U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Table 1. TANF Appropriations Adjusted for Inflation, Fiscal Years 1996 2001

Year

Block Grants to States

Real Inflation Adjusted Value of Block Grants (Billions of Dollars)

      Net Loss

1996

16.5

16.5

0

1997

16.5

16.2

-0.3

1998

16.5

16.0

-0.5

1999

16.5

15.7

-0.8

2000

16.5

15.3

-1.2

2001

16.5

15.0

-1.5

The deflators used are those used by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget in Budget of the United States: Historical Tables, Fiscal Year 2003, Table 2.3, p. 25.

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.

1)The work requirement of 40 hours per week is too stringent, particularly for women with young children. While the 1996 law only required mothers with children 6 years old or younger to work 20 hours per week, the new law would require all adults to work 40 hours per week, which is six hours longer than the nationwide average for working mothers with young children.[21]

The percentage of working single mothers nationwide has increased significantly since the implementation of the 1996 reform from 60 percent in 1994 to 72 percent in 1999.[22] Although some of the increase in employment can be attributed to a strong economy and increased access to other support systems, there is strong evidence that welfare reform played a large role. While this progress appears promising, with limited skills, many single mothers are employed in low-paying jobs with little room for advancement, and remain in poverty.

Many researchers and civil rights activists argue that the 40-hour work requirement proposed by the Administration and embedded in the House legislation holds single mothers who are welfare recipients to higher standards than their non-welfare counterparts, setting them up to fail. Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Current Population Survey finds that only 42 percent of women with children under the age of 6 work full-time jobs outside the home; another 18 percent work part time; and 39 percent do not work outside the home at all.[23] BLS defines full-time work as 35 hours per week, whereas the reauthorization proposals expect 40 hours per week. This distinction is an important one that should be retained in the reauthorized bill. Allowing mothers with small children reprieve from strict work requirements enables them to engage in other meaningful and necessary activities.

2)Some scholars have argued that it is because most welfare recipients are women that such strict work policies have evolved without the supports necessary to make them feasible, such as child care and transportation. Increasing work requirements without simultaneously increasing funding for and access to support systems will have a negative effect on recipients. Without appropriate supports, the increase in work hours will actually set recipients back because they will require more services, not fewer. Additionally, as the foregoing demonstrates, having a livable income is a more elusive goal than merely having a job.

The proposals call for tougher work requirements without providing the help recipients need to find decent income and benefits. This amounts to unsound policy. Rather than affording individuals the opportunity to obtain skills and experience that will move them into better, living-wage jobs in the future, this plan requires individuals to take jobs for work's sake. It is estimated that if the proposed stricter work requirements are approved, community colleges will lose 60 percent of their welfare students, who will be forced to quit school for increased work.[24]

3)Many governors and state legislators have expressed concern that the 40-hour work requirements will impede states flexibility to effectively administer welfare programs.[25] States will inevitably have to spend already limited funds creating workfare jobs, created for the purpose of meeting increased work requirements. Others project that current state flexibility to provide the range of services to meet diverse needs is threatened by the proposed increase in work hours.

4)Individuals with disabilities make up a segment of the population that was largely ignored by welfare reform and will be disproportionately affected by increased work requirements. While many persons with disabilities are eligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI), the strict eligibility requirements of SSI have forced others to rely on TANF assistance.  The definition of disability under SSI limits recipients to those with the most severe disabilities, lasting 12 months or resulting in death, or disabilities preventing substantial gainful activity. [26] The remaining individuals with disabilities are forced to seek other forms of public assistance, when needed, and often face added difficulty finding and sustaining work. The National Council on Disability (NCD) estimates that of the hardest to serve individuals remaining on welfare since the enactment of PRWORA, more than half face barriers because of learning disabilities, mental retardation, and emotional or behavioral problems.[27] 

TANF allows states to exempt up to 20 percent of recipients from work requirements, but a year after the implementation of the 1996 law, 10 states had still not included individuals with disabilities in the exempted group.[28] Even though many states have included disability as candidacy for exemption, the 20 percent cap forces states to pick and choose which persons with disabilities are exempt, leaving a large number subject to welfare requirements.[29] 

Of current TANF recipients,  a quarter to a third have serious mental health problems; more than 20 percent have physical impairments that limit their ability to work; a fifth to a third have learning disabilities; and 20 to 25 percent have IQs of less than 80. Of former TANF recipients, between 20 and 40 percent of those who left TANF and are not working are not working due to a disability or health condition. Of those, 25 to 50 percent are no longer using TANF due to a failure to comply connected to their disability or health condition.  Some studies indicate that those who have learning disabilities or low intelligence are non-compliant because it is difficult to understand the complicated rules of the program. Disabilities can make it difficult for them to find and keep jobs, thus, making it difficult for them to meet TANF requirements.[30] Increased work requirements, without needed supports, will place these individuals at a greater disadvantage. As these individuals reach their time limits on assistance, they will likely lose access to services such as food and nutrition supports, health insurance, and child care.

In short, with longer hours and little job flexibility, parents will be forced to choose between their children's well-being or their public assistance checks and jobs. They should not be forced to choose, but the increase in work requirements will render difficult the balance between family responsibilities and subsistence.

