How TANF programs support family economic success

This week the House Ways and Means Committee held a hearing entitled What Really Works: Evaluating Current Efforts to Help Families Support their Children and Escape Poverty. The hearing is the second in a series of three on ways to reform the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program (commonly referred to as welfare). Although the federally-funded TANF block grant represents a small fraction of total social spending, it helps over a million low-income families make ends meet.  

One key aspect of state TANF programs is their role in helping parents find jobs by connecting them to job training resources and assisting with their job search so that they can find employment that pays a family-sustaining wage. However, approaches to supporting family economic stability vary widely from state to state. According to a report released earlier this year by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the current ‘workforce participation’ rules often make it difficult for states to help families lift themselves out of poverty. For instance, current work rules severely limit the amount of time that parents receiving TANF benefits can spend on educational activities such as getting their GED or completing a job training program.

 According to the witness testimony of Kristen Cox, the Executive Director of Utah’s Office of Management and Budget at this week’s hearing, current requirements mean caseworkers spend about 70% of their time proving clients are in compliance with rules and regulations. Ms. Cox explained in her testimony that caseworkers spend the majority of their time doing paperwork such as keeping track of how many hours each individual client has spent on work-related activities, which of the 12 categories of work each of those hours falls into and whether those hours are below the maximum number of hours allowed per week for that category of work activity. Ms. Cox suggested that additional flexibility in the rules related to job training and workforce participation is needed to allow states to innovate and help clients more effectively. She stated that rather than‘one size fits all’ solutions for assisting clients in their job search, states need room to implement new strategies and focus on what works to help families lift themselves out of poverty.  

Another witness, Tara Smith of the University of Texas at Austin’s Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources   testified that ‘work first’ policies are often very ineffective because they don’t take into account the obstacles that many families face in achieving economic stability or the local circumstances such as the unemployment rate or local growth industries. Smith stated that for many families, a two-generation focus that connects the education and employment sectors has been used successfully to help participants establish family-sustaining careers and begin building a better future for their children.

Some states are already rethinking how they use TANF funding to achieve better outcomes for children and families. States such as Maryland, Minnesota, Utah and Wisconsin have been refocusing the way they measure success to put more emphasis on helping families build a foundation for future economic stability by finding permanent jobs with higher pay. For instance, Maryland tracks the rate of paid work placement, the job retention rate and participants’ gain in earnings. Minnesota measures program success by looking at the rate at which participants leave the program for employment, their earnings at the time of placement and the ‘Self Support Index’, or number of participants who are able to partially or wholly support their families through employment after three years.

South Carolina’s TANF-funded Family Independence program more than doubled the number of families that successfully found employment by setting goals based on ‘positive closures’ (the number of TANF benefits cases closed because families’ earnings increased until they surpassed the eligibility threshold) rather than compliance with federal workforce participation activities. South Carolina’s organizational change efforts include utilizing data in decision-making to identify strategies that work as well as streamlining program implementation to let caseworkers focus more on helping clients and less on paperwork.  

State policymakers can re-evaluate the role of the workforce participation rate requirements in how success is defined and measured in their state’s TANF-funded programs and work toward a more effective framework for efforts to support family economic stability and reduce poverty. They may also wish to consider ways that data could be more effectively utilized to identify successful strategies and streamline implementation to focus more resources on what works.

For more on ways to reduce child poverty, please visit PolicyforResults.org.

Immigration Reform and Benefits Access as a Means of Keeping Families Together

On June 27^th, the Senate passed the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (S. 744), a comprehensive set of reforms of federal immigration policy. Title II of S. 744 contains many provisions of significance to low-income immigrant families, including the creation of a new immigrant status, an overhaul of current family and employment visas, policy on benefits access, and the creation of new farm worker and temporary worker visas.

The bill creates a new status, registered provisional immigrant (RPI), for people who were physically present in the U.S. on or before December 31, 2011; have maintained continuous presence until the date of application; have paid all federally assessed tax liabilities, fees and penalties; and have not been convicted of certain criminal offenses. RPI status may be renewed in six-year periods. After 10 years, individuals in RPI status may apply to adjust to lawful permanent resident (LPR or “green card”) status. An additional three years in LPR status is required before people initially granted RPI status may apply for U.S. citizenship.

The bill allows undocumented farm workers who can demonstrate a minimum of 100 work days or 575 work hours in the two years prior to the date of the bill’s enactment to be eligible for an agricultural card (“blue card”). Workers who work at least 100 days a year for five years or workers who perform at least 150 days a year for three years can adjust to LPR status. To be eligible for LPR status, agricultural workers must show that they have paid all taxes and fees, and have not been convicted of any serious crime.

The bill goes on to describe the applicability of benefits programs for these new immigrant statuses. A person granted RPI status or a blue card will not be eligible for nonemergency Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or Supplemental Security Income for the duration of their provisional status. When they adjust to LPR status, they generally will be forced to wait at least five additional years before becoming eligible for these programs. A person granted RPI status or a blue card will be able to purchase private health insurance through the state Health Exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). However, as a RPI they are not eligible for the ACA’s premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions.

Immigration Policy’s Impact on Children and Families

The policies contained in this new Senate bill have important implications for keeping immigrant families together, because creating a legal means for families to remain in the U.S. will remove the threat of deportation, thereby preventing the children of immigrants from separation from their parents. Poor immigration policies and poor implementation and enforcement of policy can lead to severe consequences for immigrant families, in particular low-income undocumented children and families. In the first six months of 2011, the federal government removed more than 46,000 parents of U.S.-citizen children, and an alarming number of these children end up in foster care. Unfortunately, the exact number of children in foster care due to deportation of their parents is challenging to find because child welfare departments and the federal government do not document cases of families separated in this way. These children must wait months or years to see their parents, if they ever see them again at all.

