an average of $150 million per year from $2 billion in 1997 to $2.7 billion in 2002. Discretionary funds totaled $2.1 billion in 2002.

Administration Plan
Maintains the 2002 levels for both mandatory and discretionary funds, at $2.7 billion and $2.1 billion, respectively.

House Bill
Increases mandatory funding for the CCDF by $1 billion over five years, and authorizes an increase in discretionary funds by $3 billion over five years (contingent on appropriations). States are also required to use at least 6 percent (up from 4 percent) of the amount of such funds for activities to improve the quality of child care services, such as professional development activities to enhance the skills of the child care workforce, and activities within child care settings to enhance early learning for young children.

Senate Proposal
Provides guaranteed CCDF mandatory child care funding in the following amounts: $3.7 billion for FY 2003, FY 2004, and FY 2005; and $3.97 billion for FY 2006 and FY 2007. The increase to $3.7 billion does not require matching funds from states. The increase beyond that does. In all, the proposal increases child care spending by $5.5 billion over the next five years.

Funding for TANF

Allocated $16.5 billion per year for five years to states through the TANF block grant. Required each state to contribute 75 percent of the amount it spent on the AFDC program in 1994 (known as the maintenance of effort requirement). The amount increased to 80 percent if the state failed to meet the work participation rate.  The federal government also provided  annual supplemental grants to 17 states that experienced high population growth and had large needy populations. The amount of supplemental grants grew from $79 million in 1998 to $319 million in 2002.  (This provision originally expired at the end of  2001, but was extended through Sept. 30, 2002.) The total TANF funding for FY 2002 was roughly $16.9 billion.

Administration and House Proposals
Both maintain the current level of  basic TANF block grant funding for fiscal years 2003 2007. The proposals also retain state maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements at 75 80 percent and reinstate the supplemental grants to states at the level at which they expired in FY 2001 ($319 million).

Senate Proposal
Extends TANF funding through FY 2007 at $16.5 billion per year. Expands supplemental grants to include 24 states at $441 million per year and folds them into the main TANF block grant, rather than keeping them as a separate fund.

Also retains the state MOE requirement at 75 80 percent.

Immigrant eligibility

Expanded restrictions that had previously only applied to undocumented immigrants to legal immigrants. States were barred from using federal TANF dollars to assist most legal immigrants until they had lived in the United States for at least five years. In addition, states were given the option to deny Medicaid to all immigrants. (Currently Wyoming is the only state that does so.)

Legal immigrants who entered the country on or after Aug. 22, 1996, were prohibited from receiving not only direct cash assistance, but also work supports, child care, transportation, and job training. Receipt of food stamps was further restricted to apply only to individuals who become citizens or who can be credited with 40 quarters (10 years) of work. It should be noted that some of the restrictions enacted in 1996 have since been lifted. In 1997 Congress restored Supplemental Security Income to most pre-1996 immigrants, and in 1998 it restored food stamp eligibility for immigrant children and elderly and disabled individuals who were in the United States before 1996.[1]

Administration and House Proposals
Both proposals continue the restrictions on immigrant eligibility outlined in the 1996 law. The Administration proposal does, however, align the restrictions on food stamp eligibility with TANF restrictions, lowering the residency requirement from 10 years to five.

Senate Proposal
Allows states to use TANF funds to assist legal immigrants who have arrived since Aug. 22, 1996. If states opt to do so, they are required to include the income of immigrants sponsors for three years after entry for the purposes of determining eligibility. Also allows states the flexibility to use federal Medicaid and State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) funds to cover eligible legal immigrant children and pregnant women. Makes a technical change to the 1996 law to clarify that state and local governments may provide health services to immigrants with their own funds.

Inclusion of Indian tribes

Recognizing the harsh economic conditions of American Indians living on reservations and Alaska Native villages, Congress exempted those living on reservations with high unemployment from the five-year time limit on receipt of cash assistance. Tribes and villages were also given the option to administer their own TANF programs, rather then being required to enroll in state welfare programs as had been the case under AFDC. (Hereafter when referring to tribes generally, this includes Alaska Native villages.) Tribes could establish their own participation rate goals and define accepted work activities, as well as what types of work supports will be provided to tribal members.[2] Unlike states, tribes were required to submit a three-year TANF plan directly to HHS for review and approval. Tribal grants were based on the amount the state spent in fiscal year 1994 for all American Indians residing in the tribe's service area. Tribes were not eligible for performance bonuses, caseload reduction credits, or contingency funds.

States were not required to contribute funds to tribal programs, although the majority do contribute at least some of their maintenance of effort (MOE) funds to tribes. In cases where tribes elect to administer their own programs, states can deduct from their MOE requirements an amount proportionate to the population served by the tribal program. State contributions to tribes do not count toward their MOE requirements.

Notably missing from much of the dialogue about the reauthorization of welfare reform is the impact of reform on the Native American/Native Alaskan population, particularly those living on reservations.

Administration Plan
Includes the provision of technical assistance to tribes.

House Bill
Appears to maintain the status quo of 1996 bill.

Senate Proposal
Extends the authorization for tribes to operate TANF programs and creates a tribal TANF improvement fund totaling $75 million for FYs 2003 2006. The fund would support building tribal infrastructure and technical assistance aimed at improving reservation economies.

Also funds tribal job training programs at $37 million yearly and sets aside $25 million in TANF contingency funds for tribes.

Allows the disregard of time limits for adults living in an area in which 20 percent of TANF recipients are jobless (Alaska is not included in this). 

Other needed civil rights safeguards

Required that activities and programs provided under TANF comply with the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The applicability of civil rights laws and issues of discrimination are largely ignored in the proposals set forth.

House Bill
Does not plainly reaffirm the applicability of the antidiscrimination statutes included in the 1996 law. 

Senate Proposal
Adds a statement on the applicability of worker protection laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to recipients of TANF engaged in work activities. However, because the proposal has not yet been reduced to a formal bill, it is unclear whether the final legislation will also include the specific civil rights laws cited in the 1996 bill.

Promoting marriage and families

Did not provide special grants for the promotion of marriage, but provided bonuses totaling $100 million to the top five states that saw a reduction in out-of-wedlock births (known as the illegitimacy reduction bonus).

Allowed states to deny additional benefits when children are born to families already receiving cash assistance. Also provided $250 million for abstinence education within the Maternal Child Health block grant ($50 million per year).

Administration Plan
Establishes a $100 million grant fund to conduct research and initiate demonstration projects focusing on family formation.

Redirects funds from the High Performance Bonus established under the 1996 law to create a competitive matching $100 million grant program to states developing innovative approaches to reducing out-of-wedlock births and promoting marriage.

Requires states to describe their plans to promote these goals.

House Bill
Includes $300 million per year for experiments promoting marriage and extends the $50 million program promoting abstinence.

Awards $100 million each year for competitive grants to states to develop innovative programs to promote two-parent families, such as public advertising campaigns, education in high schools, and marriage and relationship skills programs.

Also includes grants to public and nonprofit community entities ($20 million per year) for demonstration service projects and activities designed to test various approaches to accomplish promotion of marriage objectives.

Allows states to apply for funding for related demonstration projects. States can request waivers from statutory requirements to implement such demonstration projects.

Senate Proposal
Repeals the illegitimacy reduction bonus and replaces it with $200 million per year in grants to support demonstration programs that promote healthy marriages.  Reauthorizes the abstinence-first education program at $50 million per year, but allows states to discuss other prevention methods. Also bans states from implementing stricter eligibility rules for two-parent families.

Customer service and program accessibility

Does not address

Does not address