Recommendation: Given the fact that many of those remaining on the rolls are the hardest to employ, Congress should not increase work requirements, and in some cases reduction, perhaps to 20 hours per week, should be considered for individuals, such as single parents of young children, persons with disabilities, and those with other extenuating circumstances. Requiring only part-time work while providing assistance will better enable these recipients to pursue education and job training. This will also enable states to better assess appropriate expectations for work within the confines of available supports.

Recommendation: Requiring mothers on welfare to work more than other women constitutes an unrealistic expectation at best and unfair treatment at worst. Congress should allow hours spent engaged in child-rearing activities for pre-school-aged children and/or care for elderly, ill, or disabled relatives who are unable to care for themselves to count toward work requirements. To some extent, the Senate proposal does this (see discussion on work participation rates below), but it does go far enough to enable women, as the primary caregivers, to count parenting as the legitimate work activity it is.  

Recommendation: States should be rewarded for moving people out of poverty, not moving them into low-paying, dead-end jobs. The TANF program, as it is re-cast to lift people out of poverty, must ensure that it is financially viable for people to leave welfare for work. This can be accomplished through a combination of financial support programs, such as expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, expanded state tax credits, and cash payments to supplement earnings. In addition, the federal government should provide tax incentives to employers that offer a family-friendly work environment, including amenities such as on-site day care, health care, flexible hours, and unscheduled leave.

Recommendation: The federal government must also take part by making entry-level jobs available to welfare recipients and provide professional development opportunities to these employees. Every federal agency should be required to lead by example and hire TANF employees.

Recommendation: Congress should work with states to develop community-based programs to assist individuals with disabilities find work. Programs should include general education, job training, and life skills instruction. Time limits should be eliminated for individuals with disabilities who have been faced with barriers to employment. States should not be penalized for offering assistance, so these individuals should not count against state exemptions for extreme hardship cases.

Provision

1996 Welfare Bill

2002 Proposals

Discussion and Recommendations

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.  

The Administration and the House proposals are grossly inadequate given that self-sufficiency is the purpose of welfare reform. Increasing the number of required work hours, and at the same time failing to allow states the discretion to design programs to improve opportunities for their populations, is a fatal flaw in these proposals. The Senate proposal is more inclusive, and therefore provides greater opportunities for economic self-sufficiency, but its educational perimeters also fall short.

The 20 percent restriction on the number of people in each state who can count education as a work activity, as established under the 1996 law, has resulted in a major decline in college enrollment of welfare recipients. This is a disturbing trend considering the proven relationship between education and income. As of 1998, 25 states did not allow TANF recipients to count any postsecondary education toward work requirements, and only nine states had no time limits on the amount of education that would count.[31] Given the low educational levels of women on welfare, this policy appears counterproductive. The skills employers want are in stark contrast to the actual skills and credentials of parents receiving welfare, and studies have found that TANF recipients who are not working have significantly lower levels of education than those who are working.[32] Overall, the U.S. Census Bureau found that 42 percent of TANF mothers have not graduated from high school, as compared with 13 percent of non-recipients; and only 23 percent of TANF mothers have any postsecondary education, as compared with 56 percent of non-TANF mothers.[33] A recent study of the National Urban League found that these anti-education policies have had a significant impact on African American TANF recipients in particular.[34]

In 2000, less than 1 percent of federal TANF funds were spent on education and training, and only 5 percent of TANF recipients participated in these programs.[35] The training and education programs states promote are often inappropriate for the needs of individual recipients or unrelated to real employment needs. Often, states take a one-size-fits-all approach to training, an approach that is imposed by the House bill. The training provided to welfare recipients is not consistent with the job opportunities available or with individual skills and educational needs. A study found that many participants were expected to participate in job training and work activities without being given the opportunity to first obtain their GED or high school equivalency, a necessary criteria for future success in the workplace.[36] National research has found that the most successful welfare-to-work programs are those that provide different services to different recipients as needed. A mixed service approach including job search assistance, education, and training has proven most effective.[37] Focusing on work to the exclusion of education and career development is not as effective in the long run. Studies show that helping low-income parents increase their skills, particularly through vocational training and postsecondary education, pays off in the labor market.

Recommendation: Based on the evidence and patterns of employment and income of former recipients, individuals currently receiving welfare should be afforded the opportunity to obtain education that will enable them to advance into better paying and less expendable jobs. Congress should include a broader range of educational programs that meet the work-related activities requirement, such as adult basic education, literacy training, English as a second language classes, GED preparation, and postsecondary education, as the Senate proposal does. States should be given the flexibility to count postsecondary enrollment as work participation and to encourage college enrollment among TANF recipients.

Recommendation: Congress should not place restrictions on the length of time education can be counted toward work (e.g., four months in a 24-month period), so that welfare recipients have a realistic opportunity to move through education programs that will result in better jobs. Nor should Congress restrict the proportion of state recipients that can engage in postsecondary or vocational education (e.g., 10 percent). This serves to exclude a vast majority of the recipients who could benefit from increased education.