The trauma of separation can be substantial for both immigrant parents and children. Parents are held in detention centers for an indefinite amount of time while their case is being reviewed, which leaves parents and children in the dark about when they will see each other again. Detention centers are on average 370 miles away from a detainee’s home, which can make visitation extremely difficult for families with limited resources. If the separation is long, the issue of language barriers can arise for infants and toddlers, who oftentimes must adjust to speaking English in their foster homes, and lose some of their native language. Loss of language can even become a major barrier to reunification, as some caseworkers and children’s attorneys deem communication between parent and child to be too difficult.

What Works

The Senate-passed bill would create new immigrant statuses that would bring millions of undocumented workers into more stability. While neither the Senate bill nor current federal policy extend public anti-poverty programs to families in RPI or LPR status, state policymakers have some leeway in supporting immigrant families’ ability to maintain their housing, meet their nutritional needs and support their ability to maintain consistent employment. Having access to these benefits can support families’ ability to maintain the extensive employment, income and fee requirements for RPI and LPR status, which would protect them from deportation, thereby preventing the devastating consequences of the separation of families, including trauma, parental alienation and loss of language and culture.

Immigrant families that live and work in the United States can be assisted in their stability and integration into the community with the help of public benefits. Federal statute limits the eligibility for essential means-tested social services, such as health insurance and food assistance, to non-citizens and legal residents who have lived in the U.S. for a minimum of five years. Under the Senate bill, an individual who began as a RPI would have to wait at least 15 years before becoming eligible to receive benefits from federal means-tested programs. However, states have the ability to use their funds to expand coverage to programs for low-income children and families who are not qualified for coverage under federal funding. States can:

• Elect to provide Medicaid and CHIP to lawfully present immigrant children and pregnant women who meet the Medicaid state residency requirement.
• Provide state-only food assistance to qualified immigrant families.
• Expand TANF coverage to some or all qualified immigrants during the five-year ban. This could include cash assistance, childcare, transportation and/or housing assistance.
• Implement welcome/outreach programs for new immigrants to assist with integration into society.
• Support programs that assist eligible immigrants through the process of naturalization and increasing their civic engagement.
• Support the policy force in addressing immigrant communities with proper communication and culturally sensitive measures.
• Support policies that protect immigrants from deportation.
• Create exceptions to the termination of parental rights timelines for incarcerated, detained and deported parents.
• Institute “time-of-arrest” protocols for local law enforcement agencies to enable parents to decide who should take custody of their children.

For more on how access to benefits can reduce child poverty and prevent child abuse and neglect, see Policyforresults.org.

How Asset Tests Hinder the Goals of Safety Net Programs

It is common knowledge that the way to economic self-sufficiency involves having a bank account and saving your money—not only so that you can eventually buy a house or fund your children’s education, but also to have an emergency fund (enough money to cover living expenses for three months) in case of job loss, health emergencies or other unexpected costs. It is also how people get out of debt and can start building wealth.

This value, saving, is reflected in many states’ economic programs for people enrolled in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Parenting skills classes and job readiness trainings teach the importance of having a bank account and saving money. However, this value is not always reflected in states’ policy regarding eligibility for TANF. Furthermore, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) also has asset tests, which can be different from those for TANF, adding another layer of complexity and inconsistency.

Not only do asset tests counter one of the major goals of the TANF program, it also creates extra work for state administrators and increases the chances for payment errors. There is no federal mandate for states to adopt asset tests, but of the ones that do, they vary widely in which types of resources count toward their asset limits. These resources may include bank statements, car titles, insurance policies and other relevant documents. In some cases, applicants can self-report their assets; in others, a caseworker must verify the assets based on the submitted documents.

 A new report from the New America Foundation, State Asset Limit Reforms and Implications for Federal Policy, describes how some states have reformed their policy on asset limits in their SNAP and TANF programs. Motivated by increasing program costs, threats to program integrity, and the recognition that asset tests are a barrier to long-term self-sufficiency, many states have eliminated asset tests for TANF and/or SNAP. For example, Colorado estimated that eliminating its TANF asset test would result in additional benefits for 44 families, at a cost of $123,000. However, these costs would be offset by greater administrative efficiency; eliminating the asset test would save caseworkers 10 to 15 minutes per “case interaction”, or up to 90 minute for the five or six interactions that typically occur between a client and a caseworker in the first 45 days. The successful policy reforms in Colorado and other states can serve as a useful model for other policymakers who are considering similar changes.

While asset tests were instituted to ensure that assistance is given to the families who need it the most, research has shown that once asset tests are eliminated, program enrollment did not increase significantly. This is due in part to the fact that families that seek assistance and meet the low income requirements are generally asset poor. In addition, the money that states saved in reduced administrative costs more than made up for the slight uptick in enrollment.  

States benefited from eliminating their asset tests in several key ways:

•      Caseworkers had more time and attention for other case management duties
•        Greater administrative efficiency resulted in cost savings
•        Greater streamlining simplified the process for both families and the agency

Asset tests are an example of a policy that while likely created with good intentions, has had serious unintended consequences for families’ efforts to attain financial success. This policy exemplifies the significance of considering the unintended impact of policy on families and highlights the importance of policymaking with a results focus (ensuring that policy is well aligned with intended outcomes). Eliminating asset tests is an important policy reform that policymakers should consider as a step towards encouraging families on public assistance to move towards financial self-sufficiency.

To learn more about connecting policy to results visit PolicyforResults.org.