The TANF catch-all.
Interesting, and surprising to me, new report from the Brooking Institute on what has happened to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program in the US since it replaced AFCD welfare ten years ago. In short: TANF isn't welfare in the way we commonly understand it, and the way AFDC was commonly understood. For instance, in the three states considered, "cash assistance accounted for between a quarter and a third of Temporary Assistance spending in the three states in 2004" -- specifically, 24% in Wisconsin, 28% in PA and 35% in Ohio. Of that cash assistance, between 25% and 35% went, in the form of state earned income tax credits or similar programs, to individuals currently holding jobs. And 60% went to household with at least one active worker.
It's not entirely clear from the report how exactly the other two thirds of the TANF money is being spent, but a lot of it is going to child care, job training and various employment-related "social services" (see endnote 8 in the PDF for the clearest discussion) -- that is, in-kind services for working people. And many of the families receiving this in-kind assistance are not among those receiving cash assistance, and so don't get reported to the feds as beneficiaries of TANF. In fact, only about 20% of those who are receiving cash assistance from TANF receive the transfers for more than a year, making even the cash-portion of the program more of an unemployment insurance program than a "welfare-to-work" program.
(As an aside, Jason DeParle, in his book on welfare reform, quotes studies finding that about 20% of the old AFDC caseloads constituted the "permanent" AFDC welfare population. That same number, 20%, was excepted under federal law from the five-year time limit under the transition to the TANF block grant. It would be interesting to know if it's roughly the same 20% of people now getting permanent cash assistance under TANF.)
The authors of the Brookings report worry in the American Prospect that TANF will continue to lose its federal support without a clear role and accurate accounting of beneficiaries. If the program is as malleable as it appears to be, it's likely morphing to fill up the holes in the states' safety nets that most need plugging -- which is useful information in itself.
Child care for low-income workers is one such hole, obviously. Another possible benefit of the "new" TANF could be as a temporary disability insurance program. Currently, when injured or sick workers exit the labour market to apply for social security disability (SSDI) or SSI benefits, or both, they usually face a five month waiting period while their case is reviewed and their disability status confirmed (and that's not including the period of declining health and labour market activity before application). A 2002 paper out of the Population Studies Centre at UMich suggests that, in the mid-1990s, the income hole during those months was being partially plugged for some but not all SSDI-eligible families by workers' comp, private insurance or employer pensions. AFDC, by contrast, played no role (see Table 5 or Figure 11 if you're interested). But a catch-all state TANF program might do so. Or it might not. But it seems pretty important to understand in more detail what it is doing. Because it's not, apparently, providing "welfare".
It's not entirely clear from the report how exactly the other two thirds of the TANF money is being spent, but a lot of it is going to child care, job training and various employment-related "social services" (see endnote 8 in the PDF for the clearest discussion) -- that is, in-kind services for working people. And many of the families receiving this in-kind assistance are not among those receiving cash assistance, and so don't get reported to the feds as beneficiaries of TANF. In fact, only about 20% of those who are receiving cash assistance from TANF receive the transfers for more than a year, making even the cash-portion of the program more of an unemployment insurance program than a "welfare-to-work" program.
(As an aside, Jason DeParle, in his book on welfare reform, quotes studies finding that about 20% of the old AFDC caseloads constituted the "permanent" AFDC welfare population. That same number, 20%, was excepted under federal law from the five-year time limit under the transition to the TANF block grant. It would be interesting to know if it's roughly the same 20% of people now getting permanent cash assistance under TANF.)
The authors of the Brookings report worry in the American Prospect that TANF will continue to lose its federal support without a clear role and accurate accounting of beneficiaries. If the program is as malleable as it appears to be, it's likely morphing to fill up the holes in the states' safety nets that most need plugging -- which is useful information in itself.
Child care for low-income workers is one such hole, obviously. Another possible benefit of the "new" TANF could be as a temporary disability insurance program. Currently, when injured or sick workers exit the labour market to apply for social security disability (SSDI) or SSI benefits, or both, they usually face a five month waiting period while their case is reviewed and their disability status confirmed (and that's not including the period of declining health and labour market activity before application). A 2002 paper out of the Population Studies Centre at UMich suggests that, in the mid-1990s, the income hole during those months was being partially plugged for some but not all SSDI-eligible families by workers' comp, private insurance or employer pensions. AFDC, by contrast, played no role (see Table 5 or Figure 11 if you're interested). But a catch-all state TANF program might do so. Or it might not. But it seems pretty important to understand in more detail what it is doing. Because it's not, apparently, providing "welfare".
1 Comments:
Any idea what the gap is between those "permanently" receiving cash assistance (the 20%) and those that habitually need it? Welfare reform has only been in place 10 years and half of that was during a boom.
I can imagine a lot of families (those that cycle between welfare and shitty jobs) bumping up against that 5 year time limit in the coming years.
Post a Comment
<< Home