Recommendation: States should be required to develop an individualized approach to training, so that appropriate curricula can be developed for each recipient based on her or his needs. As the House and Senate proposals require, individual needs assessments should be conducted prior to training or employment assignments and should be reviewed for progress on a quarterly basis. All recipients would benefit from individualized plans, not just those who have not completed high school. 

Recommendation: The federal government, in a joint effort between the Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services, should develop strategies to make it easier for individuals to combine work with school, such as through work study programs or more inclusive financial aid policies.

Recommendation: States should work with employers, through demonstration grants and technical assistance, to provide on-site occupational skills training and other general education programs to low-wage workers.

Provision

1996 Welfare Bill

2002 Proposals

Discussion and Recommendations

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.  

Because the 1996 law allowed states to reduce their required work participation rates as they reduced caseloads and there were significant declines in caseloads the participation rates that states have to meet today are well below 50 percent. In fact, only approximately 30 percent of the national caseload meets existing workload requirements. The reauthorization proposals would replace the caseload reduction credit with a more limited employment credit that counts employed welfare leavers (i.e., those who left the rolls) against the participation requirements. Because the number of people leaving welfare for work is smaller than the overall number of people leaving welfare, states will see a smaller reduction in required participation rates. Thus, the proposed 70 percent participation rate would be a steeper increase than it appears.[38] Moreover, considering the fact that many of the individuals on the rolls are the hardest to employ because of low education levels, limited English proficiency, health issues, and disabilities, states will find it difficult to meet increased participation requirements and will be forced to choose between supporting these individuals with state funds or cutting them off entirely, thereby eliminating hope of achieving self- sufficiency.

States will ultimately be forced to take the quick job creation approach as opposed to the more effective promotion of self-sufficiency through education and training. Establishing quotas or goals for moving people off welfare reform results in a mechanical process rather than one in which the goal is moving families out of poverty.

Recommendation:  Congress should refocus the implementation of TANF from caseload reduction to poverty reduction. State bonuses should be driven by progress in reducing poverty, not moving people to poverty-sustaining jobs. Thus, Congress should do away with participation rate minimums, recognizing that states have limited funds and should be able to do what is most appropriate with those funds.

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.

While it is still too soon to determine the true impact of the initial five-year limit, as many are just now reaching that point, there is widespread concern that many of the individuals who will be forced off the rolls due to time are the hardest to employ, those with disabilities, and those for whom the system has failed.

Researchers further assert that the five-year limit will have a disparate impact on minority recipients. It is estimated that black women are 55 percent more likely and Hispanic women 90 percent more likely than white women to spend at least five years on welfare.[39] Further, negative and discriminatory treatment of individuals while they are on welfare is likely to affect their ability to succeed off the rolls, through job retention and increased earnings, which is especially critical in an era of time-limited benefits.[40] Policymakers must take these trends into consideration as they develop new welfare provisions, so that women who are placed at a disadvantage because of racial inequality are targeted for programs and supports that will help them transition to meaningful work.

It should also be noted that in many instances the five-year limit applies not only to direct cash assistance, but also to support systems that facilitate work life for low-income families. Without child care, transportation, subsidized training programs, access to health care, and other supports, many low-wage workers're gardless of how long they have received such assistance will not be able to continue working.

Finally, the five-year limit on benefits generally does not take into account external factors that might force individuals to rely on public assistance, such as unforeseen personal problems (illness, loss of job, etc.) or economic downturn. Life circumstances make the time needed to attain this goal different for different people.

Recommendation: There are several approaches Congress could take to lessen and reverse the potential impact of the time limits imposed under the 1996 law. Congress should abolish the time limit altogether, and former recipients should be re-evaluated for eligibility on a case-by-case basis. Alternatively, Congress could extend the time limit based on an assessment of the needs of those remaining on the rolls, who are likely to be among the hardest to employ. In particular, states with large poor populations should be allowed to extend time limits. Focusing on individual needs, as opposed to hard and fast rules, will better facilitate movement toward self-sufficiency. If Congress should decide to maintain the existing limit, states should at least not be allowed to penalize certain recipients by shortening their eligibility to less than five years.

Recommendation: If there is a time limit, Congress should require states to stop the clock (i.e., not count the time against the established limit) for recipients who are employed. Regardless of whether that employment is full time or part time, or whether individuals continue to receive additional benefits, recipients should not be penalized for maintaining employment and balancing that employment with family life and personal responsibilities. Furthermore, Congress should allow part-time workers who remain on partial welfare, in particular, not to have that time counted against their five-year limit. Often, these are the only available jobs, particularly for single parents, and they provide a good transition from welfare to work. This is especially important given the recent economic downturn. Further, for some individuals, such as those with disabilities, full-time employment is not a realistic expectation.

Recommendation:  Congress should allow states the discretion to stop the clock on time limits for an unlimited number of recipients who face hardships such as a disability, family responsibilities, or loss of employment.

Recommendation:  States should provide long-term transitional employment support to foster job retention and advancement. Transitional support should include: peer support, continued case management, career coaching, mentoring services, continuing education and training, child care, housing assistance, and transportation all of which are critical to ending family poverty. The amount of time for which individuals are eligible for such transitional services should be calculated on a case-by-case basis, depending on the degree and speed with which self-sufficiency is attained. Individuals should not have these necessary services revoked simply because a time limit has been reached, or else the likelihood is high that they will end up back on welfare.

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.

Neither the Administration's plan nor the House and Senate proposals allocate enough money for child care, particularly as job requirements are increased. The House bill provides only enough child care funding to control for inflation, but does not provide any real increase in funding. It is estimated that for states to meet the new work requirements, they would have to spend an additional $5 billion in child care to cover costs incurred by program participants.[41] This increase would only maintain the current availability of child care, which remains inadequate. Thus, while the Senate proposal is a little more generous than the other proposals, and does cover the costs of the increased work requirements, it still falls short.

The importance of affordable and adequate child care for welfare families cannot be overstated, and yet research has shown that there are significant barriers to receiving child care services. A study of the Administration for Children and Families within the Department of Health and Human Services found that states are providing subsidized child care for no more than 25 percent of children who are eligible for assistance.[42] The problems are exacerbated when children need specialized care, or when parents work jobs that require extended or nontraditional hours. Needless to say, without child care, employment efforts are undermined. According to one children's advocacy group,

The loss or disruption of child care subsidies starts to unravel the delicate fabric of work supports that these parents have woven together, threatening their ability to work and attain self-sufficiency.[43]

Recommendation: Although the Commission does not support increased work requirements, any increase must be offset by increases in funding for support services, most notably appropriate child care. Congress should increase child care funding to states, and states should be held accountable for providing adequate child care services to all welfare recipients and children of low-income women who have left welfare for work.

Recommendation: Congress should allow states to continue child care support for as long as an individual needs it without being subjected to time limits or other restrictions that will have a negative effect on the children the program is designed to assist.  

Recommendation:  States should provide child care in a manner that is convenient for working parents who often do not have private transportation, such as in public housing communities, apartment complexes, or neighborhood schools and churches.

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.

Funding for the TANF block grant has not been increased since 1997, and the current proposals would largely maintain the original funding levels. After accounting for inflation, there has been a nearly 10 percent reduction in TANF's value thus far. Leveled, over the next five years, the real value of the dollar is more than 20 percent less. As a result, fewer people will receive the services for which they are eligible. States will cut funding for necessary supports, such as child care and transportation subsidies. Education programs and training opportunities will be scaled back even further. There will be no safeguards to protect against economic crises or increases in unemployment rates. States will have to spend their already scarce resources to make up the difference. If Congress goal is to move people successfully to work, essentially cutting funding for the very programs that will get people there is not the solution.

Recommendation: Congress should increase the level of funding for TANF by at least 30 percent (10 percent to make up for the deficit due to inflation over the last five years and 20 percent to account for future inflation).

Recommendation: Congress should allocate sufficient funding (whether through TANF or other legislation) to provide child care, assistance with education and transportation, and job training to all low-income families. This would have the effect of reducing the disparities in receipt of such services, and ultimately decrease reliance on welfare among the low-income population. Congress should also provide targeted funding for those populations identified as having significant barriers to employment and retention.

Recommendation: Congress should renew the supplemental grants provision, which expired in 2001 and was extended through FY 2002, for states with large populations and states with large proportions of low-income residents. Given the current economic conditions, a contingency fund should be established that is more readily available to states than the fund built into PRWORA. This will prevent states from having to take money away from support programs to use for direct cash assistance.

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.[44]

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.

As a result of the 1996 restrictions on immigrant eligibility for welfare, many immigrants have left the rolls, despite remaining eligible, and the living conditions of these poor families continue to decline. 

To date, almost all states have chosen to extend benefits to pre-1996 immigrants. However, of the seven states with the largest immigrant populations (California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, and Arizona), only California provides substitute benefits to post-1996 immigrants in the areas of health benefits, cash assistance, and nutrition. Three other states offer substitute health programs.[45]  Currently, 17 states use their own money to allocate food stamps, 14 use their own money for Medicaid supplements, and 20 use their own money for TANF-related programs. Food pantries and faith- based organizations have also been forced to make up the difference for what the state and federal governments do not provide.

The effort to restrict immigrant eligibility was largely premised on false perceptions about the group's reliance on public assistance. Data show that, contrary to public perceptions, immigrant families are less likely to receive welfare than are citizen families, as was the case prior to 1996. Also contrary to public opinion, immigrants generally do not come to the United States to receive handouts. In fact, 14 of 19 new growth states (i.e., states that have seen a significant increase in immigration) offer no public assistance for new immigrants. Immigrants go where there are jobs, not where there are better benefits.[46]

The eligibility restrictions established in 1996 are complex and confusing to both states and recipients, particularly with respect to who is eligible for what services. As a result of the reform measures, 60 percent fewer legal immigrants, although eligible, received TANF assistance in 2000 than in 1995; 48 percent fewer received food stamps; and 15 percent fewer received Medicaid.[47] In other cases where immigrants are eligible for benefits, many do not receive them because they fear retribution from the government, such as deportation.[48]

The reform law has had a significant effect on the poorest of Americans: 53 percent fewer legal, permanent resident families with children living under 200 percent of the poverty level now participate in TANF. Scholars have concluded that naturalizations and income gains do not explain most of the decline in participation and attribute the declines to the reform law.[49] The changes to eligibility also had a significant effect on children of immigrant parents. Even the participation of U.S. citizen children who live in immigrant families declined.

Immigrant workers disproportionately fill jobs in low-wage sectors, such as service and manual labor. Forty-three percent of immigrants work at jobs paying less than $7.50 per hour, as compared with 28 percent of the rest of the population. It is important to note that the TANF program includes many services, not just cash supplements, such as counseling, training, English instruction, and education, many of which would benefit new immigrants and help lift them out of these low-paying jobs. Immigrants often face additional barriers low educational attainment and limited English that will be compounded by stricter work requirements and definitions of what qualifies as a work activity. And, it is important to note that there is great variation within immigrant communities and among those who receive public assistance. With this diversity arises the concern that state and local infrastructures may not be equipped to address the distinct needs of each group.[50]  

Although, in 1997, SSI was reinstated to immigrants who were in the United States prior to the 1996 reform, many immigrants with disabilities lost their coverage and the additional benefits afforded to them through public assistance programs often their only means of financial support or medical services. In the words of an NCD report released shortly after PRWORA:

Denying basic subsistence benefits to disabled legal immigrants, many of whom have worked and paid taxes, and have become disabled only after entering the United States, is unjust and violates common principles of fairness and compassion.[51]

Immigrants have made many contributions to the economy and culture of this country, and all Americans will be the beneficiaries of their long-term success.

Recommendation: Congress should immediately restore full benefits to legal immigrants, regardless of date of entry to the United States. Benefits should not be contingent on the support of their sponsors because those whose sponsors are unable or unwilling to help, especially in times of economic hardship, will be unfairly penalized. Congress should build into TANF specific grants to states for the restoration of benefits to immigrants. The amount of the grant should be based on the size of each state's poor immigrant population. States should not have to rely solely on their own funds to meet immigrants needs, but should be required to contribute some percentage of maintenance of effort funds to this purpose.

Recommendation:  Congress should allow access to certain public assistance programs to undocumented immigrants, such as health care, education, and food stamps. For the well-being of these families, particularly their children, all immigrants should have access to the basic human necessities, at the very least.  Through networks of private nonprofit organizations and religious charities, states could provide money to support services for illegal immigrants and undocumented workers (such as food, transportation, child care, health care).

Recommendation: Congress must clarify the eligibility of immigrants for public assistance due to the complex nature of immigration laws and frequent changes to an individual s status. This will assist states in ensuring that those who are eligible for benefits are not turned away.

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.[52] 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). 

A recent study by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) found that tribes have welcomed the discretion they were provided under PRWORA, but despite efforts to stimulate economic development, tribal communities remain poor, and unemployment remains high.[53] Geographic isolation and lack of education and job skills have hampered economic growth on reservations.

Between 1994 and 2001, the number of American Indian families receiving cash assistance through TANF state programs decreased to 26,000 from nearly 68,000.[54] It should be noted that a portion of this decline can be attributed to the fact that many Indians participated in tribal TANF programs rather than state programs. However, it is estimated that tribal programs only serve approximately 22,000 families, making the decline in participation still significant but less than the decline among the general population. In six states the proportion of the caseload composed of American Indians has actually increased since welfare reform. For example, in 2001 in South Dakota, 80 percent of individuals receiving cash assistance were American Indian, despite making up only 8 percent of the state's population. GAO estimates that the overall decline in the number of American Indians receiving cash assistance can be attributed to decreased usage among Indians living off reservations, not those on reservations.[55]

Many tribes have established their own requirements and restrictions that reflect the unique economic and social conditions among tribal communities. In many instances, the tribal work requirements are more broad than state requirements. For instance, in one Washington state tribe, recipients are allowed to count time spent engaging in traditional subsistence activities (hunting and fishing) as work.[56] GAO also found that tribes are more likely to emphasize education and job training activities over work. Almost all tribal plans (34 of 36) have set time limits at 60 months, however, many are not subject to any time limits because unemployment rates on reservations are higher than 50 percent. While this benefits some tribal communities, some tribal leaders argue that the 50 percent unemployment cap penalizes those Indian nations that succeed in lowering their unemployment rates.[57]

Allowing tribes direct access to TANF funds and the ability to develop their own programs has been beneficial.[58] However, additional resources are needed to ensure that tribes can develop appropriate community-based services. Tribes running their own TANF programs often do not have the resources to replace lost MOE funds. Furthermore, according to one tribal leader, developing a tribal service plan and operating a local program have produced visible benefits to the community, but the restrictions of PRWORA, such as the five-year time limit, have hurt Indian people living on reservations.[59] Despite the increased availability of job training and education, many residents still cannot find jobs because of the economic conditions on the reservation.

Many tribes lack the infrastructures and expertise to develop programs that will adequately serve the needs of their populations. According to one tribal leader, while tribes have admirably assisted their clients in a short time, it is naturally self-evident that our programs do not have the resources, experience or infrastructure that state programs use, with the assistance of federal funding, in their daily administration of welfare services.

Compared with the research on other racial and ethnic groups, there is relatively little information available on the impact of welfare reform on Native Americans and the deficiencies in the services provided. Data collection efforts have been inadequate, largely due to the inconsistencies in TANF program administration across states and among tribal governments.[60] As more tribes take over the administration of TANF funds, the collection of adequate data will be an important component of policy and program evaluation. 

Recommendation: Congress should provide resources and technical assistance to tribal TANF offices to assist them in the development of programs and necessary infrastructures. The Senate proposal, and to a lesser extent the Administration's plan, include funding for technical assistance and should be commended for doing so. Congress should follow the Senate's lead on this issue and ensure that appropriate funding is included in final legislation. If tribes are given capacity building and technical assistance grants similar to those allowed for in state programs, they could improve the administration of their own welfare assistance programs. Wherever possible, state and tribal governments should forge partnerships to plan and implement appropriate programs. States are not required to provide technical assistance to tribes under PRWORA, but should be.

Recommendation: Tribal TANF programs are not eligible to receive performance incentives currently available to states. Congress should change this to enable tribes to benefit from successful programs and develop others. Tribes should also be provided funding for administrative and technical assistance, tax incentives, bond incentives, transportation grants, vocational and educational opportunity grants, and community and economic development grants.

Recommendation: Congress should require states to provide a percentage of funds to tribal TANF programs because, in the long run, the success of these programs will benefit the state. As further incentive, this should count toward the state's maintenance of effort requirement.

Recommendation: Congress should improve data collection efforts with respect to Indian welfare recipients and require consistency across states and tribes so that federal welfare policies and the outcomes of existing programs can be examined. This will also enable lawmakers to determine where effective infrastructures exist and where they need to be developed. 

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.

Neither the Administration's proposal nor the House bill clarifies the applicability of  civil rights laws to welfare recipients, and there does not appear to be any movement in Congress to ensure that the civil rights laws already in place are appropriately enforced when it comes to the delivery of welfare services. The Senate proposal makes mention of the applicability of civil rights laws, but it too falls short in emphasizing the connection between civil rights and public assistance.

Racial/Ethnic Bias in the Receipt of Services

Historically, social policies in the United States, particularly the early welfare programs, were engineered to benefit white Americans and largely ignored people of color. For example, the predecessor to PRWORA, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), was generally limited to post-Depression poor white women who were widows. Rarely did African Americans receive any AFDC benefits.[61] After the civil rights movement, welfare was available to large numbers of people of color for the first time, and with that expansion, public support waned, despite the fact that most recipients were still white. Evidence suggests that remnants of past discriminatory policies still exist today, albeit in a more subtle form, through both the design and implementation of welfare programs. Further, as states receive greater flexibility in the implementation of federally funded social programs, the socioeconomic divide between whites and persons of color is growing.[62]

A recent survey of post-1996 welfare recipients in 13 states revealed that while reform cut welfare rolls in half, it did little to lift people out of poverty and has perpetuated a system wrought with discrimination. According to the survey, people of color have encountered insults and disrespect as they have attempted to navigate the welfare system. The survey also found that women are subject to sexual inquisitions at welfare offices and sexual harassment at job activities, often with no recourse. Individuals whose first language is not English have encountered language barriers, in spite of federal protections designed to guard against that barrier. Eligible immigrants are often turned away and have been told to go back where they came from. [63] Specific findings of the survey include the following:

• Significantly more people of color than white respondents were required to perform workfare, working for a welfare check rather than actual wages.
• One out of six women welfare recipients had experienced sexual harassment in her work activity.
• More than a third of women experienced personally invasive behavior from welfare officials in regards to their sex lives.
• 62 percent of recipients whose first language is not English reported experiencing significant language barriers.[64]

Other research confirms that there is differential access to services based on race/ethnicity. Whites are less likely than other former recipients to leave welfare for administrative reasons such as not following program rules, an administrative mix-up, or reaching time limits on benefits and are more likely to receive help with expenses in the first three months after leaving the rolls than are black former recipients. Blacks report leaving welfare because of administrative problems, time limits, or noncompliance with program rules much more frequently than whites or all other races combined.[65]

With respect to specific work support programs, there are different rates of usage between racial and ethnic groups. For instance, research shows that low-income Hispanic parents are less likely to receive earned income tax credit (EITC) than non-Hispanics, primarily because of lack of knowledge about these benefits. Low- income Hispanics are also less likely to have health insurance than low-income whites or blacks, largely because they are less likely to work for employers who provide insurance. Low-income Hispanics are more likely to receive health coverage under public programs, but the coverage gap remains.[66]

Other research has shown that caseworkers, who have great discretion in connecting recipients with available services, often discriminate, whether intentionally or not, in the services they provide. In two Virginia counties, for example, it was found that 41 percent of white recipients, but none of the black recipients, were encouraged to pursue education, and 47 percent of white recipients and no black recipients reported transportation assistance beyond gas vouchers.[67] Similar findings were made in Mississippi, one of the nation s poorest states, where black recipients were less likely to receive access to enabling services than whites.[68] Another survey found that, among its respondents:

• Black and Native American recipients are much more likely to have been sanctioned than members of other racial groups.
• Whites are more likely to receive child care subsidies (70 percent) than other groups, with Native Americans being least likely (42 percent).
• Overall, 18 percent receive some form of transportation assistance, but only 10 percent of Native Americans do.
• White women in some jurisdictions are more likely to receive TANF benefits for unborn children than women of color.[69]

A study in Wisconsin found that welfare agencies were least helpful to blacks in providing job readiness skills and more helpful to whites, Hispanics, and Asian Americans. They were also least likely to provide basic academic skills, enrichment, or tutoring services to black recipients. These recipients were also more likely to have their food stamp benefits reduced, and to have to pay for medical services than any other racial/ethnic group.[70]

Differential treatment in the services provided to welfare recipients results in differential outcomes for those who leave the rolls. For instance, differences can be seen in the income levels of former recipients by race/ethnicity. According to one 1999 survey, the median hourly wage for white former recipients was $7.31, for blacks it was $6.88 and for Hispanics, $6.71.[71] More than half of Hispanics who leave the rolls are employed in the low-wage service sector, compared with one-third of other former recipients.

Institutional racism and discriminatory practices constitute significant barriers to job security and mobility, and hence earning potential. For example, research has found that small and suburban employers are less likely to hire black or Hispanic welfare recipients. Other studies have shown that, even when they have more education than whites, black welfare recipients receive shorter employment interviews (more than half are less than five minutes long), and among some temporary employment agencies, there is extensive evidence of racial discrimination in hiring for entry-level jobs.[72] Another survey found that, as compared with white recipients, black welfare recipients are also more likely to be subjected to pre-employment tests (usually drug tests or criminal background checks), more likely to have to work undesirable evening hours, and less likely to have a positive relationship with their employers.[73]

Another factor is geographic isolation, which affects access to transportation, education, child care, and thus, job opportunities. Because many cities remain segregated, with people of color living in the inner city, there tend to be limited resources, overreliance on unreliable public transportation, and poorer economies close to home.

Individuals who do not speak English face another disadvantage because often they are unable to communicate with caseworkers and cannot access the same services as English-speaking recipients. In 1999, the Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that the failure of welfare offices to provide translation services to non-English-speaking clients has the effect of discriminating on the basis of national origin. A study of the Hmong community in Wisconsin found that this group faces many barriers to employment, including high rates of illiteracy, cultural and linguistic isolation, and lack of skills. Despite this knowledge, welfare agencies are not addressing employment barriers specific to the Hmong community, failing to provide specialized training or literacy assistance, and placing them in work assignments that provide little or no skill development.[74]

Finally, there is evidence that the strictness of state welfare reform policies is directly related to the proportion of minority welfare recipients residing in the state. States with higher percentages of Hispanic and black recipients at the time of welfare reform were more likely to adopt shorter time limits, family caps on benefits, and stronger sanctions than states with lower percentages of minority recipients.[75] According to one researcher:

African Americans on welfare were more likely to have to endure a more aggressive get-tough regime. Race not only affected the probability whether a state would adopt stricter welfare reforms, stricter welfare reforms were more likely to affect families based on their race. Where African American single mothers predominated on the rolls, the chances were much higher that the state would pursue an aggressive approach to choosing stricter get-tough policies.[76]

By promoting work first as the central objective of welfare reform, PRWORA assumes that welfare recipients face a level playing field in the labor market, an assumption that has repeatedly proven false.[77]

Applicability and Enforcement of Civil Rights Laws

Despite the existence of laws designed to protect the rights of workers, there is evidence that some states do not adhere to federal statutes, resulting in illegal and sometimes discriminatory treatment of welfare recipients. According to Department of Labor guidelines, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and antidiscrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, apply to welfare workers in the same manner they apply to others. Nonetheless, some states have circumvented the legal requirements of these statutes, including failure to pay minimum wage, by describing work as job training, even though the training does not meet the criteria for training under DOL regulations.[78] In March 2002, a district judge in New York ruled that the federal laws prohibiting sex and race discrimination in the workplace do not apply to those employed in New York City's workfare programs.[79]

Unlike other employees, welfare workers who experience discrimination often do not have recourse options. The cost for filing a discrimination complaint is much higher for welfare-dependent and other low-wage workers because of the looming fear that if they file a complaint, they will lose employment and subsequently their other benefits.

When recipients challenge representatives of the welfare system, they are challenging the people who have the power to decide whether or not they eat, receive medical treatment, or have a place to live.[80]

There is additional evidence that states have not demonstrated a capacity for internal investigation of caseworkers or other program representatives who discriminate against certain groups of welfare recipients.[81]

Many state agencies are in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in programs receiving federal funds, by not providing equal access to non-English-speaking clients who are eligible for welfare programs. One study found that more than half of non-English speakers nationwide, and as many as 70 percent of  recipients in New York, said they needed translation services but were not provided any. Among speakers of Asian languages, the problem is most pronounced, with 84 percent requiring translation services, but not being provided any.[82] As discussed above, the Office of Civil Rights at HHS has held the longstanding view that agencies receiving federal funds must provide oral and written language assistance.  Additional HHS guidelines mandate that states adhere to nondiscriminatory practices as they regulate benefits for legal immigrants and as they disseminate welfare benefits. HHS further prohibits welfare agencies from requiring additional documentation from certain individuals, or from reporting potentially undocumented immigrants to the INS.[83]

Recommendation:  Congress should use the reauthorization of welfare reform as an opportunity to clarify and strengthen the applicability of civil rights and labor laws to participants in TANF activities and to reiterate the legal requirements of state agencies and employers. The Commission commends the Senate's effort to plainly include in its proposal the applicability of worker protection laws to TANF recipients engaged in work activities, but it must ensure that all civil rights protections are included in final legislation. 

Recommendation:  Congress should give the Office of Civil Rights at HHS the resources necessary to investigate allegations of discrimination and monitor the activities of state welfare offices to ensure adherence to federal civil rights statutes. The federal government should develop an audit program, similar to that used to test housing discrimination, to determine the prevalence of discrimination among caseworkers and employers that hire welfare recipients. States should in turn be required to certify that private entities and service providers participating in TANF-sponsored activities (employers, employment agencies, job training services, child care providers) operate in an environment free from discrimination. 

Recommendation: Congress should allocate funding for stronger enforcement of civil rights laws, improved training of caseworkers, and outreach to employers of welfare recipients. The new welfare reform law should clarify the applicability of civil rights laws based on guidelines from the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services. State adherence to and implementation of civil rights laws should be closely monitored.

Recommendation: The Administration for Children and Families within the Department of Health and Human Services should collect and disseminate standardized data by race/ethnicity on welfare recipients, those denied benefits, those sanctioned, and those exempted from work requirements. Data should also be disaggregated by subpopulations, particularly with respect to immigrant welfare recipients, so that state and local agencies can assess usage patterns and better determine the unique needs of various communities.

Recommendation:  HHS should conduct regular audits of state welfare agencies. States must be required to adopt grievance procedures. States should be required to develop a plan for dealing with noncompliance with federal civil rights laws, submit it to HHS, and be monitored for a set number of years until the problem is resolved and the compliance goals are met.

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.

It is unclear whether the promotion of marriage programs of the 1996 reform were instrumental in reaching desired outcomes. Moreover, spending additional monies on new, speculative programs diverts funds from basic programs that are known to support families, which have proven to be beneficial, and which need to be fortified.  

Recommendation: Rather than earmarking large sums of money for family formation projects, Congress should reallocate funds to needed supports, such as child care, transportation, domestic violence assistance, and education programs.  

Customer service and program accessibility

Does not address

Does not address

Reform must occur at all levels federal, state, and local for public assistance programs to finally be effective. Study after study has demonstrated that navigating the system is often an insurmountable barrier for families, resulting in lack of access to the programs and support systems designed to move them out of poverty. Overly burdensome bureaucratic requirements, poor customer service, and lack of accountability are some of the biggest impediments to the receipt of adequate welfare services. In addition, as this review has demonstrated, customer service concerns are often linked with civil rights. It is frequently the case that people of color are subjected to differential treatment in the provision of services, and people of color and language minorities are often disparately affected by welfare rules and restrictions. The following recommendations go beyond the traditional administrative recommendations presented thus far to include grassroots level changes that must be made to improve the system and ensure fair treatment of all recipients.

Recommendation: With ever-changing rules, inaccessible caseworkers, and complex requirements, it is no wonder that so many families never receive the supports for which they are eligible. Congress and the states must do away with bureaucratic hurdles and make efforts to streamline service delivery, including education, child support enforcement, justice/corrections support services, child care, and services to special populations.

Recommendation: Often welfare recipients are expected to take time away from work to visit the welfare office in person to take care of administrative proceedings. Welfare offices assume that these individuals do not work, which is counterintuitive in a system that requires employment. Congress, by establishing minimum standards for service delivery, should ensure that states make efforts to better serve welfare recipients, for example,  by expanding office hours and locations, and where possible, providing child care during visits.

Recommendation: Caseworkers should conduct on-site visits to the hardest to reach individuals, for example through monthly visits to housing complexes, public libraries, and neighborhood schools. States must make better attempts to reach disconnected families.

Recommendation: Welfare agencies should hold regular town/neighborhood meetings to provide technical assistance to people navigating the system and to let people know what services are available. These efforts should target immigrant families who have different levels of assimilation.

Recommendation: Throughout the process, language assistance must be provided to welfare recipients with limited English proficiency. Congress should instruct HHS and DOL to update and circulate guidelines on the provision of language assistance. Welfare offices should partner with advocacy and community groups to ensure that volunteer translators are available.

Recommendation: States should initiate mentoring programs to partner families on welfare with families that have been successful moving off welfare and achieving self-sufficiency to serve as inspiration and offer guidance.

Recommendation: Ongoing caseworker training is essential to prevent discrimination and to make sure caseworkers understand eligibility requirements and the availability of services. Caseworkers must be required to undergo a state certification process and should be held to the same professional standards as attorneys, physicians, and teachers. They should be required to meet standards for competency and engage in continuing education.

Recommendation: Federal and state agencies should undergo training to better enable them to recruit, attract, and retain more civic-minded people into careers as caseworkers. More caseworkers are needed to handle the high volumes of cases.

Recommendation: HHS should publish an annual best practices report that highlights model technical assistance materials as an inducement to improvement and exchange of information between states. Bonuses should be given to model state and local programs that take creative approaches to public assistance and incorporate the desirable features outlined in the recommendations presented here.